What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Too Exclusive]

no matter what i say the squirrell will not bring back your brain....

that's how i feel about you my friend =)

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 03/08/05 7:16pm

[Too Exclusive]

again too many loose ends....ups guy and fed ex guys is one example of people that would be hounding the spot light to say hey..... they were gonna blow the building...and then they would have had to have fucked up and their insurance company would have found out and they would be bolth in jail. think they wouldnt be looking for shit like that...like you said follow the money...WTF i cannot stop posting in there....

explain plz? i dont get the UPS and fed ex thing...

second yeah pbs would they just had a show on about how real ailens are...wtf you believe pbs but not fox news or cnn...

lots of channels have shows about aliens and UFOs... history channel does... but that doesn't mean PBS would edit footage... especially to support the opposite side... that would be like me making up some news article about a guy that saw an airplane hit the pentagon... or an airplane crash in pennsylvania... i wouldn't cause 1. i wouldnt make up stuff 2. i wouldn't support your side unless there was a really critical piece of evidence that would make me reevaluate my position (i have done so on many topics in the past... including supporting kerry during the election... i got some critical pieces of info later on in the election that made me support neither).

[Silver]

people normal every day people go in and out of buildings all the time. UPS and FEDEX etc... show up at places everyday with uselss shit. now if ups guy all of a sudden stops going to a building it makes him wonder why./ i know i do shit like that. now for a few weeks the building is closed he would be on cnn telling th world all about it. cnn dont like bush thats fox news. so cnn would love to dig up shit to make bush look like an asshole. these people would be all over. the hot dog guy, the paper guy the fucking bum at the corner. everyone would notice shit like that....to complicated and involes to much secrets for too many people. thats why its not believable. to many people involved, some one would have really triped up. some one would have seen something or came forward.

[Too Exclusive]

that is a good point... but not about cnn. yes cnn, msnbc, world news with peter jennings, dan rather and all them may appear liberal... but they're just as controlled as fox is. if they really hated bush they would've posted the stories about the family members getting phone calls not to go to work in the towers on 9/11, they would've talked about how ppl like sen. willy brown and ashcroft were all banned from flying prior to 9/11. do they? no. the MOST they would do is make him look like an idiot... they would never do anything to incriminate him.
but all said, i still stick by larry silverstine's confession, followed by the confirmation of "pull" by the engineer from the dept. of design and construction.

[Frosty]

Wow.... that was a fun read.

I don't really want to start another argument here; just want to point out a couple of facts that screamed out at me during the discussion.

Exclusive mentioned something about discrediting an article because it referred to Aluminum "burning up" at a much lower temperature than it's boiling point (the temperature at which it would convert to gas). As a physics student, his primary concern is the change in the matter's physical state, but I am a chemistry major in college, so I take a slightly different approach. At the temperature mentioned (i believe it was 1000 degrees or something, but it really doesn't matter), a chemical reaction is likely to have taken place. Remember that anything that "burns" really means "reacts with oxygen." That being said, the following reaction would take place:

4Al + 3O2(g) --> 2Al2O3(s) Please forgive the error in subscripting.

Al2O3, aluminum oxide, is a flaky white powder. If it formed, due to the rapid movement of gases at such a high temperature, it would be caught up and carried away in a cloud of dust. Hence, the article was probably just concerned with solid aluminum, and for all intents and purposes you can say it "burned up." Keep in mind that it doesn't mean that it goes away into nothing, but rather that it is converted into a different form than that in question and can be ignored. So don't discredit the article before you consult chemistry in addition to your physics.

Point number two is that air resistance is not really that large a factor, especially considering a fall of about 200-220 meters. Therefore, a difference of around .4 seconds as Exclusive mentioned is not that large a difference when considering the collapse of WTC7. Also, when you consider that in addition to gravity, the lower pressure created by the air rushing out of the building would add to its velocity, meaning that at the very least, an initial velocity should be added to the equation, if not the acceleration constant altered. More specifically, Exclusive used this formula to determine the distance traveled of the top of the building in a given time:

distance = initial position + (initial velocity)(time) + .5(acceleration)(time)^2

He removed the velocity term, assuming no initial downward push was applied prior to free fall.

And, I think, but will admit that I am not 100% certain, that the 32.2 ft/s/s he used as the acceleration actually does refer to an object falling through earth's atmosphere, not in a vacuum, which would throw the entire theory out the window.

Now that my chemistry and physics lesson is over, let's move onto vocabulary. Exclusive assumes that "pull" in the context of WTC7 is the same as in WTC6. That assumtion would only be true if there is already an assumption about demolition work present in WTC7, to which there is no proof. (The argument of advance knowledge is all fine and dandy, but it offers no proof that any such prep work actually occurred). To me, Silver's context makes more sense, that "pull" refers to diverting the rescue effort from the vacant building to the more active site at the other two buildings. It would be analogous to saying "pull it" with regard to the war effort in Iraq, meaning end the effort. Context is the ultimate guide.... If I am putting on a jacket while saying "It's a cool day" would be totally different than if I said the same thing having just won a free vacation ("cool" would mean good, awesome, etc.).

I am saying I agree with Silver from a relatively unbiased perspective, as I did not watch either of those videos, only read the transcripts. To me, there seemed to be no link between the demolition term and the term used by Silverstine unless you have already assumed that demolition was occurring in the building.

My two cents. Like I said, I don't want to start another argument; I just now saw this thread and thought I'd point out a couple things I knew about that probably could have contributed to the discussion while it was developing. If you disagree with me on the vocab thing, that's fine; I can't prove my point past what I have already said.

Um, I think I'l leave now before someone throws a rock at me....

[|$aucy|]

*Throws rock at Frosty*

[Frosty]

Ow! My eye!

[Silver]

dont throw rocks....someone might want to smoke them.

[TheGhost]

wow... i have never read such BS in my life.  the heat from the fuel would have "weakened" structure in its self.  remember when you seen the plane hit the towers the plane tore apart the intregerty of the towers, the fire ball was the vapor the fuel gives off fuel itsself dont burn vapor does. second, no fireman would use controled demolitions to bring a structure under control. anyone not in a specialized turnout gear would not be able to deal with the effects the jet fuel unleashed.  normal firemans gear is able to with stand avg heat of 1500 degrees. with that said in mind at 400 deg mostly everything becomes combustible. from personal experience at at those temps the helmet starts to burn up the face shield melts and the reflectors melt off, the nomex hood starts to burn your face and your sweat vaporizes and gives you a steam burn. thats when you know its time to haul ass. now the suits the airport FD uses are a much higher rated and reflect much more heat. up to i believe 2500-3000 degrees. more then enough to melt the steel. the men and women that died in the fire (firemen) knew they were in for a bad battle and probally knew they were not leaving in any sortof good condition. seeing there gear was only able to with stand the lower heat temp. i know i would have. besides it took them at least 10 min to get to the floors which took 10 min off their bottle and left them with 20 min of air. so they had 10 min of air to save life in. they knew their fate.  i dont like people shitting on my brothers that died...it really pisses me off.

edit....do i believe the gov hides shit...yes....anything about 911...no

exactly silver i agree w/ you totally

but instead of the fireman stuff (i do thank the firemen and women that risked thier lives going in there cuz one saved my cousin) my uncle is a marine and was over in Iraq in 2003 and my history teacher in 7th grade asked the class if they had any relatives/friends etc in Iraq.. no one raised there hand cept me and i said," My uncle is in Iraq serving with the Marines. I miss him and want him to come home safe." and he started takin shit bout the military specially the marines.. so i said some stuff that i dont regret. i told my family what happened and when my uncle came back from Iraq in mid 04 he came to school w/ me and i showed him to my history teachers room.. he walked in and right up to the teacher.. and said "Hello sir, I hear that you were talkin shit about the Marines and the US military in general.. and by the way i got you something..." He gave him a plane ticket to Kuwait w/ a note that said "You dont like the military? Well than fight for your own freedom you stupid fuck. because im sick of defending stupid motherfuckers like you." and he was walkin out of the room and he turned around and said to the teacher "I hope you have a good vacation over there, sir."

i just died laughin when he told me what the note said..

and in the end the teacher never talked shit again

This post has been edited by TheGhost: 05/19/05 2:53pm

[Too Exclusive]

im not talkin shit about the marines. i love the marines and i respect what they're doing. i challenge every person to go to http://www.reopen911.org/freedvd.php and fill out that form to get their free confronting the evidence DVD. it is COMPLETELY free (i know because i filled it out and got 5 copies of it, free of any type of charge watsoever). watch that (at least hte first hour, with as much of an open mind as you possibly can)... and i GARUNTEE the dvd will raise some serious questions... the DVD presents the info better than i ever could imagine.

[Frosty]

Damn, I opened it up again....

[Silver]

NVM

This post has been edited by Silver: 05/23/05 6:11pm

[Blakjak]

Frosty thank you for adding some intelligible, tangible thoughts to this godforsaken thread. Too bad I hate physics and chemistry.

[Silver]

[Too Exclusive]

distance = initial position + (initial velocity)(time) + .5(acceleration)(time)^2

He removed the velocity term, assuming no initial downward push was applied prior to free fall.

And, I think, but will admit that I am not 100% certain, that the 32.2 ft/s/s he used as the acceleration actually does refer to an object falling through earth's atmosphere, not in a vacuum, which would throw the entire theory out the window.

i dont get what u mean by "initial pull". there is no "initial pull"... the building is COLLAPSING... the only thing pulling it down is gravity.

and yes it does refer to an object falling thru a vacuum USING EARTH'S GRAVITY. what this means is that that equation is using saying hypothetically that there is NO atmosphere. so d = 1/2(32.2)tt is saying how far would an object fall given a specific time if Earth has no atmosphere. i am 100% sure this is correct. one thing you should know about me guys, i know more about physics than a number of 11th and 12th graders who TAKE physics. i am not wrong about this. just get ur DVD's... here it from Jeff King's mouth... he goes to freakin MIT. cant fuck wit that.