Holy shit! That's a very good post stevieboy32808. I'm looking forward to occrider's response.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Holy shit! That's a very good post stevieboy32808. I'm looking forward to occrider's response.

I was hesitant to post that graph, so I never did. The reason being is that I saw one that included much more detail, to the point that it made that one look amateurish. I studied it about a year or so ago, but haven't been able to find it since. There are some online videos that show a more in-depth version of it, which is probably closer to the one I'm talking about.

Anyway, here's an interesting vid that details the initial response to the explosions that were going off in the buildings, etc.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

Best academic post I've seen so far advocating a different explanation for the towers falling than the official one. Of course making the case for a controlled demolition is a different story altogether since the explosives used in controlled demolitions are very sensitive in general (we're not talking simple c4 explosives here) and the insulation required for their effective use is very visible, however, lets just say the alternative hypothesis is to disprove the official explanation and we can go from there. Just saw this now, so give me time to do some research. This is very focused which I like. The specific issues you have raised are:

A) The temperatures in question that were able to weaken the steel such that the towers collapsed (remember the official explanation is not that the temperatures were so high that steel melted and caused the collapse, but that they became malleable and structurally insufficient to bear their lodes).

B) The type of plane to hit the Pentagon and the "discrepancy" between the size of the plane and size of the damage to the Pentagon and the damage to the lawn.

If I've misrepresented your arguments let me know. But I shall get on it ... this should be a good discussion since we're sticking with factual arguments as opposed to logical fallacies and assumptions.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider If I've misrepresented your arguments let me know. But I shall get on it ... this should be a good discussion since we're sticking with factual arguments as opposed to logical fallacies and assumptions.

It's difficult to know what the facts really are when your own government eschews lies in regards to the evidence surrounding the particular events of 9/11.

What about all of those wargames that were supposedly used for cover, which have yet to be officially disclosed to the public? Hmmmmm? There's a lot more to it than just the possibility of controlled demolition taking down those buildings. It was an attack which was unprecedented in both it's scope and it's required level of planning.

quote:

McKinney: Well Mr. Chairman, the problem is - and I appreciate your adherence to the five-minute rule - however there are many of us who have important questions and my question in particular is about the four war games that were taking place on September 11th and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks. http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/030..._question.shtml

quote:

Finally Mr. Secretary, after the last Hearing, I thought that my office was promised a written response to my question regarding the four wargames on September 11th. I have not yet received that response, but would like for you to respond to the questions that I've put to you today. And then I do expect the written response to my previous question - hopefully by the end of the week. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...ranscript.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Best academic post I've seen so far advocating a different explanation for the towers falling than the official one. Of course making the case for a controlled demolition is a different story altogether since the explosives used in controlled demolitions are very sensitive in general (we're not talking simple c4 explosives here) and the insulation required for their effective use is very visible, however, lets just say the alternative hypothesis is to disprove the official explanation and we can go from there. Just saw this now, so give me time to do some research. This is very focused which I like. The specific issues you have raised are: A) The temperatures in question that were able to weaken the steel such that the towers collapsed (remember the official explanation is not that the temperatures were so high that steel melted and caused the collapse, but that they became malleable and structurally insufficient to bear their lodes). B) The type of plane to hit the Pentagon and the "discrepancy" between the size of the plane and size of the damage to the Pentagon and the damage to the lawn. If I've misrepresented your arguments let me know. But I shall get on it ... this should be a good discussion since we're sticking with factual arguments as opposed to logical fallacies and assumptions.

The fires could never have really been that hot to begin with as evident by the media clips of people hanging out of the holes in the sides of the buildings where the planes had entered.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...womanwaving.htm

Structural steel requires extreme heat to become even the least bit malleable - but it's also a terrific heat conductor, to say the least. It's conductive to the point that heating one section to the point of it's weakening would be a tremendous feat in itself considering that the rest of the steel framing would act as a conduit for the heat's dissipation - most likely transferring much of the heat towards the cooler areas below the fire through the building's framework. Remember, just the inner core of the building alone was comprised of 47 steel box columns which were tied together at each floor by steel plates.

quote:

Steel Framing: Meeting California's Residential Energy Efficiency Standards Have you decided to switch to steel framing? Considering the high and unpredictable price of lumber in today's market, steel seems a logical alternative to wood construction. In addition to its stable price, steel framing has other benefits over wood framing, including increased strength-to-weight ratio and better fire and termite resistance. On the other hand, a major disadvantage is that steel is a very good conductor of heat into and out of the building. A poorly designed steel framing system will increase heating and cooling costs considerably. (...) Heat flow through a steel-framed assembly involves conduction from the warm side to the cold side by way of stud flanges that are as wide as the thickness of a comparatively-sized wood stud. The heat is conducted between the flanges via a thin web as long as the depth of a wood stud. Calculations show that the web of an 18-gauge steel stud is about 31 times thinner than a "two-by" wood stud; however, steel conducts heat 310 times more efficiently than wood. As a net result, a "two-by" steel stud will conduct 10 times more heat than a "two-by" wood stud. http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency...el_framing.html

quote:

"...Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials. Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists?..." A theologian asks the hard questions about 9/11 A soft-spoken professor of religion risks a hard-earned reputation as a scholar to write one of the most incredible political books of the year Vancouver Sun Saturday, December 11, 2004 By Douglas Todd David Ray Griffin is one of the most respected philosophers of religion in North America. He is the author or editor of more than 24 academic books, including works co-written with the deans of world religions, Huston Smith and Martin Marty. He has lectured around the world, including at UBC. Griffin is one of those profiled in the prestigious volume, A Handbook of Christian Theologians. He's painstakingly probed countless philosophical challenges, from the question of why there is evil to the relationship between science and religion, for which he's won numerous awards. So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, Calif., feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004? Because no one else in mainstream America seemed prepared to do it... The result? Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbour: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Publishing, $22.50) has already sold an astonishing 80,000 copies. Griffin's unflinching analysis of the unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington has made Amazon.com's bestseller list despite receiving virtually no reviews in North America's mainstream media. That's unlike in Britain, where he's had solid coverage, including a three-page spread in London's mass-circulation Daily Mail. Personally, when people ask how a group of Muslim extremists could have pulled off the devastating suicide attacks against the U.S., in spite of the country's global intelligence network and massive defence arsenal, I tend to side with the German philosopher, Goethe, who once said: "Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much?" But when Griffin, who's known for his careful approach to philosophical problems, poses a series of questions suggesting the administration of George W. Bush had been warned about the terrorist attacks and did nothing, it's enough to make you shudder. The implications would make the Watergate scandal look like a Sunday brunch. In effect, The New Pearl Harbour fleshes out in 214 pages the question asked in the final moment of Michael Moore's Academy-award-winning documentary, Fahrenheit 911. That's when the filmmaker wonders aloud: What exactly was Bush thinking as he sat in front of a bunch of school children reading a book titled My Pet Goat, knowing two jetliners had been flown into the World Trade Center? Griffin's book is titled The New Pearl Harbor for two reasons. One, because that's what Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of Sept. 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." But also because members of the Bush administration in 2000 helped author the document, Project for the New American Century, which opined it would be difficult to galvanize Americans to support military expansion in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred. Here are a few of the questions Griffin looks into: Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail to obey orders? Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials. Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists? Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the hijacked planes were about to plummet? The Bush administration has brushed off all such questions. For his part, Griffin doesn't argue the Bush administration was actually complicit in the attacks. Some of the professor's fans have regretted his cautiousness, because he won't compile a grand theory about why the attacks may have been allowed to happen. He consistently avoids inflammatory rhetoric. Griffin, however, has clearly shown the gross inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission, which the Bush administration demanded be restricted to looking only at how to stop another terrorist assault. Griffin's supporters, including top Christian theologians, say he achieved his key goal, which was to provide an overwhelming body of evidence to show it's necessary to conduct a thorough probe into how the attacks happened in the first place. In the past month, Harper's Magazine and the New York Times have tentatively started to catch up with Griffin's questions. Harper's, for instance, published a cover feature titled, "Whitewash as public service: How the 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation," by Benjamin DeMott, which also asks whether it was sheer incompetence or something else that made the attacks possible. For his part, Griffin says he's been overwhelmed by the positive responses he's received to his book, which has sold 50,000 copies in the U.S. almost solely by word of mouth. In an e-mail interview, Griffin said he's only received about a dozen denunciations. Many families of those who died in the World Trade Center attack are among his supporters. Two of his many high-placed admirers are Canadians; former Liberal defence minister Paul Hellyer and Michael Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa. Griffin continues to believe the religious and philosophical questions he's devoted his career to answering are important, but, as a Christian, he feels a more urgent need to take on the geo-political developments that have elevated the planet onto high alert. Two weeks ago he released a follow-up book with the same publisher, titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modu...hp?storyid=1118

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modu...php?storyid=387

quote:

Leak to POGO: Special Ops Anticipated Planes-as-Missiles Scenario In April, POGO released an e-mail showing that members of the U.S. military responsible for defending America’s airspace were in fact concerned that a terrorist group would “hijack a commercial airline [sic] (foreign carrier) and fly it into the Pentagon. ”Attracting major media attention,the e-mail contradicted recent statements by President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice suggesting that no one in the government anticipated airplanes would be used as missiles. The e-mail showed that in April 2001—five months prior to 9/11—officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group used an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon. According to the e-mail, aides to the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the scenario as “too unrealistic.” NORAD’s mission is to “deter, detect, and defend” against threats to U.S. and Canadian airspace. Special Operations personnel who are trained to think like terrorists suggested the scenario to NORAD. Working with POGO,some of these highly-trained military personnel have also repeatedly warned that U.S. nuclear facilities are inadequately protected against terrorist attacks.Yet, their warnings have not been taken as seriously as they should. The day after POGO released the e-mail,President Bush said at a publicly televised news conference: “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” Days earlier in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice had said that she had not anticipated hijacked planes being used as weapons. At the urging of POGO, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States is investigating the circumstances surrounding the decision by the Joint Chiefs not to pursue NORAD’s scenario. http://www.pogo.org/m/np/2004spring.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The e-mail showed that in April 2001—five months prior to 9/11—officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group used an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon.

Very interesting.

2 months after that, authority to take derelict aircraft out of the sky was taken away from NORAD....

Once again, how unbelievably coincidental.

quote:

Originally posted by Disco_Gibson IMO i think it was.Theres alot of points to show theres reason to be doubtful. To start the discussion we will talk about the Pentagon attack.Look at this...http://www.freedomunderground.org/m...ntagon.php#Main Other points to discuss ------------------------ * Bush's reaction on TV when first hearing of the atrocity * Why no jets were scrambled * Why did the mayor of New York get a letter 2 weeks before 9/11 telling him not to fly on that day. * The military dossier published when Bush first came to power in 2000 explaining how a major terrorist attack would be needed to start their war on terror. * Why the towers fell straight down * Why there was a Isreali surveillance team captured in the city on that day.did they know it was gonna happen? * Did the FBI/CIA know about the attacks beforehand? * Were the planes that hit the towers not really the 757s and instead were remote controlled military planes installed with explosives? etc etc.feel free to add more guys. so was september 11th just another Pearl Harbour? the American Gov. knew about it beforehand but did nothing in order to give it an excuse to start its campiagn on terror. What are your thoughts? (these necessarily arent my views.im just laying down what has been discussed before)

of course a conspiracy
no doubt about it

___________________
www.house-pacific.com

Ok! Sorry it took so long to respond, but I had a lot of technical reading to do. Anyway the questions you posed are of perfect specificity. I don't want to get into tangentals such as government planes scrambling, Israeli spies in the area, etc., when we're focusing on the structural integrity of the building. So let's get to it ...

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Sorry to sound like a broken record, but there have been other high rise buildings such as the First Interstate Bank Building in downtown LA, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, and the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain which burned way longer than WTC did. In addition, the original architects and engineers of the towers were shocked at the collapse of the towers because they specifically designed the towers to withstand multiple plane crashes and not just one. No building has ever collapsed due to a fire.

The examples you raised might pose as valid supporting arguments for a theory that the World Trade Centers were not brought down by fire except that the argument seems to make two assumptions. The first is that neither of those buildings are the world trade centers. If building A survives a fire and building B survives a fire of similar conditions are we to presume that building C would survive the exact same fire? A better example would be building A and building C are built in the exact same architectural manner with the same type of materials, therefore it would be likely that building C would also survive a fire. The second assumption that that argument makes is that all 3 fires are similar in nature. That in my mind is the biggest flaw in the argument. I would argue that the conditions created in the World Trade Center were nothing like any of the fires you mentioned and these distinct conditions contributed and amplified the effect that the World Trade Center fire had on the structural integrity of the World Trade Center. I shall get into the specifics of these conditions later in my argument.

quote:

Here is a letter from Underwriters Laboratories (the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers) directly from the horse’s mouth who knows the properties of the steel used to built the towers. I don’t think I can get any more specific than this letter:

Well I did my research on this letter and as it turns out, Kevin Ryan was not speaking for Underwriters Laboratories, he in fact stated that he was speaking for himself, and he was not in charge of their structural analysis or material science division. The exact position Ryan held at UL at the time of interest is "Site Manager at UL's water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratories."

UL subsequently fired him and stated that: "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman. The company went on to say that Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request." Therefore, we have a subject matter expert supposedely speaking for the company when in fact he is not speaking for the company, and he is not a subject matter expert at all. Enough background research on the guy, let's analyze his claims.

Ryan's key contention is that the NIST reports that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." Therefore the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel. Ryan seems to pull this data from NISTs paint analysis test of the the steel recovered from the WTC:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

Now the power point presentation doesn't say all that much. It doesn't really go into specifics except to say what was analzyed. The broader report can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

It's 184 pages but it's a good read that seems to provide comprehensive analysis with context. The findings that only 3 of 160 exterior panels which experienced temperatures above 250C represented only 3% of the panels involved in the fire and therefore could not be considered representative of all the columns on the floor. Furthermore, the core columns studied represented less than 1% of the core columns involved in the fire and thus they too cannot be considered representative of all the core columns involved in the fire. And remember, these were paint tests ONLY. Much of the steel could not be tested because all their paint had been stripped off of them (which is what one would imagine a fire to do but that's speculation on my part). All of this is on page 94 of the NIST report if you'd like to follow along. Thus Ryan's argument took data out of context.

The NIST simulations indicated a much higher temperature range and it can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-5ExecutiveSummary.pdf

You'll find the description of a model, based on thermodynamics (and with office material as the main source of burning material), with temperature map examples on the 10th and 12th pages. If you notice there's large sub-250C areas. If only 3% of panel columns and less than 1% of core columns recovered it's completely viable that these were recovered from a sub-250C area. Thus it would be erroneous to extrapolate based upon that the danger of misrepresenting the complete picture.

In addition, Ryan treats all steel from the WTC as if it were the same without addressing the real questions that should be asked. We don't care whether the temperatures were hot enough to melt steel. What we want to know is at what temperatures do specific load bearing structures fail due to a combination of temperature and stressed gravity loads. The NIST test analysis concludes that:

The trust top chord begins to yield in compresssion around 300C due to the difference in coefficient of thermal expansion between steel and lightweight concrete. At approximately 340C, web diagonals begin to buckle and the horizontal displacement of the exterior column reverses and begins to decrease. At 400C knuckles start to fail sequentially from both interor and exterior supports towards the center. With the loss of compositite action the floor begins to sag an increasing rate. Eventually at about 500C, with the truss sagging almost 20 in., the bolts at the interior connector are found to shear. At 560C, the exterior columns begin to displace inward, and the truss begins to act as a catenary. At 650C, the truss walks off the interior seat while the interior end of slab remains ... At roughly 660C the gusset plate fracture at the exterior end which precipitates vertical failure of the exteriror seated connection.

YOu can find all that in this in-depth analysis here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf

And that's all at normal load as if the structural integrity of the WTC were not damaged at all. Their tests show that knuckles begin failing at 2.4 times dead load and most knuckles fail at 3 times dead load, and that's without any effect from temperature. In the WTC we see a double effect of temperature as well as increased dead load to compensate for structural damage done to the WTC ... but I'll get to that in the next paragraph.

However, THIS is the type of in-depth engineering analysis I want from a critic of the NIST explanation. Saying something as simple as "oh umm the temperature wasn't hot enough to melt steel so the WTCs couldn't have been brought down" means absolutely nothing to me because it's MUCH MUCH more complicated than that. That's like me trying to delve into nuclear physics with a high school education. Would you work in a building designed by a high school graduate? I want a counter analysis of floor truss response due to gravity load and uniform heating that delves into each steel component. Because THAT'S the level of detail we need and should expect. Wouldn't you agree?

quote:

***Oh and regarding this quote you made: So the other burning office buildings I’ve mentioned did not have combustibles such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper? Sorry, but the other buildings would have come down if this was the case. Besides “some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement. Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be “a smoky smoldering pile.” Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements." Kind of weird that the most of the heat after the collapse was in the lower basement columns rather than the oxygen rich surface rubble above, which further cements my suggestion that explosives had to be planted in the WTC.

Ah back to your office examples. Yes those offices had similar combustibles to the world trade center and yet they did not collapse. But remember my analogy where I pointed out that required an assumption that fire A equalled fire B equalled fire C? I would be willing to bet that the fireproofing in all the offices that you referenced remained intact. When the planes impacted the towers, they didn't just stop at the side of the building. They did a significant amount of damage inside the building to the structural integrity and critical things such as removed fireproofing. Here are several simulations of the progression of the planes through the buildings:

http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/...ne_segment_1.rm
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/...ne_segment_2.rm

However, the best part is that we can simply rely on photographic evidence to see the nature of some of the damage done. From external photographs you can clearly see structural damage done as well as fireproofing damage (sorry about their size and the sideways view):






Now we can't peer inside to specifically see the type of damage on the interior but I would argue that it is somewhat similar to the outside in causing significant damage to the structure while knocking off fireproofing. As a matter of fact we can infer this damage based upon the outside structure tilting and bowing due to the stress on the structural integrity of the building:






Now remember back to what I said of the test anlayses done on the trusses with respect to temperature and gravity load? It certainly looks like there a significant amount of stress in excess of normal load that when in combination with the temperature contributed to a perfect storm scenario of sorts that resulted in the overall collapse. Photographs show that the walls of the north tower to have deformed by as much as 140 centimetres just a few minutes before collapse and the walls of the south tower to have arched by 50 cm. Therefore I would contend that extreme gravity loads on these trusses along with predicted fire damage to unfireproofed steel is a much more reasonable explanation. I think I'm only touching the surface really because the entire NIST report is some 1000 pages long and this is data I've found by skimming maybe a third of the report.

quote:

Yes and you’re right. I was wrong. The spikes in the seismic data remain unexplained. If you look at the graph below there are two pairs of waveforms: The 2 small waveforms are the impacts of the 2 planes hitting the towers and then there are the 2 unusual spikes that occurred after the impacts. The spikes are the main debate. Do you remember the WTC 1993 bombing? A truck bomb blew up on the 2nd level basement of one of the towers, but the seismic data from that blast did not register on the Richter scale because the bomb was not coupled to the ground. These 2 spikes suggest that there was “something” coupled to the ground which caused the seismograph to record these sudden waves. I used this argument to back up my suggestion that explosives were that “something” which caused the towers’ collapse. Although since this is still being investigated I cannot comment further on the report until more solid evidence comes along.

Ah yes I've seen this graph before. Let's be clear. You're talking about this area that I circled?



I would actually say that is one spike that stands out from the rest. The second one within the circle is kind of iffy and doesn't stand out that much from other "outliers" further down. But let's just say it's an outlier as well. Notice the time. They both happened at around 9:05am. So the controlled demolitions went off at 9:05am and the towers later went down at 10am and 10:30am. Can you describe any controlled demolition explosives that have this time delay capability? Why didn't the towers go down immediately after these controlled demolitions? I don't understand the engineering behind such "controlled demolitions." Furthermore notice the size of these spikes. The planes explosions most certaintly weren't "coupled" to the ground. They impacted the side of the building and the seismic shock wave had to transverse the entire length of the building before they hit the ground. Yet their spikes are significantly higher than the anomalies. Yet these anomalies that were explosives coupled to the ground barely registered? There's something that doesn't seem quite right about that. Sure I'm speculating but then again so are you.

quote:

I’ll probably give you this one if you can tell me what type of plane was it that your friends saw. Was it a Boeing passenger plane or a private jet which can only carry 15 people or so? I would be more willing to believe this if a private jet which caused the Pentagon hole. It’s just that the neatly punched hole and the lack of damage to the pentagon lawn did not convince me that it was a passenger plane. A classic physics example is a baseball hitting a window. It does a whole lot more damage than a bullet. The bullet only causes a bullet hole in the window. This is because the faster the particle, the more localized the damage. A plane would have done a lot more damage. Regarding the latter statement you made, I've tried my best to present you with the facts "one argument at a time" and nothing baseless. I also can honestly tell you that I'm not a government shill and that my conclusions are in accordance with the research I gathered.

I'm beat and it's drinking time ... I'll try to answer this one tomorrow. Cheers.

edit: Christ I'll try to resize the pictures so they're not as annoying but that's not happening until tomorrow.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Dec-10-2005 at 02:49

I'm sorry occ, but I had to do it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but...

From a PM I received earlier (from an anonymous source):

quote:

jesus.... Occrider's a real idiot for an intelligent guy. Check out his response in the 9-11 thread. Most bogus response I've seen from him. But I guess your arguments will be weak and unsubstantial if you're operating in denial, and trying to defend a position that is a lie. I just had to get that out of me. - (name deleted for the sake of anonymity)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm sorry occ, but I had to do it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but... From a PM I received earlier (from an anonymous source):

There has never been a time, in any of my 5 years on this forum, that I have been unwilling to debate, argue, or discuss an argument in an intelligent manner. I thought that would be a virtue on this forum unless you're looking for a forum of sicophants who repeat every word you say. If said person seems to think that the best way to discredit me is to argue behind my back as opposed to addressing my arguments directly than I genuinelly feel sorry for that person. I shall be the bigger man ... feel free to criticize me directly if you disagree with me and tell me why ... I won't bite. I will try to be as understanding as possible while addressing your arguments. Otherwise feel free to continue discussing me behind my back because I'm not threatened by that type of behaviour in any way whatsoever.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Dec-10-2005 at 08:51