| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: Has anyone attempted the $1M 'no explosives' challenge? |
 |
|
| I think it's an urban myth "you cannot prove a negative" people come here all the time trying to prove 9/11 was not an inside job. Jimmy Walter is still offering this opportunity for anyone to prove explosives were not used to bring down the twin towers on the reopen911 site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: Has anyone attempted the $1M 'no explosives' challenge? |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I think it's an urban myth "you cannot prove a negative" |
Prove that there is no invisible dragon living in my garage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Has anyone attempted the $1M 'no explosives' challenge? |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I think it's an urban myth "you cannot prove a negative" |
Prove that there is no invisible dragon living in my garage. |
I think that would be proving a double negative.
So you lot prove the twin towers were not brought down by explosives, I don't get it, why don't NIST have the courage of their convictions and just take Jimmy Walter's challenge for charity?(or even for profit? there was plenty insider trading going on pre-9/11)[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: Has anyone attempted the $1M 'no explosives' challenge? |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I think it's an urban myth "you cannot prove a negative" people come here all the time trying to prove 9/11 was not an inside job. Jimmy Walter is still offering this opportunity for anyone to prove explosives were not used to bring down the twin towers on the reopen911 site. |
This challenge is meaningless without knowing the terms.
If you examine the terms, it's clear that they are unreasonable.
For instance:
| Quote: | | Entrants must prove that the steel bolts, rivets, and welds still had the resistance to stop the falling mass long enough for the concrete and contents to be crushed. Then they must explain what made them fail after the concrete was crushed. The timing is important since it takes time to do anything, especially to crush concrete, steel desks, etc. Entrants must include the energy required, source, resistance, and timing for breaking the bolts, rivets, welds, office contents, and concrete. |
Not only is this impossible, given the complexity of the problem, but it's based on a false assumption: That the falling mass had to "stop...long enough for the concrete and contents to be crushed."
Some of the terms are also irrelevant to whether or not explosives were used. For instance, item 12 asks the entrant to explain the presence of molten metal underneath the rubble. How is this relevant? Molten metal days after the event is not evidence of explosives in the first place.
No one can win this contest, but it's not because a progressive collapse explanation is inadequate or because an explosives scenario fits the evidence better. It's because the contest's terms are unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...well it proves the best the '911 commission report zealots' and NIST can manage is just a theory and not proven scientific law, am I right? you just have no formula for all that micro powdered concrete and steel beams heavier than a 767 shooting vertically out at high speed hundreds of feet, not to mention all that molten metal in the rubble weeks after the event picked up on satellite thermal imaging and on photographic evidence.
The bottom line is they COULDN'T have collapsed and left molten debris the way they did commensurate with the latest official explaination...only with explosives, if this is not true, prove it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | ...well it proves the best the '911 commission report zealots' and NIST can manage is just a theory and not proven scientific law, am I right? you just have no formula for all that micro powdered concrete and steel beams heavier than a 767 shooting vertically out at high speed hundreds of feet, not to mention all that molten metal in the rubble weeks after the event picked up on satellite thermal imaging and on photographic evidence.
The bottom line is they COULDN'T have collapsed and left molten debris the way they did commensurate with the latest official explaination...only with explosives, if this is not true, prove it. |
Here's how it works. You make the claim "only with explosives". The burden of proof is now on you to back up the claim. How did explosives produce all that "micro powdered concrete"--how much explosives would be required? How did explosives provide the continuous heat source necessary to keep metal molten weeks after the event?
I submit that the collapse had enough energy to create the dust cloud we saw. I also propose that slow-burning underground fires fueled by flammable debris could explain the red-hot and molten materials found weeks after 9/11.
Your turn: how do explosive fit with this evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the phenomenon we witnessed at the WTC concrete and other solids reduced to micro powder, heavy steel beams turned into missiles and molten metal found deep in the rubble weeks after from a 1 and 2 hour small and below optimal efficiency fire bringing down a steel framed building is such an everyday natural occurence there must be countless other examples of this happening, can you provide us with any links for this?
then buy me a drink from your winning$! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | If the phenomenon we witnessed at the WTC concrete and other solids reduced to micro powder, |
I can do this with a sledgehammer. It's not that difficult, just requires persistance. Or, in the case of a collapsing building, a whole lot of potential energy being released.
| Quote: | | heavy steel beams turned into missiles |
More consistent with a collapsing building, with potential energy being released randomly, than with a controlled demolition.
| Quote: | | and molten metal found deep in the rubble weeks after |
What does this prove one way or another? The building was on fire, it collapsed, and the fires continued under the rubble. What does that tell you about how it collapsed?
| Quote: | | from a 1 and 2 hour small and below optimal efficiency fire |
The hundreds of people who burned to death would disagree that it was a small fire.
| Quote: | | bringing down a steel framed building is such an everyday natural occurence there must be countless other examples of this happening, can you provide us with any links for this? |
Every single time a skyscraper has been hit by a jet airliner loaded with fuel, it has collapsed. EVERY -- SINGLE -- TIME.
There are a couple of aspects of the collapse that are so consistent with the "official theory" that it becomes meaningless to speculate any other cause -- you would have to assume that explosives were wired in such a way to simulate a collapse with no explosives, which is REALLY stretching it, if you believe the job was so clumsily done that amateurs can spot the deception.
First, if the towers were brought down by a weakness in the point where the planes crashed, coupled with the enormous weight of the floors above, then you would expect that the building with the lowest crash site would collapse first. This is simply because there is similar damage, but the damaged portion must support more weight in this building.
Well, what do you know? This is exactly what happened. The second tower to be struck collapsed first, and the crash site was lower than the first. Coincidence?
Second, the way that the buildings collapsed supports the pancaking theory. The other night I saw a special on the Twin Towers that included a shot of the collapse I had not seen, from very close up. At this range, the individual collapse of each floor was audible. The BOOM, BOOM, BOOM sounds, which conspiracy theorists have attributed to explosives, became closer and closer together as the collapse accellerated, until they merged into a steady roar.
Has anyone seen a controlled demolition where explosives were set off in this manner, one after the other, first slowly, then faster and faster to the time of the collapse? Generally they are set off almost simultaneously. If you argue that the explosives were designed to make the collapse look like it was random, then I would question your logic in believing that explosives were used in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well go and claim your $1M aggle and beat chipmunk to it!
I understand the Empire state building was hit by a WW2 bomber lost in the fog but did not collapse from the impact and ensuing fires so your 'EVERYTIME-TIME skyscrapers collapsing' claim is false(please don't waste micro amps countering "it wasn't a jet").
Haven't NIST disowned the 'freefall pancake collapse' theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | If the phenomenon we witnessed at the WTC concrete and other solids reduced to micro powder, heavy steel beams turned into missiles and molten metal found deep in the rubble weeks after from a 1 and 2 hour small and below optimal efficiency fire bringing down a steel framed building is such an everyday natural occurence there must be countless other examples of this happening, can you provide us with any links for this?
then buy me a drink from your winning$! |
I provided you with possible explanations for the dust and the molten material in a collapse scenario.
How do you explain these in an explosives scenario? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Haven't NIST disowned the 'freefall pancake collapse' theory? |
A "pancake" collapse is a particular type of progressive collapse. NIST asserts a slightly different mechanism than "pancaking"--but it's still a progressive collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I asked for links or are you saying the twin towers 911 observed phenomenon I listed were a one off fluke? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | (please don't waste micro amps countering "it wasn't a jet"). |
(but it wasn't. and this is significant) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I asked for links or are you saying the twin towers 911 observed phenomenon I listed were a one off fluke? |
Precedence is not part of my case. I've presented my case.
Stop stalling and present yours for your scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I asked for links or are you saying the twin towers 911 observed phenomenon I listed were a one off fluke? |
Precedence is not part of my case. I've presented my case.
Stop stalling and present yours for your scenario. |
so it was a 'one off'? no high rise steel framed building has collapsed from a 1 or two hour fire, had its concrete floors larely reduced to micro powder in the collapse turned its heavy steel beams into missiles and left molten metal deep in the debris weeks after? is that your position?
It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | (please don't waste micro amps countering "it wasn't a jet"). |
(but it wasn't. and this is significant) |
Any chance of you proving this was significant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | (please don't waste micro amps countering "it wasn't a jet"). |
(but it wasn't. and this is significant) |
Any chance of you proving this was significant? |
Velocity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | (please don't waste micro amps countering "it wasn't a jet"). |
(but it wasn't. and this is significant) |
Any chance of you proving this was significant? |
Velocity. |
So the WW2 Bomber that crashed into the Empire State building had a lesser velocity than whatever hit the twin towers? 100, 200mph? but did this section of the Empire State have a comparable structure to the twin towers and was in built with heavy aircraft crashes incorporated into its design? see, there are many other factors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
His hands on research has turned up nada. Zilch. Zip.
I suggest that the NIST team's work
| Quote: | | Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. |
out trumps anything this minor professor, who has produced no important work during his entire tenure, has ever done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
Well if the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft it would have evened out the greater velocity of whatever hit the twin towers 9/11 making the three impacts comparable, also did the Empire State building in the early 40's have sprinklers and was firefighting as sophisicated efficient? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
His hands on research has turned up nada. Zilch. Zip.
I suggest that the NIST team's work
| Quote: | | Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. |
out trumps anything this minor professor, who has produced no important work during his entire tenure, has ever done. |
But, I presume, you personally have no hands on practical experiience of forensically examining the remains of WTC1 and 2 for explosives unlike professor Jones, have NIST actually examined for the explosives hypothesis and produced a negative result? if yes I suggest you take this data to Jimmy Walter at reopen911' and claim your prize PDQ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
His hands on research has turned up nada. Zilch. Zip.
I suggest that the NIST team's work
| Quote: | | Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. |
out trumps anything this minor professor, who has produced no important work during his entire tenure, has ever done. |
But, I presume, you personally have no hands on practical experiience of forensically examining the remains of WTC1 and 2 for explosives unlike professor Jones, have NIST actually examined for the explosives hypothesis and produced a negative result? if yes I suggest you take this data to Jimmy Walter at reopen911' and claim your prize PDQ! |
As explained above, that prize is unwinnable.
NIST considered the explosives possibility:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
| Quote: | | NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
Well if the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft it would have evened out the greater velocity of whatever hit the twin towers 9/11 making the three impacts comparable, also did the Empire State building in the early 40's have sprinklers and was firefighting as sophisicated efficient? |
On what basis do you conclude that "the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft"? Building techniques were not as sophisticated when it was built, so by comparison to WTC, it was a fortress. It had to be in order to attain such height. WTC was a masterful demonstration of elegance using innovative techniques. Ingenious engineering, not brute solidity, kept it standing.
Even if your assumption were true, though, you can't just say that it "evened out" the differing contributions of the planes' velocities. You're trying to make an apples to apples comparison that simply isn't there. The only similarity is that a plane hit a building. But "plane", "hit", and "building" all encompass innumerable varieties.
Last edited by chipmunk stew on Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
His hands on research has turned up nada. Zilch. Zip.
I suggest that the NIST team's work
| Quote: | | Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. |
out trumps anything this minor professor, who has produced no important work during his entire tenure, has ever done. |
But, I presume, you personally have no hands on practical experiience of forensically examining the remains of WTC1 and 2 for explosives unlike professor Jones, have NIST actually examined for the explosives hypothesis and produced a negative result? if yes I suggest you take this data to Jimmy Walter at reopen911' and claim your prize PDQ! |
As explained above, that prize is unwinnable.
NIST considered the explosives possibility:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
| Quote: | | NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. |
|
But you personally have not examined any of the remains that were not hastily shipped to China and smelted down? I understand NIST inform us that the phenomenon that had all the characteristics of a thermite/thermate reaction on the collapse side of the south tower was an aluminium/office furniture alloy giving it the characteristic thermite/ate orange volatility  five years and they are yet to conclude their report on WTC7 and I'm accused of stalling.What a bunch of shysters! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
Well if the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft it would have evened out the greater velocity of whatever hit the twin towers 9/11 making the three impacts comparable, also did the Empire State building in the early 40's have sprinklers and was firefighting as sophisicated efficient? |
On what basis do you conclude that "the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft"? Building techniques were not as sophisticated when it was built, so by comparison to WTC, it was a fortress. It had to be in order to attain such height. WTC was a masterful demonstration of elegance using innovative techniques. Ingenious engineering, not brute solidity, kept it standing.
Even if your assumption were true, though, you can't just say that it "evened out" the differing contributions of the planes' velocities. You're trying to make an apples to apples comparison that simply isn't there. The only similarity is that a plane hit a building. But "plane", "hit", and "building" all encompass innumerable varieties. |
When the Empire State building was built we only had canvas bi-plane kites to worry about! though I concede I don't know whether the architects calculated for progressively heavier, larger and faster aircraft impacts into their design. The fact remains ithe ESB was hit and penetrated by a WW2 bomber caught fire and remained standing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
Well if the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft it would have evened out the greater velocity of whatever hit the twin towers 9/11 making the three impacts comparable, also did the Empire State building in the early 40's have sprinklers and was firefighting as sophisicated efficient? |
On what basis do you conclude that "the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft"? Building techniques were not as sophisticated when it was built, so by comparison to WTC, it was a fortress. It had to be in order to attain such height. WTC was a masterful demonstration of elegance using innovative techniques. Ingenious engineering, not brute solidity, kept it standing.
Even if your assumption were true, though, you can't just say that it "evened out" the differing contributions of the planes' velocities. You're trying to make an apples to apples comparison that simply isn't there. The only similarity is that a plane hit a building. But "plane", "hit", and "building" all encompass innumerable varieties. |
When the Empire State building was built we only had canvas bi-plane kites to worry about! though I concede I don't know whether the architects calculated for progressively heavier, larger and faster aircraft impacts into their design. The fact remains ithe ESB was hit and penetrated by a WW2 bomber caught fire and remained standing. |
And the fact remains that this fact is irrelevant to what happened on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | see, there are many other factors? |
which are also significant, making a comparison useless. |
Well if the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft it would have evened out the greater velocity of whatever hit the twin towers 9/11 making the three impacts comparable, also did the Empire State building in the early 40's have sprinklers and was firefighting as sophisicated efficient? |
On what basis do you conclude that "the Empire State building was less structurally capable of withstanding the impact of heavy aircraft"? Building techniques were not as sophisticated when it was built, so by comparison to WTC, it was a fortress. It had to be in order to attain such height. WTC was a masterful demonstration of elegance using innovative techniques. Ingenious engineering, not brute solidity, kept it standing.
Even if your assumption were true, though, you can't just say that it "evened out" the differing contributions of the planes' velocities. You're trying to make an apples to apples comparison that simply isn't there. The only similarity is that a plane hit a building. But "plane", "hit", and "building" all encompass innumerable varieties. |
When the Empire State building was built we only had canvas bi-plane kites to worry about! though I concede I don't know whether the architects calculated for progressively heavier, larger and faster aircraft impacts into their design. The fact remains ithe ESB was hit and penetrated by a WW2 bomber caught fire and remained standing. |
And the fact remains that this fact is irrelevant to what happened on 9/11. |
No that's just your opinion, you don't have all the data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | It's hard to make a case for the hypothesis 'explosives used' when so much of the evidence was hastily disposed of (illegally?) |
Oh, good! I love a testable claim! Please tell us the specific law that was broken when the metal from ground zero was sold for scrap (after the relevant pieces were examined by engineers, of course).
| Quote: | | Are you qualified to counter professor Jones of Utah university? I suggest his hands on research out trumps your theorising. |
Just because someone has a "professor" in front of his name doesn't mean he's not an idiot. I would have more faith in Jones' work if it passed a peer review by people who are actually IN the field he was trying to comment upon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in my opinon all they have to do is reopen the investigastion into 9/11 if they want to stop the conspiracy's they need to question (why almost everyone i know) alot of people do not believe the original version, i suspect it is because the commission report leaves to many questions left unanswered, and also the lenghts they go to hide bits of evidence ie: the pentagon footage dose not clearly show a plane crashing into the building. also the fall of the towers is also another reason, some think that it is impossible a building can freefall like that. so i urge people and the u.s goverment just to reopen it, as it would put a lot of claims to rest. i really dont see the fuss if everyone is innocent and there was no inside job. it was a diasterous event which is why people want all information covered. but instead all i see is an attack on the very people who seek truth or a better investigation to explain everything left unanswered. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/semptember2006/070906terroristrec ruiters.htm so as i see it the american goverment should not attack the innocent but just reopen 9/11 investigastion to put conspiracy's to rest its that simple and a lot better that taking away freedom of speech. by attacking those that seek truth and making them into something evil only raises concerns over why you attack people for freedom of speech to shut them up. that is suspious in itself especially if their is nothing to hide. your atacking the very people who believe in truth, who believe in freedom. just reopen 9/11 investigastion cover all the doubts and everyone is happy and can move on. why this dose not happen concerns me. conspiracy theorists are people who dont agree, NOT terrorists recruiters. how far will it go? do we know have no right to voice concerns over our leaders running our countries when there is easily something you could do to rest the claims that you know your innocent for? reinvestigate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
