aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
9/11: Debunking The Myths
- Thread starter aerocontrols
- Start date
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Thanks. I had heard some of these "theories" from my ultra-credulous former co-worker (along with his cryptozoology, CIA-mind-control-via-fluoridated-water, JFK-was-killed-by-the-Illuminati, and moon landing hoax ideas) who got mad at me when I accused him of indulging in ghoulish morbid-mastubatory fantasies over a horrific event solely to distract his ego's attention from the fact that he is a broken down elderly fat man with poor health, no money, a shoddy career, and a stench that could strip paint at a distance of forty feet.
And then he had the unmitigated gall to be mad at me!
Seriously, though. It's sickening to hear the eager voices of morons speculate endlessly over 9-11 as if it were an episode of CSI or something.
And then he had the unmitigated gall to be mad at me!
Seriously, though. It's sickening to hear the eager voices of morons speculate endlessly over 9-11 as if it were an episode of CSI or something.
Ove
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,945
Trouble is (i think) that theese shows are done in a very realistic style theese days (handheld cameras etc) and the documentaries are done in similar style (crime scene etc) i honestly think that a lot of people have great difficult in separating truth from fiction. A ducumnetary is made in the same style as CSI and vice versa and even News Shows use some of the same effects. Worrying.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Rense debunks Popular Mechanics!!!
http://rense.com/general62/popp.htm
There is always someone who will feed the conspiracy nutcase.
http://rense.com/general62/popp.htm
There is always someone who will feed the conspiracy nutcase.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
TragicMonkey said:
I don't think it is fair to call them all morons. A lot of counter-intuitive things happen that day (e.g. tower 7 collapsing hours after the twin towers). Having a difficult time understanding them does not necessarily make someone stupid. If some people who don't have all the facts on that matter were given false information by what appeared to be a credible source, then they are not necessarily morons.
It seems they overlooked the mother of all 911 myths. I refer to a myth that many americans (a majority of Bush supporters) gave credence to as recently as 11/02/04: That Saddam was directly involved with 911.
Of course it doesn't help when the the president and vice president are serial propogandists.
NarrMaster
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 55
Partially in response to Ladewig's post:
I've entertained a few of these for a while, just to examine the evidence and what not. (Except the pod "theory". That's just wishful thinking on the level of Hoagland and his "cities on mars" photographs.)
There is one inconsistancy I cannot get past my head though.
From the article, on page 5
__________________________________________________
"WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
_________________________________________________
This is in contradiction with the statements made by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC Plaza. From this article which quotes a PBS documentary called, "America Rebuilds":
LS: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I am taking it as an assumption that "pull it" means to bring the building down under controlled circumstances (what else could it mean in this context?) . If what Larry says is correct, then there is a contradiction of stories.
Someone set me straight.
I've entertained a few of these for a while, just to examine the evidence and what not. (Except the pod "theory". That's just wishful thinking on the level of Hoagland and his "cities on mars" photographs.)
There is one inconsistancy I cannot get past my head though.
From the article, on page 5
__________________________________________________
"WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
_________________________________________________
This is in contradiction with the statements made by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC Plaza. From this article which quotes a PBS documentary called, "America Rebuilds":
LS: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I am taking it as an assumption that "pull it" means to bring the building down under controlled circumstances (what else could it mean in this context?) . If what Larry says is correct, then there is a contradiction of stories.
Someone set me straight.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
NarrMaster said:
I think pull it in that context means "get out and let the bitch burn down".
By the way, your sig is great. I love it when Carlson called Stewart out and Stewart retreated with his "its just a comedy show" copout. I hate Carlson but I'm even less a fan of Jon Stewart's cowardly "its a comedy show" copouts.
NarrMaster
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 55
Posted by corplinx:
Yeah, I'm a big fan of those who don't understand the difference between a news show and a fake news show too. (Of course, Crossfire is also a fake news show, buts that's another discussion).
Yeah, I'm a big fan of those who don't understand the difference between a news show and a fake news show too. (Of course, Crossfire is also a fake news show, buts that's another discussion).
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
NarrMaster said:
There have been several discussions of this topic on the Apollo Hoax BB lately, andif you read the sentence above, the pull it remark refers to the firefighters efforts to fight the fires, not any controlled demolition.
Given that it takes months to set up and plan a major controlled demolition and requires the removal of much material from the building (you'd think someone would notice their walls were missing and charges were set up) the thought that this was some planned demolition is simply not supported by the evidence.
In addition, in the TV specials/documentaries I have watched on the subject of controlled demolitions (there have been several on National Geographic in the past months), the term I heard used was "drop" or "dropping" a structure, never "pulling' it.
Here and here are two threads that deal with some of the 9-11 topics in rather more detail.
NarrMaster
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 55
Hutch:
Thanks for the links and your reply. I will be looking at those threads shortly.
Thanks for the links and your reply. I will be looking at those threads shortly.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
corplinx said:
I'd like to hear more on this... I watch The Daily Show all the time, and it seems to be a mixture of items intended as satire, and items presented as fact. I haven't had any trouble distinguishing between which ones are intended to be believed, because the "satire" ones are usually over the top enough to not be mistaken as a smear.
If there were some items presented in the more serious light, I would have a problem if some of them turned out not to be true.