To those embattled over 9-11
- Thread starter Logchucker
- Start date
CooksCorner
Active member
Well there you have it.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
Im glad there are still smart and reasonable people left in the world.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
Im glad there are still smart and reasonable people left in the world.
JockinJLoads
Active member
thank you fine sir
sherpasrock
Active member
thanks for posting this. what cook said is pretty much what i was gonna say.
Salomonman
Member
It's possible that the goverment just set that article up. Its just a bunch of words and some quotes, not exactly proof, i dont really believe in that conspiracy theory jive, but some of that pentagon stuff seems awfully suspicious.
duhamelski
Active member
finally. and anyone who wants to believe that movie over this is a retard
Salomonman
Member
I'll take that challenge. The world is round.
Tasche
Active member
Did anyone read all of that? A lot of it does not add up. One thing that sticks out too me is this
"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."
However they report that days later areas of molten steal where found in the debris. If the jet fuel didnt melt the steel what did?
"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."
However they report that days later areas of molten steal where found in the debris. If the jet fuel didnt melt the steel what did?
Tasche
Active member
"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building"
"one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"
Does anyone else find this outrageous. Fuck that article it made me so mad. Anyone who has taken a undergrad level mechanics and meterials class or for that matter a fucking physics class knows that there is such thing call momentum. Mass X Velocity? So when the SIX ton enging slams into the fucking cement it makes a mark. Much like a GOD DAM CARTOON you fucker. Even if it just bounced off like he said where did the debris go??? The found one engine turbo fan thats it. So much bull in that article from a sketchy magizine. Anyone read that? Some of the article are so far out there. Stay skepticle, this article proves very little. If you really want to be blown away read some of the official congress 911 comission. Some of the therioes in there make me laugh.
"one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"
Does anyone else find this outrageous. Fuck that article it made me so mad. Anyone who has taken a undergrad level mechanics and meterials class or for that matter a fucking physics class knows that there is such thing call momentum. Mass X Velocity? So when the SIX ton enging slams into the fucking cement it makes a mark. Much like a GOD DAM CARTOON you fucker. Even if it just bounced off like he said where did the debris go??? The found one engine turbo fan thats it. So much bull in that article from a sketchy magizine. Anyone read that? Some of the article are so far out there. Stay skepticle, this article proves very little. If you really want to be blown away read some of the official congress 911 comission. Some of the therioes in there make me laugh.
Logchucker
Active member
This is again another source, not a be all end all, just a counter arguement to that which others have proposed. Yeah its got holes, but admit it, so does the other guys. Just know we got small biases towards how we view our government and that will also affect your view on the subject
bikerocker
Active member
wow, this article is whack, this video http://tinyurl.com/83bd8 came out after that article did. It even references that article. It's a google video so it's insta dowload but it is like 1.5 hrs long so it's afull movie. That article didn't do shit for explaining a lot of the points brought up in the movie. Howcome the empire state building is still standing after burning for much longer, and was constructed out of lesser materials than the wtc? the facts just don't add up all the way.
duhamelski
Active member
my dad knows someone who watched the plane fly into the pentagon. you can find someone who will say anything for the media, but my dads friend witnessed the fucking plane fly over the highway into the building
XxLibertYxX
Active member
yeah i cant even believe this...Something horrible goes wrong and someone always has to find a stupid conspiracy (spelling?) about it. What about the accouts of flight 93 and people calling home about hijackers? My friends aunt was a stewartes (wow spelling on that one) who died on the first or second WTC building...
sim
Active member
I posted some of this in another thread already but am adding to it here. Material science and structural mechanics are a lot more complicated than you may think.
Steel loses its strength fast at those kinds of temperatures- whatever temperature it ended up being- I do believe it said 50% or so in that article. Engineers calculate with a material safety factor, which and depending on certain things, is sometimes up to 50%. Now this alone may not have been enough. Load calculations are also done with a safety factor, however the fact that at least the sides where the impact took place a number of supporting structures would have been ruined would have caused more loading on other supporting structures and, thus causing them to fail. Did you know, in fact, that wood does better in a fire? Interesting little fact, but wood burns on the outside and builds itself an insulation layer that causes the rest of it to take longer to burn. Ever notice a campfire.
Furthermore, failures and stuff often come down to what would seem as small details. Like how the beam were jointed or water maybe getting into the wrong place, or pouring concrete in wrong conditions, etc. Engineers, like said, calculate with safety factors to cover for such things. Once in a while, unforeseen things come up. It was said that the buildings were built to withstand what happened to them... that doesn't mean they can't fall down. How often have Boeings flown into the side of a building? How can anyone actually calculate something like that with surety. It can't be done, and in this case, all safety factors were over-stepped. It happened before (ie Titanic) and it'll happen again.
Aside from that, at least from what I saw in the actual videos of the buildings collapsing, it is pretty clearly seen that the buildings fail at the point where the planes hit them, and then causing the upper part to fall onto the lower.
I think it is good to question, but as far as that Loose Change video goes, the physics and structural failures of these buildings goes are his worst arguement. Things can't just be compared like that, especially by people who seem to have no idea about the science behind it.
This goes for the Pentagon too. I'd have a harder time trying to make sense of a hole that was the same size as the jet as what the hole really was. Ever seen that Myth Busters where they shoot those crazy fucking guns right into water? For the biggest one (not a gun fan, so I don't know the name, but trust me it was huge) made a splash in the water so big that the water splashed up to a 30 ft or so roof. The bullet basically shattered within two feet of water. Use this as a comparison. Maybe then you will get an answer about why there was shockwaves after the plane hit, and why it basically disentegrated. In the video he compares this crash to others, where in the others there is always lots of the plane left. He is comparing planes that crash at like most a 30 degree angle to the impact plane to one that crashed at 90. I mean... Even if a plane were to crash at basically a 90 degree angle to the ground, it wouldn't look like what happened to the Pentagon one. Think about a bullet again as an anology, and what happens when you shoot it into the ground.
This guy is a filmaker, not a physisct, scientist or engineer, so take him for just that.
Steel loses its strength fast at those kinds of temperatures- whatever temperature it ended up being- I do believe it said 50% or so in that article. Engineers calculate with a material safety factor, which and depending on certain things, is sometimes up to 50%. Now this alone may not have been enough. Load calculations are also done with a safety factor, however the fact that at least the sides where the impact took place a number of supporting structures would have been ruined would have caused more loading on other supporting structures and, thus causing them to fail. Did you know, in fact, that wood does better in a fire? Interesting little fact, but wood burns on the outside and builds itself an insulation layer that causes the rest of it to take longer to burn. Ever notice a campfire.
Furthermore, failures and stuff often come down to what would seem as small details. Like how the beam were jointed or water maybe getting into the wrong place, or pouring concrete in wrong conditions, etc. Engineers, like said, calculate with safety factors to cover for such things. Once in a while, unforeseen things come up. It was said that the buildings were built to withstand what happened to them... that doesn't mean they can't fall down. How often have Boeings flown into the side of a building? How can anyone actually calculate something like that with surety. It can't be done, and in this case, all safety factors were over-stepped. It happened before (ie Titanic) and it'll happen again.
Aside from that, at least from what I saw in the actual videos of the buildings collapsing, it is pretty clearly seen that the buildings fail at the point where the planes hit them, and then causing the upper part to fall onto the lower.
I think it is good to question, but as far as that Loose Change video goes, the physics and structural failures of these buildings goes are his worst arguement. Things can't just be compared like that, especially by people who seem to have no idea about the science behind it.
This goes for the Pentagon too. I'd have a harder time trying to make sense of a hole that was the same size as the jet as what the hole really was. Ever seen that Myth Busters where they shoot those crazy fucking guns right into water? For the biggest one (not a gun fan, so I don't know the name, but trust me it was huge) made a splash in the water so big that the water splashed up to a 30 ft or so roof. The bullet basically shattered within two feet of water. Use this as a comparison. Maybe then you will get an answer about why there was shockwaves after the plane hit, and why it basically disentegrated. In the video he compares this crash to others, where in the others there is always lots of the plane left. He is comparing planes that crash at like most a 30 degree angle to the impact plane to one that crashed at 90. I mean... Even if a plane were to crash at basically a 90 degree angle to the ground, it wouldn't look like what happened to the Pentagon one. Think about a bullet again as an anology, and what happens when you shoot it into the ground.
This guy is a filmaker, not a physisct, scientist or engineer, so take him for just that.