September 11 - A conspiracy :: with poll

[Gladstone]

So they purposefully did not keep track of their surroundings...? Since you didn't experience a typo, I'm unsure of what you meant to say... so, please, don't get offended if you meant to say something else (since you seem to be trying to indicate something other than what you literally said).

Anyways, here's an interesting article I read ->
The Twin Towers' Demolition
The guy who made that picks apart each of the theories our Government has offered, and seems very knowledgeable of engineering concepts (I trust he is, as I have an older brother getting his Masters in engineering, and he finds the article interesting, as well; engineering runs in my family, almost every uncle, my dad, and brothers have gone through college with a Bachelor's, bare minimum, in engineering; ranging from Civil, to Nuclear, to Electrical, and so forth).

You know you've already lost when you resort to calling people out on their typos. Unless you honestly couldn't tell from the context that he meant "definitely", in which case.. Well...

Also that link is less than convincing, most of its claims have already been discussed in this thread and I find the whole thing to be little more than sophistry, ignoring fundemental issues such as the lack of actual explosions and the practical difficulties associated with planting them.

As far as I'm concerned, the top portion of the WTC can be treated as a seperate building for the perpose of argument, and the plane slammed into the base of this 'building' with a significant amount of force along with a gigantic explosion, thus causing it to topple into the lower portion on which it was based (see picture in post 199). When you watch a video of the collapse it is obvious that the driving force is coming from above. That's because the equivelent of a large building was basically dropped ontop of the tower.


A couple of things:

None of the features of 700-degrees-plus-Celsius fires were observed, which are [that] the steel would glow red-hot

Don't some people like to use pictures of glownig steel as proof of a demolition?

Now even if somehow those fires could have been as hot as Bazant and Zhou would like for their column failure theory, they still could not level the towers, because the towers had 287 columns which would all have to be weakened to the point of collapse at the same instant to cause the vertical telescoping that we saw in the North Tower or even the South Tower. Asymmetric damage doesn't produce such a symmetric result. Some of the columns would get hotter before others and the tower would topple; it wouldn't collapse into itself. Earthquakes are the only natural cause, so to speak, that can cause that kind of simultaneous damage.

This has been discussed in post 199. These claims are ridiculous given the photographs of the upper portion 'toppling' as described.

[Netrogor]

You know you've already lost when you resort to calling people out on their typos. Unless you honestly couldn't tell from the context that he meant "definitely", in which case.. Well...
Wow, juvenile much? I directly said he had not experienced a typo, and asked him to tell me what he meant to say since I wasn't sure, nor am I now. You aren't him, but if he meant to say "definitely", then good for him. If petty behavior, in your opinion, shows somebody has already lost their argument... well... where does that place you, for attacking me the way you just did?

Also that link is less than convincing, most of its claims have already been discussed in this thread and I find the whole thing to be little more than sophistry, ignoring fundemental issues such as the lack of actual explosions and the practical difficulties associated with planting them.
That's why I previously mentioned the 1993 WTC Bombing. That was an opportunity to do anything they desired (the Government, that is) to the structure of the WTC Towers.

As far as I'm concerned, the top portion of the WTC can be treated as a seperate building for the perpose of argument, and the plane slammed into the base of this 'building' thus causing it to topple into the lower portion on which it was based (see picture in post 199). When you watch a video of the collapse it is obvious that the driving force is coming from above. That's because the equivelent of a large building was basically dropped ontop of the tower.
Are you kidding me? You are considering it a separate building...? Okay, get some sleep, then come back.

A couple of things:


Don't some people like to use pictures of glownig steel as proof of a demolition?



This has been discussed in post 199. These claims are ridiculous given the photographs of the upper portion 'toppling' as described.
I found the article interesting because of his way of breaking apart the arguments made by others. Such as how he mentions the less than optimal condition for the fire to take place, and how the smoke was a sign that it was oxygen starved (that anybody who's gone camping knows), making it even more unlikely that it could have burned (via jet-fuel) beyond a few hundred degrees Celsius... in which case, the steel hadn't even lost one percent of its strength.

You are under the assumption that your view is ultimately correct, no matter what, and everybody else is wrong. Don't work by that assumption, it isn't healthy. Discounting an argument because of your feelings will change this from a debate thread to a "Politically Correct Views" thread.

[Gladstone]

Netroger it is no wonder that several people in this thread have resorted to flaming you by the end of their stays here. Whenever somebody responds to you, you do little more than claim they "assume everyone else is wrong" or accuse them of being "juvenile". In a debate forum of all places, it's ridiculous and infuriating.

Are you kidding me? You are considering it a separate building...? Okay, get some sleep, then come back.

If you dismiss an entire argument because you cannot accept a very basic figurative concept introduced for the sake of simplifying the explanation of the argument, then frankly you shouldn't be involved here.

I found the article interesting because of his way of breaking apart the arguments made by others. Such as how he mentions the less than optimal condition for the fire to take place, and how the smoke was a sign that it was oxygen starved (that anybody who's gone camping knows), making it even more unlikely that it could have burned (via jet-fuel) beyond a few hundred degrees Celsius... in which case, the steel hadn't even lost one percent of its strength.

As you can see, black smoke is exclusive to oxygen starved fires.

Sarcasm, by the way.

I suggest you read this:

Where does black smoke come from? - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine

The type of fuel and how hot it's burning. In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke.

[Tyi-RoX]

Woow took me a long time to read that Page very good Arguments, it's changed my theory Dramatically on the calculations
Im now agreeing with the "how the toweres colapsed?"
Im about to watch, the footage recorded of the tv of them collapsing i wanna see what it's like i cant remember

[Netrogor]

Netroger it is no wonder that several people in this thread have resorted to flaming you by the end of their stays here. Whenever somebody responds to you, you do little more than claim they "assume everyone else is wrong" or accuse them of being "juvenile". In a debate forum of all places, it's ridiculous and infuriating.

If you dismiss an entire argument because you cannot accept a very basic figurative concept introduced for the sake of simplifying the explanation of the argument, then frankly you shouldn't be involved here.



As you can see, black smoke is exclusive to oxygen starved fires.

Sarcasm, by the way.

I suggest you read this:

Where does black smoke come from? - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine

- If people must resort to name calling and childish antics, then, naturally, I will ask them to either get some rest, and come back later... or inform them that they are being juvenile by resorting to name calling. It wasn't only me who was being flamed by people in this thread (and those people were banned, mind you (Peart, for example)).
And when you tell me I can't use an argument because you have already decided it is wrong... what do you think you have just done? "I'm right because I say so, you're wrong because I say so," rings a fine note in my head.

- I was making an exaggerated point that you cannot assume the top portion of the North Tower, for example, was separate, as a building and an entity, from the lower portion, as they were one structure. Reality tells us that. Making fiction to support your argument is not juvenile; it is borderline deranged, actually, but lets not get into that, no need for me, or you, to pass judgment on others...

- Did I say it was exclusive to oxygen deprived fires? No? I didn't? Wonderful. Stop putting words into my mouth, as you have been doing thus far, "Gladstone". Just as Giz was told not to put words into V's mouth, and to stop disrespecting him, that rule applies to you and myself, too. Saying it is a symptom of oxygen deprived fires, and that I have an interest in that article and the questions posed by it, are entirely two entirely different things from saying "It is exclusive to oxygen deprived fires" and "That article is fact, LAWLERCAEKZ!".

So, please, stop being so rude, placing words into my mouth, and disrespecting me. This is a section of the forums meant to see different opinions, beliefs, and debates... not to find one absolute answer to everything, and discard other possible answers.

[Gladstone]

- If people must resort to name calling and childish antics, then, naturally, I will ask them to either get some rest, and come back later... or inform them that they are being juvenile by resorting to name calling. It wasn't only me who was being flamed by people in this thread (and those people were banned, mind you (Peart, for example)).
And when you tell me I can't use an argument because you have already decided it is wrong... what do you think you have just done? "I'm right because I say so, you're wrong because I say so," rings a fine note in my head.

All you are doing by calling people out on their minor gibes is stoking the flames - provoking them. And I think you know this.

- I was making an exaggerated point that you cannot assume the top portion of the North Tower, for example, was separate, as a building and an entity, from the lower portion, as they were one structure. Reality tells us that. Making fiction to support your argument is not juvenile; it is borderline deranged, actually, but lets not get into that, no need for me, or you, to pass judgment on others...

No, you were looking for excuses to dismiss my point by refusing to understand an extremely simple and valid figurative concept. My point was an obvious one, and still stands fine on its own. It's just that you don't have a real answer.

- Did I say it was exclusive to oxygen deprived fires? No? I didn't? Wonderful. Stop putting words into my mouth, as you have been doing thus far, "Gladstone". Just as Giz was told not to put words into somebody's mouth, or to disrespect them, that rule applies to you and myself, too. Saying it is a symptom of oxygen deprived fires, and that I have an interest in that article and the questions posed by it, are entirely two entirely different things from saying "It is exclusive to oxygen deprived fires" and "That article is fact, LAWLERCAEKZ!".

You're right, it was wrong of me to try and debunk the claims that you put forward. It's not like this is a debate forum or anything.

So, please, stop being so rude, placing words into my mouth, and disrespecting me. This is a section of the forums meant to see different opinions, beliefs, and debates... not to find one absolute answer to everything, and discard other possible answers.

Hypocrite.

[Tyi-RoX]

[youtubevid]J0Qu6eyyr4c[/youtubevid]

On this video listen closly around 2 mins
[youtubevid]8n-nT-luFIw[/youtubevid]

[youtubevid]cddIgb1nGJ8[/youtubevid]
Must watch that ^^

[youtubevid]rLdAViw4q9w[/youtubevid]

[youtubevid]8RuwffqDxQY[/youtubevid]

They were just some the vids i watched take alook all very interesting

[Netrogor]

All you are doing by calling people out on their minor gibes is stoking the flames - provoking them. And I think you know this.
Admitting to flaming, 'aye? If asking you to stop flaming, to stop being rude & disrespecting people, makes you feel a stronger desire to flame & be rude... then maybe... just maybe... you shouldn't be here?

No, you were looking for excuses to dismiss my point by refusing to understand an extremely simple and valid figurative concept. My point was an obvious one, and still stands fine on its own. It's just that you don't have a real answer.
I refuse to acknowledge that one tower was actually two towers, one stacked on top of the other.

You're right, it was wrong of me to try and debunk the claims that you put forward. It's not like this is a debate forum or anything.
You didn't even debunk them. You simply said I was wrong and that I couldn't use my argument on that basis that it was used by somebody else.

Hypocrite.
How so?

1- Stop being rude. There are rules on the forums that tell you not to be rude, disrespect others, or outright flame.
2- See the blueprints -> 9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints
3- See the second quote of you.
4- Further explain how I am a hypocrite, in your opinion.

You know you've already lost when you resort to calling people out on their typos. Unless you honestly couldn't tell from the context that he meant "definitely", in which case.. Well...

Also that link is less than convincing, most of its claims have already been discussed in this thread and I find the whole thing to be little more than sophistry, ignoring fundemental issues such as the lack of actual explosions and the practical difficulties associated with planting them.

John Kerry: Building 7 Was Deliberately Demolished
Popular politicians are even doubtful about the official story concerning 911.

[Gladstone]

I refuse to acknowledge that one tower was actually two towers, one stacked on top of the other.

I only said that to streamline my explanation. If you cannot see that then you are beyond help. Such a basic concept, too.

You didn't even debunk them. You simply said I was wrong and that I couldn't use my argument on that basis that it was used by somebody else.

Another reason people flame you. You do not accept or even acknowledge evidence when it is given. Simply infuriating.

1- Stop being rude. There are rules on the forums that tell you not to be rude, disrespect others, or outright flame.
2- See the blueprints -> 9-11 Research: Tower Blueprints
3- See the second quote of you.
4- Further explain how I am a hypocrite, in your opinion.

1. Indeed, you should take note.
2. I cannot read blueprints.
3. Okay?
4. Sure:

Putting words in people mouths:
"Admitting to flaming, 'aye?"

Being rude:
"borderline deranged"

Discarding arguments:
"I refuse to acknowledge that one tower was actually two towers, one stacked on top of the other."

Being disrespectful:
"Okay, get some sleep, then come back."

Popular politicians are even doubtful about the official story concerning 911.

But most aren't, so I win?

[Konrow]

Alright, could i please remind you all that this is aiming to be an intelligent debate. That would that you have to stop with all these personal attacks. I mean it, or infractions will have to be given out.

[Tyi-RoX]

Alright, could i please remind you all that this is aiming to be an intelligent debate. That would that you have to stop with all these personal attacks. I mean it, or infractions will have to be given out.

Sorry people just getting into a "heated" debate now
Did any one watch them vid's i posted i wanna hear some comments on the Simulation ones

[Konrow]

Alright, shut up with the personal attacks right now. If you are going to debate about how much one of you is flaming the other, go on MSN and argue there. This is a debate, not a petty argument. Last and FINAL warning.

PS: deleted your posts. I don't care if there was anything actually relevant to the discussion in there. If you want to put a point across, learn to do so respectfully.

[Netrogor]

The conspiracy theorists who suspected the Government of Project MKULTRA were considered minorities, and whackjobs. They were right, though, and the Government was, in-fact, attempting a mind-control program on the population.

The conspiracy theorists who suspected the Government of Project Chaos were considered minorities, and whackjobs. They were right, though, and the Government was, in-fact, attempting to survey, document, scare, and discredit political dissidents.

A minority, am I? Hoho -> Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy | ScrippsNews
Fifty-four percent, of the overall one-hundred percent, of Americans feel great anger towards the Government, not the supposed "terrorists", over 911. Thirty-six percent, of the overall one-hundred percent, feel the Government was responsible. The remaining Forty-six percent, of the overall one-hundred percent, either don't care or are going with the "politically correct" version. If anything, you are a minority.

Even if I was a minority, though, as I stated above, with Project MKULTRA and Project CHAOS, that wouldn't necessarily make me wrong, by default, as some would suggest.

Albert Einstein was a minority, of only a single person, too. Did you know that? Read a biography on him. Nobody believed anything he said in 1905, but now he's honored as one of the greatest mathematicians ever.
Albert Einstein: Biography and Much More from Answers.com

EDIT:
Changed "thirty-four" to "thirty-six". I did misquote that article. Just, not in a way that discredited my current arguments.

[Gladstone]

Since when was a third a majority? And in case you forgot, you're the one who brought up minority/majority. But now you're saying it doesn't matter anyway so I guess you just wasted both our time.

Perhaps you'd like to have a crack at my arguments now?

[Netrogor]

9/11 Skeptics gain strength Critics in the USA doubt the official version Skunks’s Weblog
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll - A New Generation of Conspiracy Theorists are at Work on the Secret History of 9/11 -- New York Magazine
Some more interesting articles, which do more to pose interesting questions, than to declare new theories which they feel are right.

@ Gladstone
Already had that in my previous posts. In-case you didn't notice, Konrow deleted both of our posts, and I edited the one discussing minorities down to half of its original size, rapidly removing anything that addressed you, as-per his orders. It doesn't concern me if you want to continue flame-baiting, since I'm going back to the purpose of this thread: discussing alternative and mainstream theories of 911.

By the way... it was actually you who started up on the minority business.

But most aren't, so I win?

But, as per Konrow telling us to stop picking at each other, lets not get into this... please. We are supposed to be discussing the 911 theories, not picking apart each other's posts and finding out who did what, when, why, etc.