|
Canada5062 Posts
On September 05 2003 07:26 iGgs wrote: Show nested quote +On September 05 2003 06:05 mensrea wrote: On September 05 2003 04:20 iGgs wrote: On September 05 2003 00:05 doctorerotica wrote:
Tech, you are probably one of the most idiotic and biased people I have ever heard. Not one time in your rambling incoherence that is based solely on personal beliefs and skewed information did you mention Mr. Clinton, who I'm sure you really worship. 'Slick Willy', as he can be fittingly called, WAS GIVEN BIN LADEN IN 1995 BY IRAQ AND HE DID NOT TAKE HIM. BUSH WAS NOT GIVEN BIN LADEN. You are a blatant liar looking to start a fight or a ''bush-bash''. It's too bad that idiot who wrote that article wont identify himself so he can be subpoena'd for libel and dealt with accordingly. You also fail to mention Mr. Clinton's most horrific moment of his presidency, and it has something to do with a Chinese scientist. Do you know of the name Wen Ho Lee? He was a californian nuclear scientist WHO STOLE 150 FLOPPY DISKS OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND DESIGN AND SOLD THEM TO CHINA. HE WAS ARRESTED AND SENTENCED FOR THIS ACT, BUT GUESS WHO PARDONED HIM? MR. CLINTON. PARDONED..PARDONED....PARDONED....PARDONED..this may sound a little harsh, but when we do get attacked by china, we can indirectly shift that blame over to MR. Clinton and his rampant, ignorant pardoning. I just hope idiot propogandists such as yourself who are in essence worse than tree hugging anti american hippies that lived in the vietnam era are taken along with the blast that is sure to claim many innocents. people like you are the reason this country is falling apart. and one more thing, if i ever saw you in real life, I would beat the shit out of you regardless where we were at. good post, really. a little more vulgar than psylo tends to be but at least you sound like you know what you're talking about  I hope you're not being serious. mensrea, this guy actually tried to make a valid point with factual evidence, as opposed to psylo who you can tell by just the way he posts he's not that smart. even though this guy came off a little vulgar and didnt post in the manner which most of the things on here are urged to be presented, i dont think he is dumb. how can you deny "people like you are the reason this country is falling apart." i think you were looking at the offensive nature of that sentence rather than its actual content which cannot be disputed by anyone in their right senses If you dont support the decisions this government makes, run for president or get elected to congress and do a better job. At least get off your ass and attempt at making a difference SOMEHOW rather than accumulating 19 pages of forum posts, the least psylo could do is write a summary which has been inquired several times by several users. He's obviously lazy and basing his arguements off of opinionated opinions and unsubstatial evidence and dubious sources. While that might sound a little capricious and unsensible, you cannot deny that the US government playing a role in 9/11 does as well
I won't comment on Psylo's claims - other than that he's impressed me with his sheer energy in researching so many sources.
And, as you've just now pointed out, the problem I have with drerotica's post is that last bit where he threatens Psylo. That was his very first post here. Is there any doubt he'll get even worse?
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with zit-faced snots like him who believe it's ok to underscore a point with the threat of violence.
And so should you, if you have any sense.
|
psylo why don't you spend your time on something more important, like the KENNEDY ASSASSINATION! we can discuss every which way every bullet came in and out of his head, sounds like fun.
|
if u wish i can, for i beleive there was govenment involvment, but that is another thread. if the discussion comes up, we can discuss martin luther king while were at.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 05 2003 07:39 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +bro the fucking building is falling down. Psylo are you an engineer? ARE YOU AN ENGINEER? you said the way the building fell looked questionable, what do you base that off of? Your extensive history of observing 100 story buildings fall? it looks questionable? wtf i simply dont understand how you're basing this off of an opinion since you're obviously not an expert, what may have looked suspicious to you may look normal to me taking into account that we both know practically nothing about the dynamics of buildings collapsing drop a ball, and watch it fall. roll it off the table, and watch it fall. not an expert? i have spent my entire life observing the effects of gravity, i dont need to be and engineer to predict the path of an object falling, if i have already seen the path begin. read newtons laws plz... ever heard of an apple falling from a tree? your a moron... Show nested quote +Psylo I have not read any of your posts in this thread (well no one's except mensrea's really!) and I must commend you on your effort in this discussion.
If only I cared as much as you did :O
thank you  its easy not to care when u dont see the effects in your daily life.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pegrav.html#pe
Potential energy is energy which results from position or configuration. An object may have the capacity for doing work as a result of its position in a gravitational field (gravitational potential energy), an electric field (electric potential energy), or a magnetic field (magnetic potential energy). It may have elastic potential energy as a result of a stretched spring or other elastic deformation.
so it IS possible that durring the procession of the collapse, due to some type of configuration the tower was positioned in, that it fell in an awkward manner, gj.
oh and its you're a moron, not your a moron
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
Me: Psylo is so lazy he wont even provide a summary
Psylo: i already did provide a summary moron , in the first post!
Me: Of your points in this thead, not of 9/11 *bashes own face in*
|
Potential energy is energy which results from position or configuration. An object may have the capacity for doing work as a result of its position in a gravitational field (gravitational potential energy), an electric field (electric potential energy), or a magnetic field (magnetic potential energy). It may have elastic potential energy as a result of a stretched spring or other elastic deformation.
so it IS possible that durring the procession of the collapse, due to some type of configuration the tower was positioned in, that it fell in an awkward manner, gj.
"some type of configuration" ? explain to me how anything but gravitational energy would apply to a building falling, unless maybe there was something eles involved? but anyway.. i think maybe u misunderstand the concept of potential energy. potential energy only has physical relevance, if there is a change in potential energy. becuase the WTC was obviously moving, the change in potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. the potential energy would decrease(weight times a decreasing heigth), and kinetic would increase, ultimetly maintaining a constant total energy. a potential energy, is energy a stationary object has. as soon as freefall occurs, the potential energy decreases to nothing. so.. you have no idea what u are talking about. the building did not just fall in an awkard manner, the building changed flight paths, mid flight. this has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy.
i shall remind u of newtons first law:
"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
the WTC falling could not have changed direction, without another force.
did i not say that the world trade center collapse was irrelevant to my point?
|
Potential energy only exist wen a object has a alltitude. For instance if we assume that the horizon as the starting place(where we count from 0) then if there s a piece of paper lays on the ground it does hold any potential engergy unless we take the thickness into consideration, like Tech mentioned above to make this paper move, its potential engergy would have 2 cchange into kinetic to support its own needs of moving. lets bak to the WTC. it has a alltitude then it would have the possibility of falling, there 1 knows that the Newton 3rd law simplly explians that if there s a force it would have another force to balance it off, thats why wen u hit ya head to the wall n u feel pain, becos as u hit the wall u give off certain amount of enrgy(becareful dont come n cry me a river says u hit to hard;p)
u feel hurt cos the wall give to the eaxcaly force back to your. Anyway, we back the WTC falls matter, it doesnt fall simply cos there is another force s hold it which is th gravity, the gravity of a building would affcet by the altitude and the foundation of the building. WTC had been standing there for many yrs itdidnt fall b4 9/11 s becos the gravioty rite balance it out unless u damage the foundation. ANYWAY to make a building collapse it would get to do with the foundation. without the foundation it cant not support itself and falls. and WTF u ppl think that the WTC FALLS ITSELF? lol gw
|
So in short, no matter how badly u damage the the top or the middle even the bottom WTC wouldnt fall unless u TOUCH THE FOUNDATION WHICH IS likr 8973983 metres under the horizon
|
also if sum plant a bomb which would dmg seriously dmg the foundation then the WTC would have collapsed like butter
|
On September 01 2003 01:44 [pG]Rekrul wrote:
You already passed him in stupidity.
cool!, another smart one-liner from rekrul!
keep it up genius 
|
i dunno and i dont really care but is it possible to imagine that the planes damaged the electric system inside the building, maybe another system (gas, water, don't fucking know) and that the collapse is just a parallel consequence of 1. a fucking plane full of kerosene which just CRASHED in the building and of course EXPLODED 2. an entire electric system which could have increase the damages, possibly EXPLODED too 3. what else does God (or Buddha, or Satan) know ? And is it unreasonable to figure out that those explosions could easily occur and change the way the building fell down ? I mean, it's really hard to suppose that a bomb was planted prior to the crashes in each building, moreover if many explosions (to destroy buildings like Twin Towers, how many tons of TNT?) occurred on the ground, i dont think that the buildings would have collapse in the way 5 billions people saw...Have you ever seen buildings destroyed from the ground ? NOTHING TO SEE WITH TWIN TOWERS...
Bombs on the 50th or 100th floor ? Sure, and they brought tons of TNT that easily in WTC ? (i guess it was really well-guarded, such sacralized commercial places)
|
On September 05 2003 06:44 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
i think this shows something abuot our intelligene community, something that may very well be partitially to blame for 9-11, in which goes back to my point, that the US could have prevented it. the intelligence community lets known spies, terrorists, etc, travel about our country at will. this is in hopes of finding out more information from them, but obviously, they arnt analyzing the information correctly in the first place, or we would not be having this debate.
And Hitler knew about D-Day, but he similarly did not act. Are you implying that Hitler wanted to lose the war? Fact is, at the time these terrorists were under surveillance, so were others. Lots of suspicious people in this country, you know. I'd warrant there were others under even closer inspection. And yeah, I do agree, there needs to be some kind of reform; but that doesn't say the government is deliberately, knowingly allowing these people to commit mass murder.
Show nested quote +Ok, first of all, let me say something, and this goes for a lot of people - Just because the Constitution says so does not make it right (I am not defending imperialism, I'm just making a point). People tell me my beliefs in God and following the laws of my religion is stupid, when they themselves hold the Constitution on the very same pedastal. But this would digress into a relativism/aboslutism argument again, and although I am certainly ready to be in one, lets stay on track.
You seem to be greatly misinterpreting the PNAC's Statement of Principles - by "global" or "world leadership", they mean by example; not as some sort of dictorial force driving the rest of the world. Let's face it: an injustice is an injustice whether it is committed in the United States, Taiwan, Russia, France, or anywhere! im not sure what your first point is. but let me say that weather or not the constitution is right is irrelevant. that is our law, and the government should abide by it, especially considering how much of the constitution is dedicated to limiting the power of the government. i doubt that u would support not abiding by it, considering your posts in other threads about how situational ethics is the down fall of the country. if u support abiding by it, i dont understand your point.
Right and wrong are never irrelevant. Humans are fallible, and hence a law made by humans is similarly fallible. My point is that just because the Constitution says this or that, it does not mean that it is right, or that it should be followed. Now I am not saying that you follow your own personal, relativistic, subjective, situational desires. If you agree with this, lets continue the debate as normal. If not, then I'm afraid I'll have to explain myself further.
i have not attempted to mis represent the PNAC. i do not think that they are trying to take over the world, or are some sort of savage beasts. but they are extreme neo conservatives with an agenda, that i think is clearly against the original ideas of the constitution, and is ultimetly not good for our country. the question is, how far will the members of the PNAC go to achieve there agenda? that is really at the heart of the debate. i think that given historical facts about our government, and others, that it is not unrealistic, or even extreme, to consider members in the government hurting, and decieving its own people. i think by the time i finish my explanation(have been stalling due to consitant nights of 3 hours of sleep-work late/daughter just started school at 7:45 ) it will atleast seam reasonable to accept my explanation as a possability. once this is the case, it is only reasonable to further question what happened, and what the governments motives are, which is exactly what i have been trying to do for the past 2 years. and your right an injustice is an injustice, and if that occurs right here in the US, it needs to be dealt with, rather than ignored by the media and the entire populace.
I agree; it is possible that members of our government, in the past, have deceived the people. However, you're generalizing the whole according to a minority. Just consider how many people have been involved in the government in the past 200 years. Was the war of 1812 incited by America, too? What about the Civil War? World War I? Fact of the matter is, if you dig deep enough into any particular military action taken by the U.S., you can find something that says, "This was wanted by the U.S.!" but you could just as easily say, "Hitler wanted to lose the war!"
Show nested quote +Was it just me, or didn't you point out our raise in military spending? Our capabilities are significantly advanced in the last 5 years. Scott Ritter himself, one of the people you are using as a source, stated that "within months" Iraq could reestablish biological and chemical weapons production facilities, back in 1998. Maybe the world isn't significantly different, but the Iraq situation is; I don't have the resources to hand (yet), but I will find the archived news articles of the US finding potential, although cleaned, facilities which may have been used to produce CW/BW are capabilites have advanced, that is undeniable. but i was refering to the relationship we have to the middle east, and the level of terrorism that is in the world. bush attempts to create the impression that after 9-11, there is a "its a hole new world out there", as if terrorism did not exists before. becuase of this "new" threat in the world, we have to embark on his "crusade"(god he is an idiot) to expand our military power and engage in pre-emptive strikes(bush dotrine). he is selling his idealogical vision of what our country should do in order to secure our super power status(national security as he calls it) by creating false impressions in the media, when in fact, like is said, its the same world..
First of all, if you read enough about the Crusades you will learn that they were started as a defensive war. The Muslims were atttacking Constantinople. This was during that 600 year period where they sought to, you know, force everyone to become Islamic or die. Please, as someone who has done so much research regarding 9/11, I would trust you to delve deeper than your high-school text book.
Maybe a "whole new world" isn't the best of terms, but you have to concede a change. You have to further concede that so long as Bush is in office, that there will continue to be changes made.
your iraq/al queda link is intersting, and i will look into it more. but just off hand, i would like to point out that the article admits to a disagreement within the cia, in which this article only discusses one aspect. secondly, and probably most importantly, the source of information about the supposed 100 visits, came from the Iraq National Congess. this is a very conversial group, in which i will collect links aboubt, and discuss tomorrow, but by no means are they reliable. this weekend i will look into this more.
I regret not yet having the opportunity to cross-reference the Iraq-al Qaida information, but I will get to doing so sometime in the near future.
However, there is one thought, and following that, one question I would like to end this post with:
First, the WTC were not built to withstand a plane larger than a 707* colliding with them. Secondly, if this were as controlled as you claim, then why would the government not maximalize casualities and further incite the people? Why would they bring the buildings straight down, instead of into others?
*EDIT: 707, not 737 as I had originally posted
707 = 263,000 lbs / 180+ mph
767 = 274,000 lbs / 470-590 mph (used in WTC attacks)
|
On September 05 2003 07:13 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +They melted the steel up at the top about 20 stories from the top and once the steel is melted.. You have 20 stories of steel and concrete above you which isn't going to be held up by liquid steel. So the top 20 stories crashed downward onto the 80th or so story which couldn't take the impact so that crashed down onto the 79th. 79th fell on the 78th. 78th fell on the 77th etc. Causing it to come straight down. If the building had fell down at the time of impact, perhaps it would have fell down tilted. this was what i initiailly thuoght aswell, until i watched video, of the collapse. the top of the one of the towers, started to fall to the side. it was substantially tilted, and was headed on a path, in which the top as a hole, was going to fall to the side of the building. the top of the building, then instantly emploded, and it reversed directions, falling straight down. this looked extremely unnatural, and i do not beleive that this could have happened, without some other force involved, beyond the momentum of the building. also, as u have explained, it collapsed floor by floor, straight down. but if u watch the video, and still shots in the links i provided, u can see floors in which the falling "skipped". u can see the windows gettin blown out and building above it falling floor by floor, but there is a point, where the u see windows being blown out, 2 or 3 floors that are intacked, then more floors being blown out, further supporting the idea that the buildings did not fall naturally. also, if u see a picture, or watch a video of the top, fall down upon the bottom, watch a second or 2 into the fall. if u drew a diagram of where the bottom of the top portion of the building would be, it would be well below the point in which the line of collapse is. once again leading that something else was involved. there are also many eyewitness reports that say they heard a large explosion just before the collapse, these reports include fireman. which would support the siesmic graph. fireman transcipts also have dialogue of when the firemen initilliy entered the ground floors of the building, when they, on first site, discribed the scene by saying it looked like a bomb went off. this was 80 floors below the plane impact, and these were proffessional accounts. i suggest u look into the idea further.
Lol... So what does that prove? When a million ton building starts to collapse I am pretty sure all of the windows are probably going to shatter very quickly.
And because a fireman says a bomb went off means nothing. Are you going to take his word and think that Bush planted bombs on the first floor? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Sometimes stuff happens that you just can't explain. If I drop my t.v. changer and I find it on the other side of the room, I am not going to blame it on ghosts.
|
wtf is wrong with u people...the second anniversary of 9/11 is coming up man...so stop this shit aiight...THREADS AND ARGUEMENTS LIKE WILL NEVER END!!! ive read a lot of post and its arugeable on both sides...and some posts r just damn stupid and leadin to more stupidity...no one cant justify what happened unless someone comes clean(this is if the conspricy is true like most of u said) and its not then let it be..it happened and they paid for what they did...so let this and the people RIP...thank you
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, seeing as the building blew up top-to-bottom, how would explain the positioning of explosives on 220 stories (110 per tower) without anyone noticing? That would require one charge per column, per floor. There are ~236 columns around each tower. You are talking ~103,840 explosives. And thats not even including the core support columns.
Also note that in the FEMA report it states that the seismic spikes occured "at the moment" of the collapse, not "just before".
Regarding the "large explosion", consider the weight of 30-40 stories crashing into the rest of the building and tell me what it would sound like.
|
I think whether or not their were bombs planted is besides the point, i believe Psylo said somewhere that he believes their was a controlled collapse but he does not know how it was done. I am a little skeptical of this idea, although i do believe there was some foul play related to 9/11. Psylo perhaps instead of focusing on how the towers were collapsed you should focus on why their would be foul play in the collapse of the towers, including more then just limiting damage to the surrounding area. The discussion on how the towers collapsed is getting no where, and has been getting no where for awhile
|
On September 05 2003 17:42 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Just out of curiousity, seeing as the building blew up top-to-bottom, how would explain the positioning of explosives on 220 stories (110 per tower) without anyone noticing? That would require one charge per column, per floor. There are ~236 columns around each tower. You are talking ~103,840 explosives. And thats not even including the core support columns.
Also note that in the FEMA report it states that the seismic spikes occured "at the moment" of the collapse, not "just before".
Regarding the "large explosion", consider the weight of 30-40 stories crashing into the rest of the building and tell me what it would sound like.
hmm i dont think anyone mentioned explosives all over the buildings, but rather at the base of the tower (in a controlled collapse argument)
edit: nvm i read the long post, and i see hes talking about reversing the directoin of the top portion that was tilting to the side. hmm interesting
|
rebuttal to an article on controlled collapse:
http://bjcat0.tripod.com/larryrebuttal.htm
to sum up some of his points for those too lazy to read:
1) skyscrapers don't fall over. it's virtually impossible to make one fall over. it requires absurd amounts of force (stop and think about where its center of gravity is, and where you need to move it to make it fall over)
2) why bother?
3) jet fuel is hot enough to reduce the effectiveness of structural steal by over 50%, which is enough to bring about a gradual weakening of the infrastructure until its ultimate collapse.
4) the collapse occured from the top down, with the bottom remaining stationary and the top being the only part in motion.
exactly what norad did do on 9/11:
http://abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091901_news_fighters.shtml
psylo, your initial article is by the good walter e. davis, phd. he has degrees in physical education and special education, and is currently at kent state as a member of the exercise, sport and leisure department. they threw that "phd" bit into his article to increase his credibility and it almost worked on me. which is irrelevant if his points are still valid of course--just taking the rebuttal one step at a time....
|
i think you meant to post a different article for your rebuttal to a controled collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
