Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I figured we'd hear from him sooner or later.

Jess may be a bit strange, but he ain't nobodys fool, and tends to speak his mind even if it is likely to piss folks off - he reminds me just a little of Ted Nugent, in that respect.

OOoo, now THERE's a presidental ticket for ya!

Ventura/Nugent 2008
"If you're going to vote for a pair of assholes, why do it halfway?!"

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation.

---

Yet you post, and post you do.

Heheheheisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
But he was so cool in Predator- doesn't that give him any credibility for you guyz?

Ole' Painlessisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
But he was so cool in Predator- doesn't that give him any credibility for you guyz?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
But he was so cool in Predator- doesn't that give him any credibility for you guyz?

---

Yeah, but he gave it back with Running Man.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation. It has now replaced the all timers, like.....

Young Earth Creationism

Moon landing hoax

2nd Shooter in JFK assassination

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation. It has now replaced the all timers, like.....

Young Earth Creationism

Moon landing hoax

2nd Shooter in JFK assassination

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There’s a whole new class of loons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Jesse Ventura is right to ask questions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just have a hard time believing that the Towers were mainly taken down by U.S. peeps is all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Jesse Ventura is right to ask questions.

---

You’re right about that, but this is precisely what the “loons” don’t do. This is why many of these tired old excuses still get a lot of tractions among these people - because they don’t question it. For instance, I still hear people telling me that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel, but the official story never claimed that steel melted and the loons never bother to ask “why the steel has to melt in order for the building to come down?” They simply use this as excuse to avoid asking questions.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
U.S. peeps sent 58,000 other US peeps to their deaths in Vietnam.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. peeps sent over 3,000 other US peeps to their deaths in the current Iraqi war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Jesse Ventura is right to ask questions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That, in and of itself, does NOT mean there's a cover-up or conspiracy - it means I have some learnin' to do!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And, while jet fuel may or may not burn terribly hot, what about the stuff it was burning ON? What about the desks, chairs, curtains, papers, etc. that it ignited? Any of those burn hot enough for ya?

So yeah, I got questions... What I *don't* get is good answers, especially from the conspiracy crowd.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe it was #1. Maybe they did such a piss poor job that the entire engineering world has decided to cover up this gross negligence for fear of never getting another skyscraper contract. I'm open to this explanation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Their deaths were largely the result of the international Communist Conspiracy (didn't you see 'The Green Berets'), or in simpler terms, enemy fire.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
BTW, there are historians who believe Roosevelt orchestrated Pearl Harbor in order to join the War. Example: http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=pearl_harbor_pr
oves

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Jesse Ventura is right to ask questions.

---

You’re right about that, but this is precisely what the “loons” don’t do. This is why many of these tired old excuses still get a lot of tractions among these people - because they don’t question it. For instance, I still hear people telling me that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel, but the official story never claimed that steel melted and the loons never bother to ask “why the steel has to melt in order for the building to come down?” They simply use this as excuse to avoid asking questions.

---

---

Why does the metal have to melt? Couldn't it be heated to a point where it becomes SOFTER? In my experience, metal tends to become more elastic when heated, well before it ever reaches a melting point. Take a long beam of structural steel, load it with the load it's designed for, and then heat it with burning jet fuel, and I bet it will deform - probably at least enough to allow it to collapse from its moorings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foster:
Some how they must have planted Arab men that would hijack four planes.

---

Quote:

---

Then they planted people on the planes that would make calls to the ground describing what was going on.

---

Quote:

---

And then they had to have multiple crews place explosives in both towers without any of the people (including security personnel) noticing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:

Finn and Kwicko have got it right. The impact of the airplane would not have brought down the WTC if it wasn't for the fire. If you look at a stress/strain graph for steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation you will see that the point where steel loses its strength is called the point of "plastic deformation". This is the point were steel no longer springs back to its original shape like it does in "elastic deformation". The point of "plastic deformation" is effected by temperature. One of the primary reasons the WTC failed is that the original impact of the airplane striped much of the fire barrier from the steel columns. The impact also did some structural damage but not enough to bring down the building. The combination of the structural damage, premature plastic deformation in the steel columns caused by fire, and the fact that the airplanes hit a few levels down from the top of the building, all contributed to the catastrophic failure. Even with the structural damage and the fire, the buildings probably wouldn't have collapsed if the airplane had hit the top level of the building. It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.

---

I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I buy this story as much as I buy a Ryder truck full of fertilizer exploding the Federal building in OK City--by being parked in front.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Probably because you don’t understand that very well either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Buildings are designed to fail this way, so its actually very very likely. They're method of construction also favoured this type of failure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is a picture of a building that failed this way. Does it bear any resemblance to the failure of the WTC buildings?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_trusses.html

Here is a picture of a building that failed this way. Does it bear any resemblance to the failure of the WTC buildings?

In fact, read the whole page. I'd like to have an intelligent discussion of these issues, if anyone were to have arguments that weren't part of the oversimplistic 9/11 mantras, such as "they're supposed to fail this way."

---

Quote:

---

As for Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, he seems to have shuttled between ordnance, support flights, aeronautics and systems engineer, all in a support (not lead) role. I'm not sure what about his experience makes him qualified to do a civil engineer's job of structural failure analysis.

---

Quote:

---

If they didn't plant the Arab men that were described as taking over on other flights, then they must have had precogniton as to where those men would fly once they did take over.

---

Quote:

---

One final thing to mention is the often touted fact that the Towers were aircraft proof, which is, frankly, bollocks. They were designed to resist a low speed impact from a significantly smaller and lighter plane carrying much less fuel than what actually hit. The architects and engineers, for some reason, didn't consider someone flying a fuel laden large aircraft into a building at full thrust, they considered an aircraft coming into land, thus at low speed with little fuel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Conspiracists are infamous for putting up "legit" experts, whose sole "expertise" is the fact that they've achieved some high level in another, wholly unrelated field.

---