|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 149)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Let me let you in on a secret, you are no smarter then anyone else on this planet. |
well, except for you. colonel isn't saying he's smarter than everyone, just better equipped to analyse a question involving structural engineering than the rest of us. any reason why you disagree with this?
| quote: |
Get off the high horse and prove the towers where destroyed the way the official story says they where. |
why do that when it's already been done in at least two peer-reviewed papers? you wouldn't pay attention to these though because they don't agree with your pre-conceived theories.
| quote: |
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen |
or this one
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
| quote: |
This is the very same reason every poll shows a vast majority ruling that the official story is BS. |
hahaha. talking about the polls again :haha:
please explain to me why you believe that the supposed "vast majority" of opinion is more important than the (so far) 100% agreement amoungst structural engineers? why is the layman in the street's opinion so so so important to you, whilst you ignore those that actually build those buildings?
asymmetrical scepticism, that's why. and its pathetic. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | | This is the very same reason every poll shows a vast majority ruling that the official story is BS. |
ill ignore the first part of your personal attach tirade, as i find it irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
lets assume for a second that the general public is considered a learned and informed body on structural mechanics, and as such we can assume that any results derrived from the polling of such a body would hold reasonably true and accurate to reality.
- who conducted these polls?
- what was their sample size / demographic make up / ethnic background?
- were the persons included in the sample randomly selected, batch selected or voluntarily polled?
- What is the systematic error in the study?
Since you cannot answer any of these questions with any real degree of confidence, statistically speaking, your data is useless, and most undoubtably biased.
now lets jump forward to reality, and look at the above analysis without the first two assuptions, those being that the general public know all about structural mechanics and that the results of any polls on this topic would be garbage.
well at this point there is no point asking any questions about the origin or make up of their population subset, as the entire poll is a farce.
if i wanted to poll a random sampling of persons to find the average drug use among the citizens of a country, i would not choose all my persons from crack houses, this would bias the results, nor would i purposefully not poll people from crack houses as they still represent a small portion of the population. Internet polling is inherantly flawed in that the sites on which polls are posted are usually frequented by like minded people, for instance 911truth.org would be visited mainly by CT'ers. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.
----
During the Second World War the Nazis showed that they too were very much aware of this conditioning power of the word. I saw their strategy at work in Holland. The radio constantly spread political suggestions and propaganda, and people were obliged to listen because the simple act of turning off one's radio was in itself suspicious. I remember one day during the occupation when I was taking a bicycle trip with some friends. We stopped off to rest at a cafe that, we later realized, was a true Nazi nest. When the radio, which had been on ever since we arrived, announced a speech by Hitler, everyone stood up in awe, and it was a must to take in the verbal conditioning by the Fuhrer. My friends and I had to stand up too, and were forced to listen to that raucous voice crackling in our ears and to summon all our resistance against that long, boring, repetitive attack on our eardrums and minds.
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing
 |
|
|
| culorut |
FBI Again To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes
In an effort to end speculation surrounding the events at the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a Freedom of Information Act request was made of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking confirmation of the process by which recovered debris belonging to the 4 aircraft used in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was identified. This request was denied. An appeal of that decision has also been denied. Court action is pending.
According to the FBI, "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)."
This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."
The FBI has publicly declared that certain civil aircraft were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It apparently was not believed by the FBI, that disclosure of that information would jeopardize any September 11th "enforcement proceedings". |
|
|
| Fledz |
I can't believe there is still people out there who believe it was caused by the US government. Wow. Just wow.
Conspiracy nuts never seem to change their minds. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| I couldn't really care all if the WTC towers really came down from crashed planes or controlled demolitions. What I want to know is why did the Bush Administration see it fit to fly the entire Bin Laden family out of the US when they should have been held for questioning? Yes I am using Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 as reference to this. But I agree with Moore on this subject. The entire family should have been held for interrogation, not flown out to safety. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Wow, 61%!!! |
thats alot of idiots |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Wow, 61%!!! |
It shocks me to see that people still believe that bull. Wait, maybe it doesn't |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
thats alot of idiots |
More like a lot of s getting their asses handed to them with facts. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I couldn't really care all if the WTC towers really came down from crashed planes or controlled demolitions. What I want to know is why did the Bush Administration see it fit to fly the entire Bin Laden family out of the US when they should have been held for questioning? Yes I am using Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 as reference to this. But I agree with Moore on this subject. The entire family should have been held for interrogation, not flown out to safety. |
Another absolutely correct fact, no wonder the poll is at 61%. Cannot deny the truth. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
More like a lot of s getting their asses handed to them with facts. |
what facts?
if by facts you mean pointless youtube videos that offer nothing but nut bar testimony and blatantly false analysis by unqualified morons, then sure you have been handing them out like a jehova's witness recruitment drive.
but if you mean actual scientific evidence from credible sources that dont include former cold fusion physicists.... then sir i believe there is more water in the sahara than there is facts in your arguments. |
|
|
|
|
