REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is Jesse Ventura right?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, April 26, 2008 07:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4013
PAGE 1 of 3

Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:46 AM

CHRISISALL


Piratenews posted this on another thread, I thought it could use it's own...

I found this to be interesting...watch & listen- you ain't got time to bleed!




"I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn't go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware. When I finally did watch Loose Change, I went through every emotion you could imagine, from laughing, crying, getting sick to my stomach, to the whole emotional thing. To me questions haven't been answered and are not being answered about 9/11. Two planes struck two buildings....but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later? How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later - that's my first question - the 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation. How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be? If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the height of the World Trade Center in a vacuum it would hit the ground in 9.3 seconds and if you took that same billiard ball and dropped it 10 stories at a time and merely stopped it and started it it would take 30 seconds - if you dropped it every floor of the World Trade Center to the ground, simply stopping and starting it on gravity it would take over 100 seconds to reach the ground. Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground. I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense. Never before in the annuls of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did. Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical. I did watch the film of Building 7 going down and in my opinion there's no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition. When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine - he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French - bullshit! I turned to him and said why and he said because they're made of titanium steel - they can't disintegrate. We don't want to lose our country, after all it's still our country and until they put us down we have the power."
-Governor Jesse Ventura (Independent), Navy SEAL bomber, Alex Jones Radio Show, April 2, 2008


Predatorisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:03 AM

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:34 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


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




Best Signature Award to Frem.... lol



The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:34 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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




Just putting it in its proper perspective, 'tis all.

Oh, and man - made global warming. That's fake too.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:51 AM

KIRKULES


Jesse Ventura is a moron. He reminds me of most of the UFO proponents you hear. Just because they see an object that they can't identify, they jump to the conclusion that it's extraterrestrials. Just because you don't understand the physics of a building collapse doesn't make it a grand conspiracy.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:13 AM

CHRISISALL


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

Ole' Painlessisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:15 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

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

Ole' Painlessisall



Jesse was cool in Predator, but I'm not so sure carrying a Gatling gun through the jungle is the smartest choice. It might not be to bad if you could get someone else to carry your ammo.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:48 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:54 AM

CHRISISALL


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

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Touche'isall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:22 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I think the many years of steroid use, and having his head smashed a bit, has obviously had a negative effect on Jesse. He's going around the talk shows now, and it's really quite sad to see him embarrass himself. Standards & Ethics (TV have that anymore?) should prevent news and news analysis shows from expoliting his seriously deteriorating mental condition.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:50 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


No.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:52 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


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



As always AURaptor, you and I agree 100%


Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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

God, that’s the truth! There’s a whole new class of loons.

But what all these loons don’t understand is that it wasn't the government that brought down the towers, it was creationist aliens on the grassy knoll.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

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


I personally think that the Towers were brought down by those BIG counter-balance weights dropping after the fires softened the supports, but then I COULD just be a victim of dis-information....

Chrisisall, loon extrordinaire

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Jesse Ventura is right to ask questions.

Nothing in the official story adds up. And if you dare to question it, you're called a loon.

Here are 40 reasons to ask yourselves what really happened.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Then, of course, there are laws, policies, and wars that have resulted from the official story. It behooves us to investigate if these official stories hold water.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:19 AM

CHRISISALL


The event is RIDDLED with cover-up and mis-management on a global scale...plus it tells the Russians they can send anything in that they want- we most likely won't catch it until after it happens anyway.
I just have a hard time believing that the Towers were mainly taken down by U.S. peeps is all.

But questionin' is good Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:31 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

U.S. peeps sent 58,000 other US peeps to their deaths in Vietnam. U.S. peeps sent over 3,000 other US peeps to their deaths in the current Iraqi war.

Don't underestimate what U.S. peeps are capable of if they feel they have a very good reason for it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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



Bingo. Most of this stuff, if you run it through your internal logic filters, simply won't fly. Sure, there are questions about 9/11 that don't seem to add up, or that don't make sense TO ME at my level of education and/or understanding. That, in and of itself, does NOT mean there's a cover-up or conspiracy - it means I have some learnin' to do!

The fact that I don't understand how exactly the towers came down DOES NOT MEAN THEY COULDN'T HAVE COME DOWN AS A DIRECT RESULT OF PLANES FLYING INTO THEM. Yes, I am aware that the towers were actually designed to take the impact of a fully-loaded Boeing 707 when they were engineered. Unfortunately for the towers and their occupants, and a good number of firefighters and policemen, the towers weren't hit with 707s - they were hit with larger, heavier wide-body jetliners.

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.

And how hot does jet fuel burn, anyway? Has anyone even looked into that, or do we simply accept it because it was on the internet? 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.

For the record, I believe that there ARE conspiracies in the world (hell, the government knows this better than anyone - it's why they enacted RICO laws! Racketeering and organized crime are nothing but conpiracies.) What I *DON'T* believe is that every little simple thing is part of a vast conspiracy. And finding one structural engineer with no real background or expertise who believes the towers were "pulled" on purpose is about as convincing to me as finding one political science professor who believes in massive Jewish conpiracies to control the world.


Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:59 AM

HERO


Quote:

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


US peeps sent 58,000 other US peeps to Vietnam. 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:


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


US peeps sent 3,000 other US peeps to Iraq, thier deaths were largely the result of the Intnernation Islamafacist Movement, or in simpler terms, enemy fire.

By your reasoning the Americans who died at Pearl Harbor were killed by their fellow citizens rather then Japanese bombs. Thats silly...also kinda crazytalkish.

By the same logic every non-American casualty of this war is entirely the responsibility of their parent country or NGO...in that sense there simply is no war (since the two sides, by your logic, are not fighting each other) and you can just end your protest vote Republican.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

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


Only if he's asking legitimate questions. I seem to remember the days when Mr. Ventura always sided with the cheating wrestler and rooted against Hulk Hogan.

He knows how to play the 'bad guy announcer' role.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:25 AM

CHRISISALL


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!


I'd say it means you have some learnin' to do about conspiracies, my man.
They pretty well f**king gorram covered up how inept all the government agencies were that LET this happen, from the intelligence managers to the Air Force alarm-button-pusher-peeps...for HOW LONG was it all in play before a response? In the media, a guy doing a radio comedy show was the first to even put it on the airwaves as it happened, someone named Stern...he knew before the President...

What crapisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:59 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

Ya know, tall office buildings are designed to not collapse when desks, chairs, curtains, papers, and other office building contents are burned. They know that fires do happen, and they engineer those buildings so they don't collapse in event of a fire.

Oh btw, "larger, heavier wide-body jetliners" are made mostly of aluminum. Yeah, they're heavier, but not by that much. That is, a building designed to take impact from an aluminum plane can take impact from a larger aluminum plane, you see?

So here we have either 1) severely faulty engineering of the WTC buildings or 2) building collapse from something other than fires and impact by aluminum planes.

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.

Here is another website on inconsistencies of the WTC building collapses.
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=why_did_WTCs_co
llapse


(Please note you don't have to agree with the author's answers to agree with his questions.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:05 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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.

Or maybe it was the combination of gaping structural damage due to a jet airliner exploding inside the building and the fires that weakened the remaining structural integrity. There doesn’t have to be a cover-up or a conspiracy. It’s not a law of nature. Sometimes when a fully fueled jet airliner crashes at speed into a building, the building collapses because a fully fueled jet airliner crashed into it.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:07 PM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

Why were those American servicemen and women in the line of enemy fire? They were placed there by other Americans who felt their lives were worth some ideological agenda.

The point is, Americans are not above killing other Americans for ideology.

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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:19 PM

CITIZEN


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


Yeah, there's also people who don't believe the Earth is a sphere (or more correctly: oblate spheroid). Example:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:06 PM

KIRKULES


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.




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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:45 PM

FOSTER


I find the whole conspiracy idea interesting. Seemingly when people get to gather in large groups they get smarter and here I always thought that they lost IQ points. That must explain the great efficient system that is the Social Security Service.
Wow, I just never knew that the government could be so smart! Some how they must have planted Arab men that would hijack four planes. Then they planted people on the planes that would make calls to the ground describing what was going on. (All of these people knew that it would be a suicide mission but were willing to go along with it to advance the aim of the conspiracy) Some of the people had to be in those positions for years so that their sudden appearance in those places would not be suspicious. And then they had to have multiple crews place explosives in both towers without any of the people (including security personnel) noticing. They also had to plan that the demoed buildings would throw enough rubble on the third building so that its collapse would not then seem suspicious to the average joe. Wow the government is far more devious and intelligent then I ever knew or guessed. That must be why it takes forever at the DMV and the SS office seems to be filled with the dregs of society.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:01 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

How do you know Arab men hijacked 4 planes? You see, you don't have to actually plant the men, if all you have to do is plant the lie.

Quote:


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

What exactly did they say when they called? Have you heard those conversations? Why are those conversations still classified?

Quote:

And then they had to have multiple crews place explosives in both towers without any of the people (including security personnel) noticing.
How do you know those explosives need multiple crews? What if they used explosives that don't need massive crews?

Look, I don't know what happened. But I do know the official story is not consistent with the way things work and are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and investigating the issues for something that is closer to the truth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"BUT HE HAS NO CLOTHES ON !"

People tend to do what they see other people doing. A lot of times it's a good thing - you might not have smelled the smoke but you'll probably run if you see other people running. Sometimes it's not so good - that's why a crowd of people can look on as a woman is murdered, claim to see the holy spirit amongst fellow worshipers, or drink and then go driving if everyone else does. It's part of the human heuristic.


http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/d
p/051788433X


Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds (Paperback)

Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas.

In fact, cases such as Tulipomania in 1624--when Tulip bulbs traded at a higher price than gold--suggest the existence of what I would dub "Mackay's Law of Mass Action:" when it comes to the effect of social behavior on the intelligence of individuals, 1+1 is often less than 2, and sometimes considerably less than 0.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:06 PM

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?

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Other buildings built with a similar design to WTC (perimeter support of floors) also pancake when wall-support is damaged - for example, tilt-up buildings pancake when the walls fall away in an earthquake. (The walls are poured on the ground and 'tilted' up, while in their propped-up positions floors are then installed to tie the walls together. The props are of course later removed. During an earthquake the ties between the walls and floors break, the walls fall away and the floors pancake.) One example is here, you'll see a photo of a school where the walls are gone and the floors pancaked directly on top of each other. Many of the 'modern' buildings in Mexico City were built with tilt-up construction, and pancaking-floors was the most common type of damage in those buildings during the Mexico City earthquake.

http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/bhslibrary/eqsafetymasonry.pdf

***************************************************************
So not only is it possible, it's likely for that type of construction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.




I like to point out to the physics illiterate and the conspiracy nut cases that the 2nd building hit was the first one to fall. Why? Because the 2nd plane hit lower down on the tower. The impact area had more weight pushing down on it than did the 1st tower hit. And once the 1st to fall came down, it was only a matter of time before the other tower did the same. It was unavoidable at that point.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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?

The chances are pretty good. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn’t happen. However, there wasn‘t very much perfection in the pancaking. Considerable debris fell on nearby buildings.
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.

Probably because you don’t understand that very well either. The fertilizer was an oxidizer, the explosive was ANNM/ANFO, which is a very high energy explosive used in blasting mines. The only thing that saved the building from being level straight to the ground was that the ingredients were poorly mixed, and it didn’t achieve an optimal detonation conditions. A similar truck bomb in London resulted in over a billion pounds of damage.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:33 PM

CITIZEN


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?

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



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

Sure, I'll grant that maybe I'm ignorant. But I don't think Brigadier General Benton K. Partin is ignorant. And he doesn't buy it either.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm



--------------------------
Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb.
--Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

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."



--------------------------
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
--Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There was an excellent PBS how that showed actual debris and how it had failed, piece by piece. For example the perimeter vertical girders were bent and peeled like a banana skin, support girders were sagging and therefore too short to span the walls, etc.

You say you want a fruitful discussion. We will not be able to have a fruitful discussion however, if you do not come up to speed on ALL the facts, and instead pick and chose only the ones you support. For example, it is an indisputable fact that buildings whose walls are tied together by the floors, do pancake - straight down - as their primary mode of failure when the ties break. So rather than being an impossibility as you originally claimed, it is an extraordinarily common occurrence.

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.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:57 AM

HERO


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?


Why no, no it does not. For one thing it was partly completed fourteen story building. The World Trade Centers were slightly larger. And they were hit by jetliners.

Perhaps had the building in your example been a fully completed structure ten times larger and hit by a jetliner, then it would be a better example.

I watched a history channel show on this topic. Half the supports were knocked out by the crash, the others were weakened by the fire causing the upper floors to lose integretey and collapse. Their weight compacted each floor into the next. And then, just to show it was not a fluke or a trick...the SAME thing happened to the building next door (which, ironically, had also been hit by a plane).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 6:35 AM

FOSTER


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. It is the only reason I can see as to how they knew that the WTC towers were going to be hit, and and where on the structure that they would be hit. Otherwise all the explosive charges that were set up to bring the structure down would not have worked correctly.

Imagine if the hijackers changed their targets at the last min, oops! Goodness imagine the problems that would be had if the planes had pulled the detonating cord out of contact with the explosives from entering the buildings at the wrong point. Imagine the horror that would have befallen the plotters at having people going in the two standing structures (with gaping holes in the sides) and finding all the support beams rigged to explode.

Demolition work has to be done with little bits of explosive everywhere not big explosives a few places. Even then the glass from the structure needs to be removed so as not to spray the surrounding area with deadly shrapnel from the thermo expansion resulting from any explosion. I don't seem to recall all the windows blowing themselves out with extreme force before the towers started collapsing. Evey explosive has to be wired into a main board so that the master-blaster can control every movement of the falling structure. I have no idea how they hid the miles and miles of wire that they would need to run to the detonators (using radio is only done in movies). With all the radio signals and dead zones in the building it would be just the plotters luck if some guy pressed his garage door opener and set the whole thing off early, or if the falling debris blocked later signals.

Here is a small article explaining a little bit about building demo if you want to check it out.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1787846.html

I have to point out that the conversations are not classified. If you want a transcript of the stewardess Betty Ong call to American you can go to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:06 AM

CITIZEN


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."

And you think the way to promote this intelligent discussion is to proclaim anything said to you that you don't like is merely "oversimplistic mantra" do you?

At any rate I question how much intelligent discussion can be obtained here, given that the same points you've raised have been raised a hundred times before on this site and others, and debunked in their first appearance only to be regurgitated again later as if they are some brand new and damning revelation. It's really tedious, tiring and boring.

Far from "they're supposed to fail this way" being an over-simplistic mantra, it is in fact an Architectural engineering fact. Modern high-rise buildings are designed to fall within their own foot print if they do fail, to limit the damage in modern highly packed cities. The only "over-simplification" I see here is in trying to pass off effects seen on different buildings, in different places, experiencing different stresses as having some sort of bearing on what happened to the World Trade Centre towers.

Buildings are highly individual structures, they're not assembled on a production line like a car. Expecting two buildings to react the same to the same events doesn't make much sense. Thinking that a different building, even one built with similar techniques, would react in the same way to different events is simply laughable.

I'd also note, that if you look at the pictures you provided it's clear that the top of the building didn't fall perfectly straight.

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.

If nothing else, the alternate theory doesn't even pass cursory examination. It's more full of holes than the 'official' theory by miles, it would seem its only real strength is it isn't the governments theory, and it gives conspiracy theorists excuses to stay off the medication. Why isn't the alternate demolition theory put to the level of amateur sleuthing and misunderstanding that the official theory is? Why must we accept the demolition theory without question, but pick holes in the official one that aren't even there?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:15 AM

SERGEANTX


Come back to the light people. I'm with Auraptor on virtually nothing. But I too am getting tired of hearing this paranoid fantasy crap.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



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.

Even if I accepted that this Brigadier General was an expert in ordnance, how on earth does that make him an expert on truck bombs, ammonia nitrate, and fuel oil? One explosive delivery system is not interchangeable with the next...

So feel free to ask the questions; just don't automatically assume that because someone has a title, they're incapable of being wrong. Hell, if you've learned nothing else from the Bush Administration, you should have learned that fancy titles and high military rank don't equal expertise or know-how!



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:39 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.
Where is your evidence that there were 1) Arab men, 2)Arab men who took over the cockpit, and 3)Arab men who were able to successfully navigate jumbo jets to hit specific targets at 500 miles/hr?

Conventional demolitions do work as you describe. But there are other ways of demolition as well.

Thanks for the link to Betty Ong's cell phone call. I don't see anything in there about Arab men either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



Thank you. So far as I've ever seen, there's no such thing as an aircraft-proof building. Not even Saddam's deepest bunkers were *that* aircraft-proof... :)

I, too, am weary, leery, and wary of these same old discussions. I'm one of those "nutcase crazytalkers" who think our government is on a course of true evil, but even I won't buy that they purposely caused 9/11. What they DID do is abscond with our feelings of patriotism, shock, fear, and loss AFTER 9/11, and use those feelings to further their own nefarious goals and agenda.

It's a beyond-odd place to find myself - next to AuRaptor and Hero on this issue, but it's where I stand on this one. Nattering and muttering about 9/11, making shifty allegations about shady alliances, and repeating debunked myths ad nauseum isn't going to change my mind. You can believe what you want, but my belief system relies more on proof and fact than rumor and innnuendo.


Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:47 AM

CITIZEN


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.

Yes, it's a logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority'. In fact, the opinion of an expert has the same requirement of proof as anyone else's. In other words it's also a logical fallacy to say "he's an expert in explosives, and he agrees with me, so I'm right!" is no less flawed if 'he' is an explosive expert than if he's an agricultural expert.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:56 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Also, I can't believe that THIS administration - or ANY administration - is smart enough to keep such a massive conspiracy covered up so effectively. Nixon tried it with a simply, stupid little office burglary, and he and his guys couldn't even pull off that cover-up!

Crediting the government with this kind of ability really is giving them far too much credit- and giving yourself far too little for falling for it!



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Though I do have to say I wouldn't put it past them to know that something was going to happen with planes soon, and to turn a blind eye. Que sera, sera ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL