Bush Conspiracy Video - Page 3

On March 01 2006 15:47 matamata wrote:


I think I explained clearly why this is on the same level as the moon hoax. Just with a better presentation.

He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper.

On March 01 2006 16:39 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
I seem to remember going through this conversation once..

On March 01 2006 16:39 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
I seem to remember going through this conversation once..

On March 01 2006 16:25 Mynock wrote:
That "debunking" on that website is really something else.



This is supposedly said by "a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego". Now I don't know about US schools, but over here he couldn't possibly qualify as a janitor at our tech. uni, let alone enroll in one. In fact, if somebody tells you that burning rugs, curtain and furniture on less than 5% of the overall area of a state-of-the-art sky-scraper built with heat-resistant construction steel and concrete can cause it to come crashing down within 50 minutes... well send them strainght back to first grade for me, will you? That's... just pathetic. Normally I wouldn't ever expect *any* sane person on this planet to see it otherwise, but by now I know America and its people a lot better. One doesn't need to attend a single class of "strenght of materials", only use their common sense in case there is any.

You know what, instead of paying thousands of dollars to demolition engineers and technicians to do their work and make building demolitions as clean as possible (uncontrolled collapse of a building usually results in the structure leaning towards the point with the lower resistance, followed by a crack around 1/3 of it's height from the ground, which in current case would result in a couple city blocks left utterly destroyed), and just light a couple fires at a random floor, things will nicely take care of themselves within an hour or so, right? Just throw in a few rugs, maybe a roll of toilet paper, that oughtta do the trick.

On another occasion that site "disproves" evidence on photos by saying "sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look". I can't really comment on that, it makes a mind go blank.

However, I am not trying to prove something to you. I'm not even trying to tell you to use your heads. I already know it's futile. I've tried talking to creationists about evolution, it's exactly the same as mentioning 9/11 to the majority of Americans. Completely fruitless.

-Mynock

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

On March 01 2006 16:15 Servolisk wrote:


From your post I can't even gather for sure whether you've watched the video. You make a sound point about having to deal with large volumes of bullshit, and I agree with that very whole heartedly. For this video I don't know if it was applicable because I didn't watch it. I didn't read your link anyway because I don't want to deal with large volumes of anything on either side right now.

I wasn't specifically responding to your post. There were others who made the same comparisons but said nothing else except maybe 'lol'. I'm just saying it is wrong to categorically dismiss this subject matter. If a conspiracy ever did happen, or has happened, with that attitude you'd never believe it. It also begs to be taken advantage of.

People treated Operation Northwoods the same way. People who said anything about it were tin foil loonies until the Freedom of Information Act declassified it. Look at the wikipedia article about it for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

On March 01 2006 08:17 Sfydjklm wrote:

No shit.
Itll be uncovered right about the time when govt will finally admit that kennedy was assasinated by aliens.

On March 01 2006 17:57 Paragon wrote:
Quotes out of context

Facts used in ways that don't make sense to someone experienced

Idiots interviewed


- Dismissed =/

On March 01 2006 17:57 Paragon wrote:
Quotes out of context

Facts used in ways that don't make sense to someone experienced

Idiots interviewed


- Dismissed =/

On March 01 2006 10:28 DaN[SES] wrote:


And then Hot_Bid repeated the same joke 5 times, finding comfort in his ability to consistently impress an audience with an amazingly low threshold for wit! CRAZY!

On March 01 2006 15:09 matamata wrote:
The reason you're getting so few responses is the same reason people don't want to respond to "moon hoax OMG" or "EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!11". There is so much bullshit to debunk that it's tiring. The same type of erroneous "logic", selective evidence, absolutely bad science, and partial accusations that are projected to fact-like status are done again and again and again. Just a quick google search yields http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm Arguing anything so insubstantial is a waste of time.

On March 01 2006 19:16 distant_voice wrote:


what did you google? Googling up a random article that makes no sense at all about any topic is easy... what are you playing at?


btw of course the point of whether the fires were able to melt steel or not is adressed in the film. it presents the transcripts of firefighters that were on the same storey as the fire and devised a plan to put it out. apparently there was no flaming inferno as most of the kerosin exploded before the plane penetrated the WTC.

and there are no 'idiots' interviewed, in fact there are only about 3 interviews in the whole film.
1) the flight instructor who actually met one of the alleged suicide pilots. He didn't seem like an idiot to me, he didn't say too much, apart from that the person in question had average or below average piloting skills and that his english was poor.
2) the janitor from the WTC. Another eye-witness who confirmed what lots of other people had said earlier in the movie. He is more trustworthy though as he was closer to the action.
3) firefighters that were on duty when the planes had crashed into the WTC. why not trust them? everyone seems to hold these men in the highest regard.

and the "facts that don't make sense to someone experienced": who are you that you're so experienced in whatever field you're refering to? back up what you're saying or don't post at all...