-
Originally posted by res0nat0r
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
They originally put Henry Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 commission who had had business dealings with the Bin Laden's. Bush and Cheney could of gone on record and been interviewed in public separately, instead of together in a room where only select people where invited and no transcript was ever made. Bush could also explain how he watched the first plane hit the tower on TV (The Terrible Pilot Quote) before going to the school where he was at when he was told about the second plane. And that's just for starters
Check out 5 min's 19 seconds
[youtube]ALtNYBX7OmM[/youtube]Last edited by chunky; August 26, 2009, 01:05:40 PM.Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
you can also see the molten metal in that video at 1:34. Molten metal could only happen using thermite or thermate.Comment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
When you have 2 groups of people with different opinions wouldn't it be better for the 2 groups to work together to come up with the answers.
What sort of expert would you have to hear from to change your opinion? What would their credentials have to be?Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
That debunking channel on youtube is ace.
Anyone see a plane? I'm sure the Pentagon could of given us some better footage.
[youtube]lsWZHKIg3Cs[/youtube]Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Sometimes that is not possible.
I guess an obvious way would be if a serious majority of qualified expert opinions out there had reached the conspiracy conclusion. And it doesn't seem to me that they have; I think the opposite is in fact true. I know there are engineers and architects who are part of a group that supports the conspiracy theories, but there is also a whole bunch who have debunked a lot of wild claims. For instance, claims like "the planes couldn't have brought down the buildings" and "the fire couldn't melt the steel", while technically true, have already been reasonably refuted as misguided and inaccurate with regard to the conclusions that conspiracy theorists reach. Same with the whole "the building should only have fallen over, not down" claim. And yet people keep repeating them over and over and over again.mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Where are you getting these debunked theories from because most of the debunking sites I've seen seem less convincing?
I would be interested as to what you think of Bush's claim that he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV before entering the classroom.Originally posted by res0nat0rComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Just do a google search and you'll find a bunch... the Popular Mechanics collection, debunking911.com, and 911myths are probably the bigger, more popular ones. There are a lot of government-related studies, which of course any proper conspiracy theorist would write off as biased. Of course, there are also sites out there that try to debunk the 9-11 conspiracy theories with more even inaccurate information than what is listed on many of the conspiracy sites. I've looked through some, but I haven't been following any of them very closely.
And I honestly don't know much about what Bush said or was smoking on that day, but I would take everything that ever came out of the man's mouth with a grain of salt for one reason: the guy wasn't too bright, and he said stupid, contradictory shit on an almost daily basis. Maybe I'll look into it more when I get home, I can't here at work. All I know is that there seems to be a lot of evidence that planes really did hit the buildings, that fire can structurally weaken steel, and that a high-load structural failure across the diameter of a tall building may look like a demolition but that doesn't mean it necessarily is one.
A conspiracy theory I could at least swallow would be that the government paid some nuts to hijack American planes and fly them into the buildings, which subsequently fell down from the structural damage as a result of the uncontrolled fire. That would make sense...but that's almost never what I hear being claimed... it's always something with a little bit more Hollywood action and excitement to it.Last edited by Miroslav; August 25, 2009, 08:56:11 PM.mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Here is just one example of what to me is a very sensible, logical assessment of this claim that "molten steel at the base of the towers proves that it was brought down by explosives."
Also, note that at the very bottom are two photos where the now-infamous professor Steven E. Jones used in one of his papers and his lectures under the claim of hot (possibly molten) metal in the WTC rubble.
...and then the article nicely points out that the first photo was taken out of context from a bbc article and is clearly that of ironworkers / welders who are using a blowtorch to start clearing away the wreckage, and the second one is so ludicrously taken out of context that I shouldn't have to even explain it to anybody.
This is what is being passed off as good, reliable research on the truth behind 9-11?
Please. I know this is only one piece of the myriad of stuff that Jones claims, but this example should serve as a good indication as to Steven E. Jones's personal integrity and the rigorousness of his research.
And yet no conspiracy theorist ever talks about this. Funny how that works.
mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
the popular mechanics one was awful. welding wouldn't cause a flow of molten steel. Take a look at the overhead shots for heat. Also that doesn't explain why there was molten steel before the building fell.Comment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
I know that one must be very alarming; it contains some real structural science and incorporates the commentary of hundreds of people with authoritative credentials.
And where are is the credible evidence that there was "molten steel before the building fell"? How is that even possible to determine?? This sounds quite dubious to me...mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Ok, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of the stuff not meeting the criteria of common sense. Let's examine this, shall we?
First, you obviously can't tell shit from that blurry video. But just because the frame rate of the security camera was not fast enough to provide you with a nice view of the entire aircraft does not mean that it is rational conclude that no plane was there.
There were hundreds if not thousands of independent, unrelated eyewitnesses to that aircraft! There are tons of accounts of that through any number of credible news organizations. Google stuff like "eyewitness accounts Pentagon 9-11" and you'll get tons of hits back..you could look up articles and documented accounts of people seeing the plane until the day you die, if you wanted to. Here are just three of such hits:
So now let's think rationally here. Follow me closely:
Do you at all see what I'm getting at here? It's rational, common sense to conclude the first; it requires a MUCH bigger leap of faith to conclude the second.1. There are lots of accounts of people seeing the plane. These people come from different walks of life, worked in different places, were doing different things, etc. - In other words, common sense would suggest that their accounts are mostly independent.
2. If we are to believe the conspiracy theory that no plane was there, then we must believe that all of these independent people were, in fact, not independent at all in their false accounts. The most common sense explanations for this would be that: (a) they are all mistaken and lying; (b) they are all in on the conspiracy theory; or (c) they are all made up by all of the media organizations, which then one must conclude are also in on the conspiracy theory.
3. So now tell me, which sounds more logical and has more common sense?
That the eyewitness accounts were in fact mostly independent in what they saw
OR
That all of the eyewitness accounts were either in on the conspiracy, or they all had bad vision, or every single one of the media outlets was also in on the conspiracy and published false reports - and that one lone, grainy, slow-frame surveillance from one angle "proves" it?
Moreover, if it was a cruise missile like so many people suggest, then where are the big numbers of independent eyewitness accounts to that? That doesn't even make sense; if the government was going to plot to "attack" their own Pentagon and wanted it to look like someone else did it, do you think that a cruise missile would be the most incognito option that they could choosen?
And I haven't even mentioned yet that there are also eyewitness accounts inside of the facility regarding pieces of the plane that were found. There are photographs of the pieces.
So if we can rationally conclude that planes hit the buildings in New York (also tons of eyewitnesses there), then why is it suddenly so revolutionary for planes to have been similarly involved in Washington DC? Why would the government opt for planes and thermite explosives in one place and cruise missiles in the other?
And just how much evidence and how many eyewitness accounts do you need to finally conclude that the most logical explanation for what happened was that the plane simply hit the building?mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Miro I wish I had more time to debate you. I have been to busy this week. You should read my posts. That video that florida posted at 1:34 you can see the molten steel coming out of the side.. 4:20-31 in this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A[/youtube]
Molten metal was under building 7!! As far as Popular mechanics having the facts how so, they have alternate theories but not facts? You mean it is just another mainstream media outlet. Don't yo ufind it strange that for the first time ever a building was brought down by fire? It actually happened three times that day!! This isn't even a debate really more like a squashing. The "facts" are on our side.
Kerosense doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel
Loud bombs heard throughout the buildings (all of them even building 7)
You must be very careful when looking for things that "make sense" and "logical" when you are having a scientific discussion. You must go where the science leads you, not where you would like to end up because it is logical.
My credentials to talk about this:
Electrician background 8 years in Construction
Scientist 5 years developing new egress methods for buildings
Now an intelligent guy like you must see this.Comment
-
Re: you know what's astonishing?
I've seen those silly Youtube videos, too.
Let me ask you a question: how do you as a "scientist" KNOW it was "molten steel" just from looking at a poor quality Youtube video?
Now let me hit you up with some additional food for thought:
1. If you were a real scientist, you would have immediately known that it is impossible to reasonably conclude whether or not that was "melted steel" just by looking at it on Youtube. Any real scientist would need to conduct a pretty thorough analysis of the sample to make that statement. I'm not a scientist, but both of my parents are university PhD-holding scientists for most of their adult lives, and they can tell you that the determination of the composition of the material, the melting point of the material, and the temperature achieved in the sample is actually quite tricky and can't be done "by eyesight".
2. A huge building like that has thousands of materials and alloys in it; what you see coming out the windows in such poor quality videos could be a variety of things and may not actually truly be "molten". It could be burning insulation. It could be all kinds of aluminum alloys, which will glow if sufficiently heated (this is another one that conspiracy theorists always get wrong). It could be any number of things that could LOOK LIKE "molten steel" to the average gullible armchair investigator but actually could easily be something else.
3. It's actually fairly logical to conclude that it wasn't steel, because if temperatures were sufficient to melt steel at that point, the steel support beams would lost their ability to hold the load well before that point and the building would already be falling/ have fallen! You think the support beams could still hold the load while they are melting out the sides of the buildings? Please...that's just ridiculous. Most likely what happened is that the steel never melted while the thing was standing as the fire temperatures couldn't reach that high; it merely weakened sufficiently to the point where it buckled and the load of the stories above it started pile-driving down on the floors below.
Thanks for posting this video, it was good for a laugh.
Did you know that the video shows both of the bogus pictures I mentioned in my previous post?
At 1:10 they show the picture of steelworkers cleaning debris with a blowtorch. And at 1:20 they show the picture of the firefighters over the hole where they are using artificial lighting...and if that was a hole at the temperature "molten steel", they would be dead!
So that's a very credible, scientific, factual video you posted there.
Maybe you should read MY posts.
There was exactly ZERO SCIENCE and there were NO FACTS in the claims you just made. You as a "scientist" just ASSUMED that molten steel is pouring out the window, which no REAL scientist would ever do. You may have an electrician background and you may have worked with building exits, but no offense, you're about as much of a real scientist as my dog is an olympic athlete.
ONCE AGAIN: YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT MATERIAL IT IS FROM A SHIT QUALITY YOUTUBE VIDEO!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
My credentials to talk about this:
Basic common sense.mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
Tweet
MercuryServer, MercuryServer Logo and all uniquely developed images are the sole property of MercuryServer.com. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
Comment