| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spectre
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 56
Location: North West
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | Thankyou, state of grace, for the site showing what the controlled collapse of a tower looks like.
Some points worth noting:
1. The initial explosions did not cause squibs of dust to be ejected.
2. The huge cloud of dust occurring the collapse was clearly caused by
the collapse of the building: potential energy was converted to
kinetic energy, and that was sufficient to pulverise the material of which the tower was constructed.
3. The huge dust clouds from the collapse of the Twin Towers are not proof of the use of explosives. From the evidence of this video, huge clouds of dust resulting from pulverisation will occur whenever any tower collapses.
WTC |
Is this your explanation for what happened at WTC 1&2?  I hope I am reading you wrong.
It is utter rubbish to suggest potential energy turns to kinetic energy turns to pulverised skyscrapers! Where do you get that nonsense from? Seriously...? 
This is the best bit ... "the material of which the tower was constructed" ... just what do you presume this material to be? Some sort of solid crusty material that turns to fairy dust - or porcelain china perhaps?  Or some unknown uniform building material which is produced in a factory and every structure in the world is made from it? 
Why don't you consider what the actual building components were?  The towers were substantially constructed from mass steel central core columns and an elaborate bird-cage perimeter of lesser steel frames knitted together. The floors were reinforced concrete on top of steel formers on top of a lattice of steel trussed beams. This stuff does not get pulverised easily - certainly not the steel - and also not concrete either without some kind of thermo-dynamic reaction to break up the hugely compressively strong chunks of concrete that would be created by a collapse. Do you know anything about these tower's construction - or the way these materials behave in collapse mode?
Huge dust clouds are obviously caused by the destruction of materials - regardless of method. That point adds nothing of worth that I can see.
Go away and do some studying before posting here again on this topic please! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spectre
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 56
Location: North West
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| orestes wrote: | Hi Spectre. Thanks for your post. I just wanted to correct you on one point though. I don't believe it is wise to focus on the under ten seconds figure. I believe that in fact a case can be made visually that the time was around 14 seconds for at least one of the towers. As this doesn't alter anything of substance I think it is very wise to concede this, as you will get people calling you a liar or an idiot for calling them free fall speeds whan actually they may have fallen two or three seconds slower than actual free fall. Here the seismic events are recorded as 10 seconds for the south tower and 8 for the north.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
I alo like to push doubters to this website. If they can fault the argument here they are worth listening to. They never try. |
Thanks for that. I used to say 12 seconds and then I noticed more and more were saying 10. It just got lodged there somehow. As you point out the fractional discrepancy makes little difference. If I conservatively allowed say 1 second per floor allowing for resistence - but accepting the pan-cake view ... yeh, one second per floor wouldn't seem to rash would it? That would still take about 100+ seconds (nearly two minutes) for the whole building - or maybe half that - or maybe twice that - but 10/12/14 seconds? C'mon people! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
is
Minor Poster
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spectre wrote: | | 10/12/14 seconds? C'mon people! |
My thoughts exactly.
_________________
The truth about 9/11: Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spectre states:-
| Quote: | Is this your explanation for what happened at WTC 1&2? I hope I am reading you wrong.
It is utter rubbish to suggest potential energy turns to kinetic energy turns to pulverised skyscrapers! Where do you get that nonsense from? Seriously...?
This is the best bit ... "the material of which the tower was constructed" ... just what do you presume this material to be? Some sort of solid crusty material that turns to fairy dust - or porcelain china perhaps? Or some unknown uniform building material which is produced in a factory and every structure in the world is made from it?
Why don't you consider what the actual building components were? The towers were substantially constructed from mass steel central core columns and an elaborate bird-cage perimeter of lesser steel frames knitted together. The floors were reinforced concrete on top of steel formers on top of a lattice of steel trussed beams. This stuff does not get pulverised easily - certainly not the steel - and also not concrete either without some kind of thermo-dynamic reaction to break up the hugely compressively strong chunks of concrete that would be created by a collapse. Do you know anything about these tower's construction - or the way these materials behave in collapse mode?
Huge dust clouds are obviously caused by the destruction of materials - regardless of method. That point adds nothing of worth that I can see.
Go away and do some studying before posting here again on this topic please |
Thanx for that Spectre. I totally endorse that blog especially when it is written by a trained time served construction expert, re: an Architect.
These guys/gals doing some independent research/studying into 911, reading David Ray Griffins "The New Pearl Harbour" etc!!!!............not a chance, they've no intention of playing the ball, just those who dare question the official version and ask for the evidence/accountability.
Question is are these hostile messages on this civilised and reasoned debate 911 truth seeking website being funded by the public purse?
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Official story:
The World Trade centre collapse is the first time in history in which a steel reinforced structure has collapsed because of fire.
basic facts that I am sure we can all agree on...
1) Kerosene jet fuel isn't even half the temperature required to melt steel
2) The twin towers were designed to withstand a direct aeroplane impact.
3) fires in the towers were billowing black smoke, which means the fires were going out due to lack of oxygen.
4) Satellite photos taken of the site five week after 9/11 showed molten steel in the base of towers
The resulting dust is representative of a pyroclastic flow (just watch the stills from Mt St Helens and compare them to "911 Eye witness"). This can only be demonstrated using volcanoes or very high explosives.
Case closed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey writes:
| Quote: | Is this your explanation for what happened at WTC 1&2? I hope I am reading you wrong.
It is utter rubbish to suggest potential energy turns to kinetic energy turns to pulverised skyscrapers! Where do you get that nonsense from? Seriously...? |
I have seen a number of deliberate collapses of towers on TV. One hears the internal explosions. Then there follows a bottom-up collapse accompanied by huge clouds of dust as the building material is pulverised.
You seem so scornful of this, Pikey. So what's your explanation for the large clouds of dust when the tower in this video collapsed:
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.ht ml
CTS
Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Fri May 19, 2006 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations, State of Grace, for your post at 6.11pm on 18th May.
Yours and mine are, I believe, the only voices of reason on this site. I, too, am no supporter of George Bush and of US policies, but I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories unbelievable for all the reasons you give in your blast in the service of commonsense and credibility. I congratulate you on the effort you have put in to marshall your facts and to present such a cogent and trenchant demolishing of the 9/11 Truth movement.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orestes
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | Congratulations, State of Grace, for your post at 6.11pm on 18th May.
Yours and mine are, I believe, the only voices of reason on this site. I, too, am no supporter of George Bush and of US policies, but I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories unbelievable for all the reasons you give in your blast in the service of commonsense and credibility. I congratulate you on the effort you have put in to marshall your facts and to present such a cogent and trenchant demolishing of the 9/11 Truth movement.
CTS |
You have made precisely the same post on a different string. Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | Congratulations, State of Grace, for your post at 6.11pm on 18th May.
Yours and mine are, I believe, the only voices of reason on this site. I, too, am no supporter of George Bush and of US policies, but I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories unbelievable for all the reasons you give in your blast in the service of commonsense and credibility. I congratulate you on the effort you have put in to marshall your facts and to present such a cogent and trenchant demolishing of the 9/11 Truth movement.
CTS |
If you believe that youve got the largest ego on this site
What a laughable thing to say!
Which also pawns you version of "reason" as defending the preconceptions you held before you got here
Ive noticed you only pick up "weaker" areas in the responses you are making to others posts
Shows how "durable" your brand of reason is...
Still, if you want to "have faith" that either yourself or "statreofGrace" have so far "debunked" anything at all...well your self delusion is your own problem
In the meanwhile, the 911 ttruth movemnet is going from strength to strength as more and more people find that there are questions in real need of answering as opposed to whitewashing and circular "reasoning"
Still waiting for your info on "intelligence failures" that you claim to be concerned about: though I rather suspect you dont give a damn, in truth
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orestes write:
| Quote: | | You have made precisely the same post on a different string. Why? |
Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about.
I referred to Sog's post on another string.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John White writes:
| Quote: | Still waiting for your info on "intelligence failures" that you claim to be concerned about: though I rather suspect you dont give a damn, in truth
|
All I meant by "intelligence failures" was that the US intelligence services might have been able to find out that Islamic fundamentalists intended attacking the US on 9/11 but failed to do so.
Just as the British security services lost track of some of the suicide bombers before 7/7, and might have prevented 7/7 had they not done so.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well you dont mean much then do you?
Thats nothing else than saying "if people made different choices things would be different"
Does the whistleblowing and the testimony of US intelligence officers who say their investigations and warning about the hijackers were deliberately blocked and stonewalled not concern you at all?
How can explicit orders to "cease and desist" be simply c*** up and not (at least) potential indicators of "conspiracy"?
Doing nothing? Sure: Being ordered to do nothing?: Rather different story
One example? Coincidence/inference: Many examples?: serious concern
Of course, theres a thread waiting for you, Im sure youve seen it:
But heres a link to help you out:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1850
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
withdawn
Last edited by stateofgrace on Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, State of Grace,
Don't leave us. I'm not upset by your dumb and offensive characterisation of those who disagree with you. I don't mind if you cannot discern the difference between real evidence and dopey rubbish.
I read all af Greening's thesis. It was rather comical....the way some aluminium cladding instantaneously melted 47 massive steel central columns in WTC1 (and likewise WTC2) leaving the steel divided into neat 30 foot lengths.
But you are right...we're definitely not worth it....Not nearly stupid enough.
Here's a useful way for you to spend a couple of hours. what do you think of this lot?
http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/WMV/Webster_Tarpley_NYC.wmv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
withdawn
Last edited by stateofgrace on Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like State of Grace's "State of grace" was short lived
Though Id have to agree that some of the members here have been far to easily wound up by him
Still, its all a learning curve: and for that, I'd thank any skeptic for the practise (though we prefer ones that arnt so fragile and dont wear out so easily)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jane
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 312
Location: Otley, West Yorks, England
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan |
It is still, maybe in the eyes of most people, an "extraordinary claim" that 9/11 was an "inside job." People have asked me how on earth I could believe that members of the American government would do such a thing to "their own people" (a term I personlly dislike, as I feel that everyone is "our own people" including the people in Iraq and Iran). Unfortunately, the kind of people that ask me this are not the kind of people who take much notice of what is going on in Iraq (apart from "noticing" when American or British soldiers or civilians get killed or hurt), nor have they heard of PNAC and I find it very difficult to get them to hear me when I try to tell them. When I mention nuclear weapons I am again totally ignored, apart from comments such as "Oh they will blow us up, the world will end in a massive nuclear war and there is not a thing we can do about it".
These people do not "speak for earth." Maybe there is some form of "telepathy" by which someone can communicate their message to others, even after their own death. I first started to wake up to what really goes on in the world and the direction we are currently rapidly heading in about eight years ago. One of the things that shocked me into this realisation was being in a record shop one day and feeling an overwealming compulsion to buy a video of several of the Carl Sagan episodes of his "Cosmos" series entitled "Who will speak for Earth?"
Having watched it many times, I can't of course say what Carl Sagan would have said about 9/11, but I'm pretty clear about what he would have thought of the gang of criminals currently in charge of things and where they are taking us all unless something radical happens to change our direction. A substantial amount of the "sleeping masses" need to wake up, or at least start to be lead by decent and loving leaders. I wonder why in the same way I "knew" I had to buy that video I also "knew" that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
| Quote: | We have heard the rationales offered by the superpowers. We know who speaks for the nations; but who speaks for the human species? Who speaks for earth?
From an extraterrestrial perspective, our global civilization is clearly on the edge of failure and the most important task it faces is preserving the lives and well-being of its citizens and the future habitability of the planet. If we are willing to live with the growing likelihood of nuclear war, shouldn't we also be willing to explore vigorously every possible means to prevent nuclear war? Shouldn't we consider in every nation major changes in the traditional ways of doing things, a fundamental restructuring of economic, political, social and religious institutions? We have reached a point where there can be no more special interests or special cases. Nuclear arms threaten every person on the earth. |
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_cosmos_who_speaks_for_ea rth.html
Maybe the part of me that "knows" 9/11 was an "inside job" is the same part of me that "knows" that these buggers mentioned below certainly don't....
| Quote: | Nuclear Weapons and the "War on Terrorism"
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by so-called "rogue states."
Spelled out in the 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. In the wake of September 11, 2001, the nuclear option is intimately related to the "war on terrorism."
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists", both of which are said to possess weapons of mass destruction:
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )
This "anticipatory action" under the NSS includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which are now classified as in theater weapons alongside conventional weapons.
Nuclear weapons are presented as performing defensive functions to be used against so-called "rogue states" and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda,
The propaganda ploy emanating from the CIA and the Pentagon consists in presenting Al Qaeda as capable of developing a nuclear device. According to a report entitled "Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects" by the CIA's Intelligence Directorate (released 2 months prior to the August 2003 "Hiroshima day" meeting in Nebraska):
"Al Qaeda's goal is the use of [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons] to cause mass casualties,…
[Islamist extremists] "have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to choose from for chemical, biological and radiological or nuclear (CBRN) attacks," said the four-page report titled " (quoted in the Washington Times, 3 June 2003)
Amply documented, the "war on terrorism" is fabricated.
The nuclear threat emanating from Al Qaeda is also fabricated, with a view to justifying Washington’s pre-emptive nuclear policy. Needless to say, the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks have served to galvanize public opinion, particularly in the US, in support of the pre-emptive war doctrine.
While the media has its eyes riveted on Islamic terrorists and Al Qaeda, the threats to global security resulting from Washington’s pre-emptive nuclear doctrine are barely mentioned. Deafening Silence: the August 6 2003 "Hiroshima Day" meeting in Nebraska was not covered by the mainstream media.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, the "war on terrorism" constitutes a cover-up of the broader objectives underlying US military and economic expansionism. The central objective is to eventually destabilize Russia and China |
(from The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism"
by Michel Chossudovsky)
_________________
Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
http://www.wytruth.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stateofgrace and CTS - can I suggest you join your local Golf clubs and spend all your time there telling the members how stupid they are to play golf and should instead be fishing? Its a bit of a waste of your time of course but it will get you the attention your egos clearly crave. You could tell the golfers who get irritated with you that it is just their egos not their commitment to their sport. Imagine the focus and attention you would get!!! Your egos would be soaring!! You might even get a golfer to give up golf and take up fishing instead!!!! Yay - think about it. You wouldn't have to give any valid reason why fishing is better than golf or listen to the golfers saying they have a different view and that is why they joined a golf club. Just spout nonsense. Insist that fishing is better than golf and that golfers are stupid people who have reached the wrong conclusion. I mean wtf - why should you join a fishing club - there is no attention for you there. Get yer tackle out and get on the links!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
