Redford said:
Obama seems to think capturing/killing Osama is still a major priority.
You could ask him how he intends to do that exactly.
You could also ask him what beer he likes to drink.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
9/11
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Obama seems to think capturing/killing Osama is still a major priority.
You could ask him how he intends to do that exactly.
You could also ask him what beer he likes to drink.
Tigers of Old said:
Wont be an issue once we pin the whole thing on ARod. The whole world will buy that. Even Yankees fans.
As for beer, pretty sure he's an MGD man. I expect we'll crack a case. We've got got a lot to talk about you know.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Jones is a physicist and most or all of his claims regarding the collapse of these buildings are based on physics. He may not be following the proper channels (even some 9/11 truth people are critical of him in this regard) but to say he doesn't have expert knowledge about the subjects he is raising is plainly wrong.
Panthera tigris FC said:
The peer reviewed articles (unless the ones here count?) are mostly hypothesis on how fire might have caused the towers' collapse. While I have no problem believing these works are accurate they don't address some of the other evidence people are pointing to, such as molten steel and the problem with pancaking and pulverization;
If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor. With pulverization, the small particles have a much larger surface-area-to-mass ratio and air resistance becomes significant. As we can recall, the dust took many days to settle out of the air, not hours or minutes. So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us, let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse.
The other point here is that a lot of the evidence I am fairly convinced by has nothing to do with science and therefore is not discussed in any peer reviewed literature. If you've watched Loose Change or Fahrenheit 9/11 you'll know the type of things I mean.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Surely petitioning the government to re investigate the evidence surrounding 9/11 is about as official a channel that anyone without a masters in civil engineering can find?
Do I really want to act like who? How am I acting exactly?
Disco08 said:
Just because he has intimate knowledge of physics does not make him an expert on these matters. He probably knows more about some of these matters than you or me, but how does a background in cold fusion make one an expert on collapsing buildings?
I am not going to comment on the specifics of the collapse as I know next to nothing about these matters. I watched the building collapse live on television and refuse to buy into any conspiracy theory that isn't substantiated by real peer-reviewed evidence by experts who DO know what they are talking about. Working outside 'official channels' to get your theory out smacks of desperation.
If the evidence supporting the petition was damning enough, perhaps they would?
Sorry Disco, I thought you would get the reference :-\
An example of a group that works outside official channels to support their 'evidence' and when this is pointed out, they play the victim or conspiracy card (ie. they can't publish their legitimate work due to some mass coordinated scientific conspiracy :hihi).
Sorry, hadn't heard of that one. I'm not a big movie buff and usually run a decade or so behind the times. Didn't even know who Ben Stein was, but I think I've seen him on Seinfeld. Looks good though, I'll have to try and give it a look.
Why does one have to be an expert on collapsing buildings to question the existence of molten steel in the basements of both towers when apparently the fires, even when driven by jet fuel, were only hot enough to weaken the steel, not melt it?
As I said, all his assertions are based on what sound like fairly basic physics principles (not civil engineering) which as a professor at a respected school you'd expect him to know a lot about.
Fair enough. Are you willing to comment on some of the non-scientific circumstantial evidence (more like long string of coincidences I suppose)?
The outgoing administration went to great lengths to hamper the initial investigation. Why would they then re-investigate, particularly if some members of it stood to be held responsible?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Why does one have to be an expert on collapsing buildings to question the existence of molten steel in the basements of both towers when apparently the fires, even when driven by jet fuel, were only hot enough to weaken the steel, not melt it?
As I said, all his assertions are based on what sound like fairly basic physics principles (not civil engineering) which as a professor at a respected school you'd expect him to know a lot about.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Fair enough. Are you willing to comment on some of the non-scientific circumstantial evidence (more like long string of coincidences I suppose)?
Panthera tigris FC said:
The outgoing administration went to great lengths to hamper the initial investigation. Why would they then re-investigate, particularly if some members of it stood to be held responsible?
Disco08 said:
Ben Stein is moronic, anti-science, second rate actor who has felt the need to champion the intelligent design movement by producing a movie that attempts to potray ID proponents as victims (ie expelled) of the scientific mainstream. It is truly an awful doco and not just because of its content. If you choose to watch it, you can't claim you weren't warned.
If his assertions were supported by the available evidence why do you think his theories were rejected by his peers in the field? So much so that he felt the need to bypass the establishment?
As long as the evidence supporting these coincidences is verified (ie they actually occured) I am more than happy to comment on them. Whether I can add anything is questionable, but any one specifically?
I thought you were just questioning the conclusions of the commission, you weren't postulating on an alternative (ie the US government is responsible)? In light of damning evidence it would take an almighty cover up to maintain the silence. A classic conspiracy theory.
Panthera tigris FC said:
lol, OK thanks. I thought it must have been a *smile* take from the cover.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I'm only arguing he has the knowledge to comment. I'm not defending his work.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I'll try and list a few out tomorrow, but for starters do you think it's unusual that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 half an hour before the building actually collapsed, especially given the building didn't seem to have sustained all that much damage and no steel framed reinforced skyscraper in history (that hadn't just been impacted by a 767 laden with jet fuel) had ever collapsed solely due to fire?
Panthera tigris FC said:
That's assuming you know how the conspiracy was conducted. If all they did was deliberately ignore warnings, hamper NORAD by ensuring most of the defense F16's were miles away from NYC on 9/11 how many people really would have had to know the truth?
Anyway, I did say 'if'. While I'm not keen to commit to any overall theory there are many people who are so I'm not sure why my suggestion of it in this context made you assume I'd changed my mind all of a sudden.
Disco08 said:
If only
.Anyone has the right to comment, however if you want to be taken seriously you have to present evidence that survives critical examination by your peers. He failed to do so.
So you accept that the twin towers did collapse due to the airliner impacts? Your questions revolve around WTC7 and apparent prior knowledge? According to this site which has collected information from numerous sources WTC7 was abandoned sometime between 2pm and 2.30pm due to questions over its structural integrity. The entire area was evacuated at 4.30pm due to its anticipated collapse. Plenty of misinformation was broadcast on the day as confusion reigned. How it goes from this to an assertion that it was demolished is beyond me.
Again, there are many conflicting reports from the day and I am more inclined to believe that this was due to some botched attempts to respond to the events of that day than some well orchestrated conspiracy.
Only because you earlier claimed that you did not have to come up with an alternative explanation to point out flaws in the official explanation. It is hard to pin you down on your exact views on this issue.
Panthera tigris FC said:
It doesn't. Most assertions that WTC7 was demolished come from the failure by NIST to adequately explain why the building collapsed on free fall speed and why it didn't lean towards the area that had supposedly sustained major structural damage when tower 1 collapsed. You only need to look at some of the other high rise building fires in history to see how remarkable it is that this building collapsed.
AFAIK, there's not a single peer reviewed article even hypothesizing how this could have happened. Strange no?
I do accept that the airline impacts and ensuing fires played a large role in the collapse of both towers. I'm not convinced that other events didn't help bring them down though. If you look at interviews conducted on 9/11 a lot of eyewitness accounts report large explosions before and after the planes struck the towers which aren't explained at all by any of the scientific literature.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Fair enough. I find it almost too coincidental that many planes usually stationed at bases to specifically protect the east coast were in Canada and Alaska for drills and what was left was occupied with drills simulating hijacked aircraft. Wouldn't it make sense to keep a few on standby in case something happened for real that day, especially given the evidence that the government was aware of the possibility of this scenario taking place around this time?
Panthera tigris FC said:
It's a complex issue Pantera. I don't know what my exact view on it is yet. It is fair to say that I don't believe the entire operation was carried out by 19 Arab terrorists.
Anyway, you made the claim that it must be a massive conspiracy and cover up if any government involvement took place. I was only trying to demonstrate why that's not necessarily true.
I don't get it. If the Yanks did it why would they bother with a controlled demolition if the intent was to kill American Cititzens. Why would they allow one tower to stay up for so long, inducing people into the building then only to set off a controlled demolition. Pretty selective murdering of one's own citizens.
Just thought I'd bump this thread again considering next Friday's the 8th anniversary and also that I watched an old 1975 film called Three days of the Condor recently with the plot based on CIA double agents, the Twin Towers and oil.
Whoever caused this disaster must have definitely watched this film. ;D
Whoever caused this disaster must have definitely watched this film. ;D
the official story of 9 11 is that 19 mad men conspired and planned for years to hijack planes with box cutters and fly them into the twin towers. The US is telling it's people to not believe in all the conspiracy theories but it's telling them to believe in theirs. lol.
2 massive buildings which were built to withstand earthquakes fell like a deck of cards and turn into dust half an hour after planes crashed into them
wtc7 falls like it was made out of jelly
a plane falls into an open field and no remains are found
a plane crashes into the pentagon which results in a piercing hole through the walls.
strange stuff.
wtc7 falls like it was made out of jelly
a plane falls into an open field and no remains are found
a plane crashes into the pentagon which results in a piercing hole through the walls.
strange stuff.
Harry said:
so who did it? CIA operatives working for the Global Jewish Conspiracy in conjunction with the UN and the Rank Corporation with the aim of raising Frozen Orange Juice Concentrate prices so these profits can be used to promote the selling of arms to counter revolutionaries in Iran?
Generally the simplest explanation is usually the one that holds true, and every nut bag conspiracy theory I have heard is so overblown, even the German dude from Die Hard would struggle to keep up.
<
Hillsong Houstons
|
Dan is dead
>
