Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Top Conspiracy Theories
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
Elohuym wrote:
:lol: What? Did you just made all of that up? I don't think anyone has ever claimed steel melted beside truthers.

First of all the list wasn't compiled by "hundreds of architects and engineers." It's made up by the moronic charlatan Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth. It's been addressed and debunked ad nauseum. Here's a point by point debunking by one of your own:

An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth
by Gregory Urich

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

it's been handed to Gage by several people and never been addressed as far as I know.


Have you ever seen a burning building fall down? I have. It falls apart piece by piece all over the place. I thought the official theory said that the fire melted the steel bars which caused the collapse. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. I'm not pretending to be an engineer or anything. I'm just listening to information and trying my best to make sense of it.

I'm going to read the rest of the letter soon, I have to help make dinner now. So far where I am in the letter I don't see it being debunk though.


I have seen a 2 story building burn but certainly not a concrete-core, steel-beam-reinforced, skyscraper burn after being hit by a plane containing a full tank of jet fuel.

You didn't address the fact that the floors are all suspended around a core and it would be literally impossible for the building to fall down apart any other way (except toppling if it were in an earthquake) once the exterior structure melted. I even gave you pictures.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

I'm thinking, not avoiding.

Can you explain how this works, exactly?
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Did building 7 have a steel core as well? If not, how do you explain it's collapse?
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ecapataz



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: Bonn, Germany
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:


In your words, dont link me to a 20 page pdf please.



And clearly that isn't what has happened here.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Elohuym



Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 147
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
Elohuym wrote:
firefly wrote:

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally



what does this mean to you firefly?


2. Means that debris falls off all over the place and not in perfect symmetry.
5. It means the multi-ton steel flew off from the side.


Well, what you think number 2 means is the exact opposite of what Gage was getting at, and what Gage was getting at in number 2 contradicts number 5. I can see why you were confused reading actual technical physics. I'm done here.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Elohuym wrote:
firefly wrote:
Elohuym wrote:
firefly wrote:

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally



what does this mean to you firefly?


2. Means that debris falls off all over the place and not in perfect symmetry.
5. It means the multi-ton steel flew off from the side.


Well, what you think number 2 means is the exact opposite of what Gage was getting at, and what Gage was getting at in number 2 contradicts number 5. I can see why you were confused reading actual technical physics. I'm done here.


Oops. I don't know why I wrote that. I meant the opposite, obviously. You can keep giving yourself pats on the back though anyway.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
I'm going to read the rest of the letter soon, I have to help make dinner now. So far where I am in the letter I don't see it being debunk though.


So I finished the letter. It had some very good points and might have proven wrong a number of his points. But a lot of his debunking was just saying that there isn't enough proof for his points. Either way, I'm happy I read it.

And none it it addresses building 7 unless it also have a steel core. Like usual it's nothing but crickets re: Building 7.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

ecapataz wrote:
Plum Puddin' wrote:


In your words, dont link me to a 20 page pdf please.



And clearly that isn't what has happened here.


I hope you guys are being sarcastic. Rigorous technical research is hard to sum up in flowery non-technical words, but to the extent that this is possible, I posted a very helpful abstract and conclusion from a very helpful PDF which wasn't posted. It's like, three minutes of reading. Five or six paragraphs overall. I have faith that you can do this.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

Firefly, I think you misread something. The bold portion of the first paper I posted describes precisely why nothing had to melt in order for the towers (any of them) to collapse. The last portion I posted from the second paper does the same thing.

Phase change isn't a magical barrier which, once reached, reduces structural strength from 100% to 0%. Quite a bit of heat has to go into reaching the phase change, and due to the nature of metallic bonds this heat will make steel incredibly weak long before it actually melts. This relationship is more or less linear under normal circumstances but, as was described in a portion of the second paper I posted, the strength decreases far more rapidly if it is first put under severe impact stress, which is exactly what happened to the twin towers.

As for that grab-bag of nonsense of why this and that fell which and what way because of explosives--that's what the second paper was about. It was addressed in the abstract I posted.

I'm not going to sum up a summary in my own words. This isn't English 101. Read the abstract or don't. Trust in competent mathematics and engineering, or the gut feelings of some guy on a website called 911truth.com, or whatever. But don't couch your disregard for rigorous scientific inquiry in the guise of openness while quoting a website whose title reads like something out of a bad Matrix spin-off.

And (and this is not necessarily directed toward you, firefly, but just in case) don't pretend that you'd pay any more attention if I summarized an abstract for you. That's just silly. It's a paragraph!
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Again, thanks for taking the time to explain this. I'm going to keep re-reading this stuff and see if I change my mind on the whole controled demo part.

As for building 7, the fire was not even close to being as big/serious as tower 1 and 2, that and many other weird situations are what form my opinion on the 9/11 conspiracy.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

breakreep wrote:
ecapataz wrote:
Plum Puddin' wrote:


In your words, dont link me to a 20 page pdf please.



And clearly that isn't what has happened here.


I hope you guys are being sarcastic. Rigorous technical research is hard to sum up in flowery non-technical words, but to the extent that this is possible, I posted a very helpful abstract and conclusion from a very helpful PDF which wasn't posted. It's like, three minutes of reading. Five or six paragraphs overall. I have faith that you can do this.


I wasnt talking about 9/11 Professor Brokreep.
Post Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
medicineman
HALFLING


Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1393
Location: Iowa City
 Reply with quote  

This is what I had to say about the 9/11 conspiracy debate on facebook on that date of this year.

'Okay, this is the best way that I can think to put this. Even if 9/11, as it will be written in the history books, is the absolute truth, everything that proceeds from it is still a lie. Asking me to accept that, is also, by extension, asking me to accept a world wherein Iraq has something to do with the attacks. It's asking me to accept that Al-Qaida is a concrete political entity with a tangible fighting force, and that both of those things are centered in Afghanistan, rather than a vague and nebulously organized, tiny, fringe group scattered throughout the world. It's asking me to accept that any civilian in Afghanistan remotely near a weapon, or maybe not even near a weapon, is a 'militant', 'insurgent', to be lumped into the same category of vilification as those who carried out the attacks. It's asking me to accept actual, 'serious' debate over the freedom of Muslims to worship as they please in the United States. In short, it is asking me to accept that the specter of Islamic terrorism, really not even terrorism, the specter of Islam itself, foreign and dangerous, lurks behind every aspect of our lives, but not to worry, because we've got people fighting in faraway countries that you will never see and rarely conceive of to protect us. Even if everything on Sept. 11, 2001, happened, exactly as presented, it has still been steeped in falsehood, cast in a light of falsehood, torqued to false ends to further private interests. It's a conspiracy theory even if it's not. It's important to me, personally, psychologically, that I not accept the discussion being framed this way. I achieve this best through digging in my heels and spitting. But maybe that's just because the specter of the military/industrial complex scares me a hell of a lot more than the specter of Islam. Bush knocked down the towers. Even if he didn't.'
Post Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1821
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

medicineman wrote:


'Okay, this is the best way that I can think to put this. Even if 9/11, as it will be written in the history books, is the absolute truth, everything that proceeds from it is still a lie. Asking me to accept that, is also, by extension, asking me to accept a world wherein Iraq has something to do with the attacks. It's asking me to accept that Al-Qaida is a concrete political entity with a tangible fighting force, and that both of those things are centered in Afghanistan, rather than a vague and nebulously organized, tiny, fringe group scattered throughout the world. It's asking me to accept that any civilian in Afghanistan remotely near a weapon, or maybe not even near a weapon, is a 'militant', 'insurgent', to be lumped into the same category of vilification as those who carried out the attacks. It's asking me to accept actual, 'serious' debate over the freedom of Muslims to worship as they please in the United States. In short, it is asking me to accept that the specter of Islamic terrorism, really not even terrorism, the specter of Islam itself, foreign and dangerous, lurks behind every aspect of our lives, but not to worry, because we've got people fighting in faraway countries that you will never see and rarely conceive of to protect us. Even if everything on Sept. 11, 2001, happened, exactly as presented, it has still been steeped in falsehood, cast in a light of falsehood, torqued to false ends to further private interests. It's a conspiracy theory even if it's not. It's important to me, personally, psychologically, that I not accept the discussion being framed this way. I achieve this best through digging in my heels and spitting. But maybe that's just because the specter of the military/industrial complex scares me a hell of a lot more than the specter of Islam. Bush knocked down the towers. Even if he didn't.'


Post Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
PoetryBox



Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 452
Location: brampton, ON
 Reply with quote  

medicineman wrote:
This is what I had to say about the 9/11 conspiracy debate on facebook on that date of this year.

'Okay, this is the best way that I can think to put this. Even if 9/11, as it will be written in the history books, is the absolute truth, everything that proceeds from it is still a lie. Asking me to accept that, is also, by extension, asking me to accept a world wherein Iraq has something to do with the attacks. It's asking me to accept that Al-Qaida is a concrete political entity with a tangible fighting force, and that both of those things are centered in Afghanistan, rather than a vague and nebulously organized, tiny, fringe group scattered throughout the world. It's asking me to accept that any civilian in Afghanistan remotely near a weapon, or maybe not even near a weapon, is a 'militant', 'insurgent', to be lumped into the same category of vilification as those who carried out the attacks. It's asking me to accept actual, 'serious' debate over the freedom of Muslims to worship as they please in the United States. In short, it is asking me to accept that the specter of Islamic terrorism, really not even terrorism, the specter of Islam itself, foreign and dangerous, lurks behind every aspect of our lives, but not to worry, because we've got people fighting in faraway countries that you will never see and rarely conceive of to protect us. Even if everything on Sept. 11, 2001, happened, exactly as presented, it has still been steeped in falsehood, cast in a light of falsehood, torqued to false ends to further private interests. It's a conspiracy theory even if it's not. It's important to me, personally, psychologically, that I not accept the discussion being framed this way. I achieve this best through digging in my heels and spitting. But maybe that's just because the specter of the military/industrial complex scares me a hell of a lot more than the specter of Islam. Bush knocked down the towers. Even if he didn't.'


Well said.

The towers are far from the only things that made people question the official story. Stuff like the immediate clean up of the site without an proper investigation, the pentagon tapes never being released, the eye witness accounts of hearing multiple explosions before and after the plane hit, the war game exercises that were deployed by the military at the same time the hijacked flights were in the air etc. It seems to be coincidence after coincidences and its this that brings people mind in doubt to the official story. There was a lot more question then answers that never got addressed properly and that what makes conspiracy theories.

One thing that I always thought was weird was when Bush was first told about the plane crashing into the first tower and how he stayed at the school for another 30 mins before leaving even though they knew that other planes had been hijacked as well. Isn't it usually a protocol if there’s any sign of attacks that they get the president out of there asap?
Post Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Bicycle



Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Posts: 413
 Reply with quote  

Is this an appropriate place to discuss Jared Loughner MK Ultra connections? Seems topical

Im waiting to see what final conclusions are drawn from this situation. Good scapegoat for gun bans and, given his general paranoia and obsession with mind control, it would be easy to use him in linking conspiracy theories to terrorism. Cass Sunstein would, no doubt, approve of such a link.

Not that the lot of you would mind gun bans or even conspiracy theory censorship but ya know... its just one of those things

and speaking of Cass Sunstein...

"We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Is conspiring against conspiracy theorists really a good way of dispelling conspiracy theories?

and..
http://www.america.gov/conspiracy_theories.html

Is constantly linking conspiracy theories with anti-semitism, as that site does, anything but an ad hominem attack against proponents of the theories? Is anti-zionism anti-semetic? Can we even discuss the nation of Israel in a negative light without being labled as bigots? or is it totally off limits?
Post Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:27 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:45 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon