you know what's astonishing?

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to ask the American Government to have a proper public investigation.

I agree...

And therein lies the issue, there are not enough credible individuals that think 911 was a bunch of controlled demolitions.

[Shpira]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Because anyone "credible" is not about to challenge the very system that made him "credible" thats the whole point.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

what makes someone credible? Someone on TV?

A new investigation just might happen. A big victory today from the 80,000 NYC residents that signed a petition for a new investigation. The 80,000 people consist of 9/11 family members as well as rescue professionals and their families.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/new-911-investigation-gets-legal-opening-in-nyc/

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

what makes someone credible? Someone on TV?
[/URL]

no

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?



Two women pose with a poster demanding information about the 9/11 terror attacks, Friday Sept. 11, 2009, as a group of people demonstrate outside the U.S. Embassy in Brussels to remember the September 11, 2001, attacks. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Two women pose with a poster demanding information about the 9/11 terror attacks, Friday Sept. 11, 2009, as a group of people demonstrate outside the U.S. Embassy in Brussels to remember the September 11, 2001, attacks. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

now THAT is my kind of protest

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Was over my friends families (he's a banker and real estate investor by trade) house last night and found out through conversation that his cousin was on the flight that hit the south tower. Interestingly, although he was clearly upset talking about 9/11, not once did he mention anything about a new investigation or any such conspiracies.

He had lived in NYC for most of his life and has family there now.

He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost.

You guys talked personally with many victims families?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost.

Building 7 fell and no lives where lost, not on the day anyhow.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^He was thankful the WTC towers fell the way that they did, rather than on their sides...

What exactly are you trying to say Chunky? I don't know what you mean, sorry.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ya it was a good thing it was controlled demo because if it would have fell over side ways it would have been a real mess.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ya it was a good thing it was controlled demo because if it would have fell over side ways it would have been a real mess.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Was over my friends families (he's a banker and real estate investor by trade) house last night and found out through conversation that his cousin was on the flight that hit the south tower. Interestingly, although he was clearly upset talking about 9/11, not once did he mention anything about a new investigation or any such conspiracies.

He had lived in NYC for most of his life and has family there now.

He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost.

You guys talked personally with many victims families?

check out this page and watch the video

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911video

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Starts out pretty well yesme, will watch this tonight and post my response/questions this week.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ok so finally found some time to do this... To be honest, after I put this down for a while...I got busy with life and stopped trolling around on the internet so much. I've been happier as a result. But anyways, back to my old ways for a bit...

I will start off saying that I don't know everything and I don't have the answers. What I do think I have, though, is a pretty good respect for Occam's Razor, particularly in cases where I don't have a full set of information.

again, not pointing out any argument, just stating these are things that need investigating. i mean 2.3 trillion dollars "unaccounted" for is alot of dough, 1/6th our national debt right?

do you mean do i think there would of been an easier way for a government agency tell the public they lost 2.3trillion bucks, and then get record budget amounts every year after that?

Here's what you don't get: in his speech, Cheney said 2.3 trillion dollars of TRANSACTIONS unaccounted for. In accounting speak, a transaction can be a cash inflow, a cash outflow, or a completely non-cash event for an organization (i.e., simply stated: you're paying bills, you're getting paid, or you're allocating/expensing/amortizing/etc). So when someone says 2.3 trillion in transactions, that does not mean that a stack of 2.3 trillion dollars; much of those transactions offset one another and some have no cash impact at all, so the net amount of dollars is generally in magnitudes smaller than the total transaction amount in question. This is why no one with any business sense got all freaked out by the $2.3 trillion. Every organization has a transaction base that is many factors in magnitude bigger than its actual cash flow, budgets, or revenue.

And come on...you really though that the military's transactions account for 1/6th of our economy? That 1/6th of the dollars in our economy were being somehow stolen by Cheney or whoever in the governmeny?? Don't be so ridiculous. The entire 2009 budget for the military is only a bit more than $500 billion! Even if they drastically overspend, they couldn't get to the magniture of 2.3 trillion in terms of cash outflow. If Cheney skimmed and misallocated all of the dollars he cound, he still couldn't get to a number of that magnitude with these kinds of budget numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

And do you really think that there would not be a simpler way for the government to hide accounting issues than to shoot cruise missiles (or whatever) at the Pentagon? In this day and age, most money (and information about it) exists only electronically and can be manipulated electronically. Did you know that the government controls the money supply and can print money? Taking out a big chunk of the Pentagon for this would be like using a sledge hammer to scratch your nose; it's simply needless overkill. Occam's Razor...google it.

And so really, it seems to me that you are leaping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions in asserting that the government had to hit its own Pentagon in order to stop people from getting mad about the "$2.3 trillion" (which, as I've said, is not a pile of $2.3 trillion dollars, as you're thinking of it). It's the most combersome explanation I could think of for something that you don't even seem to understand. And based on this example of your reasoning, I have to say that my suspicion of everything else you have to say is definitely heightened.

straw man much? no i did not say they took out the towers for this one guy, they might have gotten him the job already knowing what was going to happen.

right, silly of me to believe the american sheep would listen to the worlds foremost expert on bin laden.

Or perhaps you're just jumping to lots of unsubstantiated conclusions here.

are you kidding me here or what? we have explained every building collapse for the last 50 years, except for this one right?

No sir, I am not kidding you. First of all, how many other cases do we have out there of planes being deliberately flown into huge skyscrapers? And second of all, you may want to reconsider what we mean by "explain" in a situation involving a phenomenon as complex as this where things happen so rapidly and irreversibly that no one with expertise had time to stop the clock and properly witness and measure exactly what was happening. Think about it:

No one can exactly tell you all of the exact physics of the planes' impacts into the buildings and the exact damage done as a result; they can only estimate it to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No on can exactly tell you the contribution of the insulation and other building materials to the subsequent fire; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No one can exactly tell you how long the fire burned for and what temperatures it reached in each different square foot of the tower; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate.

No one can exactly tell you the kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers and the translation of that into kilowatt hours per ton of concrete crushed; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

And so it goes with a lot else that occurred in those relatively brief time periods. You follow?

And furthermore...when you're dealing with a physical phenomenon this complex, small changes in assumptions can yield significant differences of results. So things are not as exact and precise as you may think.

whats there to argue about? you have no evidence that fires went ABOVE 250c.

I don't. See, I said I didn't have all of the answers (again, no one does). But according to the reports, the steel components that they recovered to use for those tests represented less than 1% of the overall steel in those particular parts of the building. If you had less than 1% of the evidence, would you draw a 100% conclusion based on that?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/295093/NIS...ructural-Steel See the section on Inventory of Steel Recovered.

Here's what we do see anecdotally: runningman has posted lots of pictures of molten stuff coming out the sides of the building. That's quite likely aluminum, and it has a melting point of about 660c. We also know that the fuel from the planes must have produced a much higher heat for a brief period. And we know that steel loses its strength at temperatures well below its melting point.

And furthermore, you conspiracy folks like to have it both ways, as I've pointed out... first, it was a cool burn and there was no inferno. Then, you say that there was molten stuff all around the wreckage and that stuff was super hot because they used explosives. That Steve E. Jones guy seems to be a huge fan of this. So which is it?

miro, tell us about the path of least resistence and "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" with respect to this picture.





what should the upper block do according to physics?

You're probably expecting me to say that the top should have fallen over. It would probably depend on the resistance of the material underneath it relative to any longitudinal movement of the top part of the building...but again, I don't have all the answers. But from everything I've read online, this guy seems to have the most reasonable ones - he says it better than me:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

As for the dispersion of the concrete and materials as the tower fell - well, it IS mostly concrete, and that's what it tends to do when subjected to huge forces. There are lots of academics out there who can show you plenty of fairly detailed calculations that show that the result observed is quite within line of expectations. The links above also show that.

So again... (a) I don't have all the answers, (b) you don't either, and your penchant for the most complex, sensationalist explanations doesn't convince me of what you say, and (c) look up Occam's Razor. All in all, it's going to take a lot more hard evidence to convince me of these kinds of claims, and I haven't seen them yet.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miroslav there were molten metal pools at the bottom of the buildings!! Pools of the stuff. Not just welding spots. Why don't you do yourself a favor and watch the video that yesme posted. You won't look so stupid in the future if you watch it.

Also You have no way of knowing if it is aluminum the same way I can't confirm it is steel when the buildings are standing. When the buildings were imploded the molten steel formed in pools at the bottom.