Babar Posted June 18, 2007 Posted June 18, 2007 The late Robin Cook wrote: "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." Al-Qaida, in the context of a terrorist term, only came in to existence after 9/11. Well, yes, Robin Cook fell for the story, like so many others, but those who have studied the matter more deeply disagree. Take Jason Burke, for instance, a major contributor to the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". In his book "Al Qaeda", he wrote the following: It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviets' 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency. The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states. Page 59, Al Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam. Jason Burke but we are moving rather far away from science here.
Tree99 Posted June 18, 2007 Author Posted June 18, 2007 nope not really. the cause of the failure, not how it did it 'insane_alien' for clarity it may be a little less confussing if you try looking at it this way. What was the cause or causes of the buildings failure after the collapse had been initiated? IF, in the actual event, the collapse had stopped after the initiation of collapse, then we could say fine, NIST has examined the cause or causes of failure for that part of the building in which failure occurred. But the reality is the buildings collapsed entirely, so the mandate has to explain what the cause or causes of failure were that allowed the collapse to continue through global collapse. The building does not just fail once in one location, it fails throughout the building, multiple times and multiple locations, so the NCST act absolutely requires that we know the technical causes of these failures.
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 John Gross, lead engineer of the NIST report for 911 states: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0 Well, says it all really, doesn't it??
bascule Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 And significantly that stream of whatever was pouring from the building just where the plane debris would have piled up inside, ie opposite the entry point. And not gone down the elevator shafts? Oh really? Why do you claim this? Did an engineer who scrutinized the available evidence claim it? I'm guessing this is an explanation you've made up yourself... I suggest you stop doing that and draw your conclusions from what engineers who have examined the available evidence have to say. They are knowledgeable about the matter and you are not. Also, please stop listening to those without a relevant academic background to scrutinize the available evidence, particular those who make prima facie "as I see it" conclusions about the situation based on visual evidence coupled with no relevant background in assessing the subject matter. These people are simply unqualified to come to conclusions about what happened.
bascule Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 John Gross, lead engineer of the NIST report for 911 states: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0 Well, says it all really, doesn't it?? Let's see... claims it's "molten steel"... because any molten metal must be steel... Referring to Steven Jones... who was fired over his position on the matter. There's some peer review for you. But wait... he found traces of thermite... or the apparent results of it... which would appear an awfully lot like what you'd expect from steel exposed to a high temperature fire. But who cares about the details... iron oxide == thermite == incendiary weapons == explosives! Correlation implies causation! DON'T QUESTION IT! Thermite isn't explosive, it's incendiary. These people don't know what they're talking about. These are pointed questions intended to frame the debate... with no basis but anecdotes. These aren't arguments, they're aimless speculation, lodged in as many forms as it can possibly exist in. Seriously, the conspiracists here: how many times have you been wrong so far, on this thread alone? Don't you think you should stop arguing at this point? Aren't you embarassed at being so wrong so often? Or will you continue morphing your arguments as you continually find they don't fit the evidence, trying to brute force some magic combination that actually stands up to scrutiny? The 9/11 conspiracy meme comes in so many forms it's impossible to debunk. Every time one form is debunked someone else tries another one; every time evidence is presented to the contrary someone comes back with an "as I see it" common sense take on the explanation, claiming it could not be so. Simple questions like "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?", a simple "as I see it" common sense take on the conspiracy gets the 9/11 conspiracy skeptics here nowhere. We're honestly trying to respond to the bullshit tornado you people keep unleashing upon the general public? How about one of you 9/11 conspiracy skeptics step up and answer the simple question? "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?" Where's somebody who planted these explosives? Where's somebody who saw these explosives being planted? Who planted them? Do you have any evidence said party planted them? Where precisely were they planted? Do you have any evidence explosives were planted at said location(s)? The answers to these questions are nobody, nobody, nobody, and nowhere. There's no evidence any of that ever happened. Zero evidence. None. Your argument is completely baseless. There is no evidence. Please cut the posturing and engage in an evidence-based debate. Otherwise you're just arrogant assholes spouting lies and perpetrating a campaign of mass-deception against the general public, the very thing you claim to be fighting against.
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 I have a big problem with the controlled demolition hypothesis. the problem is this. on the towers we seen the collapse start aroung the area where the planes hit an the fires had been burning for a few hours. now, this may sound completely crazy but, how the hell did the explosives survive? explosives are not the most stable of chemicals. there are 3 possibilities i can see. 1/ the explosives would have detonated on impact bringing the towers down immediately and it would be very obvious explosives were used since the building should have withstood the initial impact. 2/ the explosives would have self detonated after a few minutes and it would still be obvious that they were used. 3/ the explosives would have partially burnt away and the detonation of the remaining would be sparse and uneven. would cause with very uneven collapse or fail to bring the towers down. personally, i think a combination of 1/ and 2/ would happen. explosives don't like to hang around. you explain to me how they survived that long and performed so well. Just a note on the video: if it was a red hot oven in there, then there are a number of things that could look like molten steel to the casual observer, glass is the most obvious one that springs to mind. there is even mention of it being like molten lava. now, last time i was working with molten steel, it was quite runny. lava, implies a viscous liquid. glass behaves this way. and anything in there would glow red from blackbody radiation. most people identify materials by the colour if they cannot touch it. now, as the only colour visile would be a bright red glow, this method of identification fails.
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Simple questions like "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?", a simple "as I see it" common sense take on the conspiracy gets the 9/11 conspiracy skeptics here nowhere. We're honestly trying to respond to the bullshit tornado you people keep unleashing upon the general public? How about one of you 9/11 conspiracy skeptics step up and answer the simple question? "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?" Where's somebody who planted these explosives? Where's somebody who saw these explosives being planted? Who planted them? Do you have any evidence said party planted them? Where precisely were they planted? Do you have any evidence explosives were planted at said location(s)? The answers to these questions are nobody, nobody, nobody, and nowhere. There's no evidence any of that ever happened. Zero evidence. None. Your argument is completely baseless. There is no evidence. Please cut the posturing and engage in an evidence-based debate. Otherwise you're just arrogant assholes spouting lies and perpetrating a campaign of mass-deception against the general public, the very thing you claim to be fighting against. Wow Bascule, quite a rant there from you, that video seems to have touched a little nerve?? Explosives?? Have I ever assumed explosives were rigged in the Trade Centre Towers? To rig demolition charges would take weeks of planning and work, hardly something which could have been done by 19 Arab highjackers on the morning of the attacks, can it? I’m querying the scientific reasons for the near free-fall collapses (and yes Alien, even your 70% figure is close to free-fall speeds, but free-fall in a vacuum would take 9.2 seconds, whereas you take 11 seconds, so that is 81% of free-fall speed, but still pretty fast, don’t you think??). Interesting how, in your hypothesis, even weakened steel and concrete lacks viscosity, even steel at temperatures within human survival ranges. Now (as if you need reminding) John Gross, the man in the video I’ve linked to, is the lead engineer in the 911 investigation by NIST (the American National Institute of Standards and Technology), and is it not puzzling to any of you just how unprofessional and superficial their investigation seems to have been? Maybe not, but I hope that when you conduct your own scientific experiments, you are more thorough with your conclusions and comparisons with your observations. If you haven't yet seen the video, judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZgYNGGgBP0 I am very puzzled as to why they don’t seem to even be worried that three steel and concrete skyscrapers collapsed that day, one of which was not even hit by an aircraft, as millions of people live and work in skyscrapers, and you would have though that, for safety reasons alone, they should get to the reasons and recommendations, wouldn’t you? And going back to Bascule’s rant, be advised that many many people are telling what they saw and heard. Some are being gagged by the courts, some threatened, most are just being completely ignored by the controlled media. Indeed, I’ve stated earlier on this thread that one eyewitness is coming to Cornwall this very week-end to give a talk of his testimony. He did testify to the 911 commission, but not one word of his testimony was referred to by the 911 Commission report. His tour can be found at http://www.last-man-out.com. I’ve already promised to ask him just how hot it became in the North Tower just before it collapsed, but suddenly Alien argues that this data would be irrelevant.
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Well, yes, Robin Cook fell for the story, like so many others, but those who have studied the matter more deeply disagree. Take Jason Burke, for instance, a major contributor to the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". In his book "Al Qaeda", he wrote the following: It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviets' 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency. The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states. Page 59, Al Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam. Jason Burke but we are moving rather far away from science here. Whats going on here then. 2 Months before 9/11 http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_treated_us_hospital.html
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 nd yes Alien, even your 70% figure is close to free-fall speeds, but free-fall in a vacuum would take 9.2 seconds, whereas you take 11 seconds, so that is 81% of free-fall speed, but still pretty fast, don’t you think?? no 81% is wrong. there is no such thing as freefall speed. you don't just start falling at a constant speed. it is an acceleration and must be described in terms of acceleration. that means it fell at 70% of freefall acceleration. i had thought that you knew the difference which is why i used your convention several times. but now it is obvious that you don't get it. and 70% of freefall seems a reasonable acceleration for a collapsing building. buildings do consist mostly of empty space. please, consult wikipedia or a basic physics textbook before you comment on that again. and stop saying it was near freefall, it wasn't Interesting how, in your hypothesis, even weakened steel and concrete lacks viscosity, even steel at temperatures within human survival ranges. viscosity is a property of fluids. not solids. I am very puzzled as to why they don’t seem to even be worried that three steel and concrete skyscrapers collapsed that day, one of which was not even hit by an aircraft, as millions of people live and work in skyscrapers, and you would have though that, for safety reasons alone, they should get to the reasons and recommendations, wouldn’t you? yeah, not all skyscrapers will experience conditions as extreme as these. also, conventional skyscrapers are build differently from the towers so they can't really be compared.(would you compare an ocean liner with a rowboat?) And yes, i do suggest the guys data would be irrelevant, if he wasn't at the hottest part of the fire where the collapse occured then he would not know the circumstances of collapse. the conditions below and above this point would not matter as these were not the points of collapse
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 I have a big problem with the controlled demolition hypothesis. the problem is this. on the towers we seen the collapse start aroung the area where the planes hit an the fires had been burning for a few hours. now, this may sound completely crazy but, how the hell did the explosives survive? explosives are not the most stable of chemicals. there are 3 possibilities i can see. 1/ the explosives would have detonated on impact bringing the towers down immediately and it would be very obvious explosives were used since the building should have withstood the initial impact. 2/ the explosives would have self detonated after a few minutes and it would still be obvious that they were used. 3/ the explosives would have partially burnt away and the detonation of the remaining would be sparse and uneven. would cause with very uneven collapse or fail to bring the towers down. personally, i think a combination of 1/ and 2/ would happen. explosives don't like to hang around. you explain to me how they survived that long and performed so well. Just a note on the video: if it was a red hot oven in there, then there are a number of things that could look like molten steel to the casual observer, glass is the most obvious one that springs to mind. there is even mention of it being like molten lava. now, last time i was working with molten steel, it was quite runny. lava, implies a viscous liquid. glass behaves this way. and anything in there would glow red from blackbody radiation. most people identify materials by the colour if they cannot touch it. now, as the only colour visile would be a bright red glow, this method of identification fails. How did the exsplosives get instaled into the building. Twin towers power down the weekend before the attacks. And several times in the months leading up to the attacks. After the previous attack on the WTC sniffer dogs were deployed regularly, then the are removed. Marvin P. Bush, running security at the WTC ? http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_treated_us_hospital.html
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Apologies, free-fall time then, better?? nope, the relationship with time isn't linear. acceleration is the one you want. How did the exsplosives get instaled into the building. Twin towers power down the weekend before the attacks. And several times in the months leading up to the attacks. After the previous attack on the WTC sniffer dogs were deployed regularly, then the are removed. Marvin P. Bush, running security at the WTC ? i'm not saying there were explosives in the tower. i'm saying there weren't its you guys who are saying that it was explosives not me. i'm saying why it couldn't have been explosives.
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Insane, if I felt that the only question and suspicion surrounding the events of 911 was whether I was using a linear measurement, or the word "viscous" when I should mean "resistance" (forgetting here that solids and liquids are just different states of the same thing) your comment would be relevant. However, there are many many questions surrounding the official explanations of 911, and we've only touched on a very few here on this thread. If a crime is committed, I would expect the police to do a thorough job, look at the evidence, question witnesses, look at motives etc etc. When they do not do that, or evidence comes to light which seems to clear a suspect, don't you think that the investigation should go forward? Clearly not in your opinion. It may be that the original suspect is indeed ultimately found guilty, but, if there are any doubts, should not the real perpetrators of the crime still be sought? Speak soon, I'm off from this forum of so called "eminent scientists", I've got too much work to do. Lord help future science if you scientists don't have open minds to all possibilities. I'll keep checking in occasionally for Capn's rebuttal of those two peer reviewed papers I referred to. Looking forward greatly to seeing that, so don't forget, Cap'n.
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Insane, if I felt that the only question and suspicion surrounding the events of 911 was whether I was using a linear measurement, or the word "viscous" when I should mean "resistance" (forgetting here that solids and liquids are just different states of the same thing) your comment would be relevant. it is relevant because you are looking at the data from the wrong perspective. this is often done when somebody wants to make the data look like it is completely wrong. Speak soon, I'm off from this forum of so called "eminent scientists", I've got too much work to do. Lord help future science if you scientists don't have open minds to all possibilities. if your mind is too open it gets filled with crap. we do have open minds, its just we have a set of filters often called 'logic' and 'scientific method' that catch the bad stuff. in other words, for us to accept something as truth, we need evidence for it. until it has that then its truth is unknown. and there can be evidence that explicitly rules out certain scenarios.
richard Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Go play Jenga. Then come back and tell us at what point you had to use explosives to lose.
Tree99 Posted June 19, 2007 Author Posted June 19, 2007 It has to make you wonder though doesn't it. If NIST is so confident in the conclusions of their investigation, then why do they refuse to enter in to scientific debate with those engineers and physicists who do not agree with their conclusions. If they have nothing to hide and can 'debunk' all the theories of controlled demolition, then why not do so? If the 'conspiracy theorists' are talking nothing but complete crap, then NIST should relish the opportunity to completely debunk these theories, but instead they refuse to do so time and time again. You would of thought that it should be the 'conspiracy theorists' who would not want to enter in to debate, not the other way around. Quoting Dr Steven Jones A group (including me) extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said “you name the time and place and we’ll sit down and talk” and they replied, paraphrasing: “a change in venue, a change in time, will not change our decision.” This is a little own goalish don't you think. As scientists and students of science, if someone was to challenge a paper or piece of analysis of yours, and you believed 100% that you were correct and the challenger was wrong, you would be quite happy to debate that challenge. How much faith would you have in the conclusions of fellow scientists if they refused to allow anyone to challenge and debate those conclusions, what sort of a scientific community would we have? Just think about this, NIST has had countless opportunity's to debate this in an open scientific manner, but they will not, they will never debate it. If NIST is correct in its analysis, what do they have to fear?
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 nope, the relationship with time isn't linear. acceleration is the one you want. i'm not saying there were explosives in the tower. i'm saying there weren't its you guys who are saying that it was explosives not me. i'm saying why it couldn't have been explosives. Here we have Mr Silverstein telling us "so we decided to pull it" .Referring to WTC 7. Mr Larry Silverstein had just acquired a 99 year Leese on the twin towers and building 7. "Pull it" , is the demolition industry term meaning to demolish, (pull it down). To do so you would require explosives, including thermite cutting charges on the steel girders, columns. Resulting in a residue of molten metal. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4950832494366664231&q=larry+silverstein+pull+it&total=61&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Here we have Mayor Giuliani announcing to the world on 911 that someone had told him the towers were going to collapse. What a shame he did not pass this information on to the rescue workers entering the towers. Could have saved a lot of lives. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8303237747232200948&q=giuliani++tv+911+collapse&total=25&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 If the 'conspiracy theorists' are talking nothing but complete crap, then NIST should relish the opportunity to completely debunk these theories, but instead they refuse to do so time and time again. because they know that no matter how much evidence they put forward there will always be a group of crazies who still believe its a cover up because the NIST is part of 'the establishment'. those people are never convinced, they would argue that all fire trucks are luminous purple and spray fire everywhere and run on molten lava. it is pointless to debate with these people as they just do not want to know. Here we have Mr Silverstein telling us "so we decided to pull it" .Referring to WTC 7. Mr Larry Silverstein had just acquired a 99 year Leese on the twin towers and building 7. "Pull it" , is the demolition industry term meaning to demolish, (pull it down). yes, in the DEMOLTION industry, not the fire services. this could just as easily be a phrase used in place of 'pull out' ordering the firefighters to retreat because it is too dangerous. To do so you would require explosives, including thermite cutting charges on the steel girders, columns. Resulting in a residue of molten metal. IIRC shaped charges are used instead of thermite as they are much more efficient. and also easier to set up to cause a simultaneous collapse. thermite would be messy. you would have different bits breaking through at hugely different times. also, you will have to explain how the trigger system survived as long as it did in the fire. Here we have Mayor Giuliani announcing to the world on 911 that someone had told him the towers were going to collapse. What a shame he did not pass this information on to the rescue workers entering the towers. Could have saved a lot of lives. the rescuers probably knew it was going to collapse to. nobody knew when though. the building gave way without much warning and i'm sure if they weren't helping people out then the toll could have been higher.
Tree99 Posted June 19, 2007 Author Posted June 19, 2007 Please cut the posturing and engage in an evidence-based debate. Otherwise you're just arrogant assholes spouting lies and perpetrating a campaign of mass-deception against the general public, the very thing you claim to be fighting against. Thanks 'bascule' I will pass that message on to NIST in the hope that they will engage in evidence-based debate which the 'conspiracy theorists' have so long called for.
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 In reply to a number of points that have been made:There is no evidence whatever that the CIA funded al Qaeda at any stage, given OBL's hatred of America it is very unlikely he would have accepted such help, even if he needed it, which as a very wealthy man, he did not. The huge clouds of dust produced when the towers fell were probably mostly gypsum which crumbles very easily, rather than concrete. The story of molten metal beneath the rubble is hearsay anyway, and certainly no one could tell what metal it was. Thermal imaging September 16 2001 http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html Molten metal
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Let's see... claims it's "molten steel"... because any molten metal must be steel... Referring to Steven Jones... who was fired over his position on the matter. There's some peer review for you. But wait... he found traces of thermite... or the apparent results of it... which would appear an awfully lot like what you'd expect from steel exposed to a high temperature fire. But who cares about the details... iron oxide == thermite == incendiary weapons == explosives! Correlation implies causation! DON'T QUESTION IT! Thermite isn't explosive, it's incendiary. These people don't know what they're talking about. These are pointed questions intended to frame the debate... with no basis but anecdotes. These aren't arguments, they're aimless speculation, lodged in as many forms as it can possibly exist in. Seriously, the conspiracists here: how many times have you been wrong so far, on this thread alone? Don't you think you should stop arguing at this point? Aren't you embarassed at being so wrong so often? Or will you continue morphing your arguments as you continually find they don't fit the evidence, trying to brute force some magic combination that actually stands up to scrutiny? The 9/11 conspiracy meme comes in so many forms it's impossible to debunk. Every time one form is debunked someone else tries another one; every time evidence is presented to the contrary someone comes back with an "as I see it" common sense take on the explanation, claiming it could not be so. Simple questions like "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?", a simple "as I see it" common sense take on the conspiracy gets the 9/11 conspiracy skeptics here nowhere. We're honestly trying to respond to the bullshit tornado you people keep unleashing upon the general public? How about one of you 9/11 conspiracy skeptics step up and answer the simple question? "If explosives were planted, why is no authoritative first person witness stepping forward to testify that's the case?" Where's somebody who planted these explosives? Where's somebody who saw these explosives being planted? Who planted them? Do you have any evidence said party planted them? Where precisely were they planted? Do you have any evidence explosives were planted at said location(s)? The answers to these questions are nobody, nobody, nobody, and nowhere. There's no evidence any of that ever happened. Zero evidence. None. Your argument is completely baseless. There is no evidence. Please cut the posturing and engage in an evidence-based debate. Otherwise you're just arrogant assholes spouting lies and perpetrating a campaign of mass-deception against the general public, the very thing you claim to be fighting against. Bombs everywhere, most of the radio communication was only released in 2004-2006. Here are some examples. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search=
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 you know what, out of all he videos that show 'molten steel' i have not seen a single one where you could conclusively say without a doubt that it is a molten metal. well, actually i tell a lie. i have seen one. it was of a guy using a cutting torch to break apart some steel beams for removal. the liquid flowing off that was definitely steel.
Tree99 Posted June 19, 2007 Author Posted June 19, 2007 because they know that no matter how much evidence they put forward there will always be a group of crazies who still believe its a cover up because the NIST is part of 'the establishment'. those people are never convinced, they would argue that all fire trucks are luminous purple and spray fire everywhere and run on molten lava. it is pointless to debate with these people as they just do not want to know. A slight correction 'insane_alien' to describe the official conspiracy nuts... Because they know that no matter how much evidence is put forward, there will always be a group of crazies who still believe there was no cover-up because NIST is part of 'the establishment'. Those people are never convinced, they would argue that all fire trucks are luminous purple and spray fire everywhere and run on molten lava. It is pointless to debate with these people as they just do not want to know. Although I still think we should debate with you, even if you do believe fire trucks run on molten lava and spray fire everywhere.
urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 [quote name=insane_alien; yes' date=' in the DEMOLTION industry, not the fire services. this could just as easily be a phrase used in place of 'pull out' ordering the firefighters to retreat because it is too dangerous. Illegal alien. English is not my first language, but he dose say "pull it" not , pull out. Or if he were referring to a group of firemen would you not say "pull them". Again http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4950832494366664231&q=pull+it+silverstein&total=137&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 IIRC shaped charges are used instead of thermite as they are much more efficient. and also easier to set up to cause a simultaneous collapse. thermite would be messy. you would have different bits breaking through at hugely different times. also, you will have to explain how the trigger system survived as long as it did in the fire. Who is saying there was fire in the entire building, industrial explosives are not that volatile. Anyway if a few explosions had detonated at the wrong time and parts of the buildings had collapsed or toppled , so what. Who would have said anything, they have just been impacted by airliners. The point is the job was done well.(TO WELL) Shaped charges, yes. This looks familiar. the rescuers probably knew it was going to collapse to. nobody knew when though. the building gave way without much warning and i'm sure if they weren't helping people out then the toll could have been higher.[/quote] Illegal alien. Here we have Mr Giuliani denying that he was told the tower were going to collapse. Here he is again on 911 on ABC news. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2034704730 Who told him. You would think this would be investigated.
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 very nice ad hominem attack. not really making your side look good on a debating ground though is it? anyway, the scientist in me has devised a little experiment that will hopefully prove that humans(especially the casual observer) is extremely bad at identifying molten substances by sight alone. i will post 10 pictures and i want you to guess what the substance is. later on after everybody has had a go, i will post links to the origional pictures so you can check for your selfs that i wasn't lying. since steel is being talked about in this thread, i have included it in the line up. see if you can guess which one it is. each material shows up once and once only. 1/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/1.jpg 2/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/2.jpg 3/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/3.jpg 4/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/4.jpg 5/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/5.jpg 6/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/6.jpg 7/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/7.gif 8/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/8.gif 9/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/9.jpg 10/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/10.gif if you do not agree that this is fair please tell me and point out where there is flaw. obviously i can't try this as i know which is which. if this is successful it will show that the average joe looking at videos on the net cannot tell what a glowing red liquid substance is. heck, even your professional paul would have trouble. and no using google.
Recommended Posts