Merkin.Muffley said:
Are you under 21? Because there is no way in hell that Bush will EVER be better than Reagan.
Scariest movie you may ever see....
- Thread starter CentralTexas
- Start date
- Status
Are you under 21? Because there is no way in hell that Bush will EVER be better than Reagan.
Awright, let's say the 9/11 conspiracies ARE true. Then what about...
- Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.
- Thousands of people died.
- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.
- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.
- and so on.
Doesn't the normal explaination of 9/11 provide >90% of the reasons for what happened?
Isn't it reasonable to think that, if re-enacted without any conspiracy, pretty much the same thing would happen again under pretty much the same conditions?
Ah mean SERIOUSLY: what do you THINK happens when you run a fully-loaded 767 into a skyscraper?
or into the Pentagon?
what do you THINK happens when you throw 160 TONS of airplane & fuel into a glass wall?
or a hardened concrete wall?
Do you REALLY think the glass-wall WTC really needed additional help to come down, yet are surprised the hardened-concrete (built for just such a hit) Pentagon took such little damage?
Do you REALLY think an enormous uber-secret conspiracy is needed to fill in the details of that event that you don't quite understand?
- Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.
- Thousands of people died.
- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.
- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.
- and so on.
Doesn't the normal explaination of 9/11 provide >90% of the reasons for what happened?
Isn't it reasonable to think that, if re-enacted without any conspiracy, pretty much the same thing would happen again under pretty much the same conditions?
Ah mean SERIOUSLY: what do you THINK happens when you run a fully-loaded 767 into a skyscraper?
or into the Pentagon?
what do you THINK happens when you throw 160 TONS of airplane & fuel into a glass wall?
or a hardened concrete wall?
Do you REALLY think the glass-wall WTC really needed additional help to come down, yet are surprised the hardened-concrete (built for just such a hit) Pentagon took such little damage?
Do you REALLY think an enormous uber-secret conspiracy is needed to fill in the details of that event that you don't quite understand?
cdonath,
Just for fun let's look at your post, just playing devils advocate, I'm able to explore ideas before I discredit them or accept them. -
" Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.
Unless you fueled the planes & loaded the passengers you really don't know that it's fact they were fully loaded
- Thousands of people died.
At least in the towers
- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.
So what about the films explanation? Didn't watch it?
- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.
I don't recall any large amount of eyewitnesses, that always bugged me. I would take any links to the reports of hundreds as making up for it though.
- and so on."
Just for fun let's look at your post, just playing devils advocate, I'm able to explore ideas before I discredit them or accept them. -
" Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.
Unless you fueled the planes & loaded the passengers you really don't know that it's fact they were fully loaded
- Thousands of people died.
At least in the towers
- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.
So what about the films explanation? Didn't watch it?
- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.
I don't recall any large amount of eyewitnesses, that always bugged me. I would take any links to the reports of hundreds as making up for it though.
- and so on."
RockJock said-
"Conspiracies are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them. "
Let's try-
Closed minds are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them.
I'm sure you are from a long line of "Burn her, she's a witch! " types....
CT
"Conspiracies are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them. "
Let's try-
Closed minds are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them.
I'm sure you are from a long line of "Burn her, she's a witch! " types....
CT
ctdonath wrote-
"Seriously, you started this thread with NO info about it, no indication of whether it was long or short, fiction or nonfiction, political or scientific, etc. Zippo nyet nada."
My first sentence said it was a CONSPIRACY film. Not your cup of tea? Don't click the link, Click the link and see the LENGTH written there.
Didn't realize it needed spelling out, most conspiracies poted in the LEGAL & POLITICAL section are LEGAL or POLITICAL.
Watch it or not, My salary doesn't change.
CT
"Seriously, you started this thread with NO info about it, no indication of whether it was long or short, fiction or nonfiction, political or scientific, etc. Zippo nyet nada."
My first sentence said it was a CONSPIRACY film. Not your cup of tea? Don't click the link, Click the link and see the LENGTH written there.
Didn't realize it needed spelling out, most conspiracies poted in the LEGAL & POLITICAL section are LEGAL or POLITICAL.
Watch it or not, My salary doesn't change.
CT
The video claims this:
Hmmm, how many B-52s were flying in 1945? Somebody isn't checking thier facts properly. Zero B-52s were flying in 1945. That's a pretty glaring error.
In fact, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. A tiny, flimsy, slow, propeller-driven B-25. Anybody with sense would dismiss a comparison between the 9/11 aircraft and a B-25. Perhaps the false assertion that a giant, heavy, fast, B-52 was the culprit was not an error at all?
What other glaring errors are contained therin?
Then we have more assertions that this building and that building burned for ten hours, twenty hours, etc. over multiple floors, but they didn't collapse. Well, so what? How many tons of titanium, aluminum, and steel was slammed into those buildings before the fire? How many thousands of pounds of jet fuel accelerated those fires? The answer is zero and zero. So here we have an invalid and misleading comparison.
I won't even go into detail about all of the eye-witness statements. Who cares? Eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence possible. I dismiss it in whole.
What a stupid video...
(It's entertaining, though)
Hmmm, how many B-52s were flying in 1945? Somebody isn't checking thier facts properly. Zero B-52s were flying in 1945. That's a pretty glaring error.
In fact, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. A tiny, flimsy, slow, propeller-driven B-25. Anybody with sense would dismiss a comparison between the 9/11 aircraft and a B-25. Perhaps the false assertion that a giant, heavy, fast, B-52 was the culprit was not an error at all?
What other glaring errors are contained therin?
Then we have more assertions that this building and that building burned for ten hours, twenty hours, etc. over multiple floors, but they didn't collapse. Well, so what? How many tons of titanium, aluminum, and steel was slammed into those buildings before the fire? How many thousands of pounds of jet fuel accelerated those fires? The answer is zero and zero. So here we have an invalid and misleading comparison.
I won't even go into detail about all of the eye-witness statements. Who cares? Eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence possible. I dismiss it in whole.
What a stupid video...
(It's entertaining, though)
People LIKE conspiracy theories. They WANT to believe them. So if you have even a half-way decent conspiracy theory, it's pretty easy to sell--especially to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the facts.
I spent several years reading and watching everything I could find on the Kennedy assassination. I still have 30 or 40 books on the topic and that's not everything I've read--not by a long shot. I visited Dealy Plaza a couple of times. In the beginning I was absolutely convinced that there was a conspiracy--because at that time I really didn't know anything except what I had heard in the popular myths. The more I read, the more I watched, the more I studied, the less I was able to believe. One day I finally realized that as much as I WANTED to believe, I couldn't believe the conspiracy theory any more. I knew too much about the facts and they didn't support a conspiracy.
This conspiracy theory isn't nearly as good as most.
I spent several years reading and watching everything I could find on the Kennedy assassination. I still have 30 or 40 books on the topic and that's not everything I've read--not by a long shot. I visited Dealy Plaza a couple of times. In the beginning I was absolutely convinced that there was a conspiracy--because at that time I really didn't know anything except what I had heard in the popular myths. The more I read, the more I watched, the more I studied, the less I was able to believe. One day I finally realized that as much as I WANTED to believe, I couldn't believe the conspiracy theory any more. I knew too much about the facts and they didn't support a conspiracy.
No but facts ARE subject to tweaking. Better yet, you can leave out a few facts and let the remaining facts paint a very different story than the truth. A few minutes of internet search will answer any questions you have about the steel weakening in the WTC.
This conspiracy theory isn't nearly as good as most.
With that reasoning, anyone who didn't actually see the events in person, in detail, is suspect.
And that is the problem with the whole conspiracy thing: question one fact, or lack one fact, and suddenly there's room to shove a whole conspiracy in.
Unfortunately, those favoring conspiracy theories have the motivation to advance them, whereas those who see well-documented facts as plainly understandable do not have the motivation to keep taking on the fervent adherents to insanity.
There are those who are tasked with sifting thru the actual details. They have published their findings; there is no reason to doubt them. Those who come up with conspiracies, however, have plenty of reason to be doubted. Yes, I've read both.
Why should I? I've watched/read plenty on both sides of the subject. I've consistently seen that the "terrorists" explaination makes complete sense, while the "conspiracy" explaination is little more than the rantings & rehashings of hysterical ignoramuses. Unless you can give me a summary that indicates this film is actually worth watching, I'll figure it's no more worth watching than the other conspiratorial dreck I've wasted my time on.
Weren't watching the news that week, were you? There were plenty of witnesses. There were videotapes, too - like the parking lot camera that shows a plane-sized object moving at plane-like speeds hitting the Pentagon at an attack-suitable location and making a plane-like explosion. There were right-afterwards photos of plane debris all around.
Just shouting "prove it! I think it's a conspiracy!" at every plainly explainable point is just annoying. Having to provide proof for every little hysterical nutcase accusation gets tiresome. I've heard the claims, and proved them bogus with ease; no, I don't want to see another charlitan's hysterical mockumentary.
You did not watch the movie, did you? Where is the wreckage of the plane? Where are the engines? Why is the impact hole so small? Why are there no pieces like the ones in many other crashes of similar planes? Why does the officially released footage show no plane hitting the Pentagon? 180 bodies were preserved enough to be identified, but the explosion evaporated all the titanium of the engines? Where are the drag marks on the lawn? Where is the spilt gasolene or scorch marks thereof where the wings hit the street posts (gas tanks are in the wings, not in the fuselage)? Why are the posts uprooted but not bent? Where are the broken off wings? Why is the explosion so tiny next to the one of the second tower being hit?
See, people lie. Cameras don't. Unless, the officially released footage and the news footage were doctored to leave these questions?
None of it adds up.
Was that "the airliner, that actually looked like some kind of military/cargo plane, fired a missile just before it impacted and that's what caused the huge fireball" explanation?
Again, you did not watch the actual footage. The towers collapsed within 10 sec from the beginning of the collapse, while free fallin vaccuum would have taken 7 sec. This means the entire tower was virtually in free fall at the time of collapse. Please explain how that is physically possible without a series of charges cutting up the spine. The collapse of all three towers is exactly like the collapse of buildings that are demolished from inside by the said scheme of charges.
Take a long iron nail. Put a weight on it, then heat it. Will it collapse suddenly like a deck of cards, or will it bend first?
Experts that built the building explained that it would take several hours at 3000F to weaken that steel. It happend within 40 min of the impact at 2000F or below. Please explain that. Similar buildings that were far less engineered for safety sustained far worse fires longer and did not collapse. Why did these do?
Please explain how debris from one building would neatly collapse the third tower in the same pattern.
Looks like somebody ran out of money for the good stuff and has gone back to smoking that cheap street crank again......
hillbilly
hillbilly
I don't know. I think this sort of stuff would require the really good street crank to come up with.
Most of the debris was inside - remember, it was moving that direction.
Because airplane bodies (central cylinder) aren't very wide. The the wings, being mostly thin aluminum structures full of fuel, don't do much damage against reinforced concrete built to withstand air assault (but surface impact/fire damage is clearly visible).
There isn't much left at other comparable crash sites either.
That's a new one.
It's an airplane. It flies. Go figure.
It was moving several hundred miles an hour, not much time for spillage to occur.
A lot of stuff got damaged. Wierd things happen in large explosions - even without conspiracies. Go figure.
Pulverized. Happens when a thin metal bag full of fuel smashes at high speed against a rock and ignites.
"Tiny" isn't accurate. That ain't a tiny explosion.
Actually, both explosions are about the same size: roughly 15 stories tall.
Only real difference is that at the WTC, the explosion had room to expand horizontally (thru the office space & out the other side), whereas the Pentagon was more containing.
The strike has been analyzed in great detail at http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
Cannoneer,
The "experts" in the film seem to disagree dramatically with what REAL experts say about structural steel. The "facts" in the movie sound good until you know the REAL facts.
Seriously, do a little research ON YOUR OWN. You have the internet at your fingertips. Use it. You can debunk that movie in far less time than it took to watch it.
The "experts" in the film seem to disagree dramatically with what REAL experts say about structural steel. The "facts" in the movie sound good until you know the REAL facts.
Seriously, do a little research ON YOUR OWN. You have the internet at your fingertips. Use it. You can debunk that movie in far less time than it took to watch it.
I've seen other analyses of the WTC collapse. Everything makes sense.
Spend some time at Nova: Why The Towers Fell.
Spend some time at Nova: Why The Towers Fell.
Old Dog
Member
I'm just gonna believe the accounts of my friends ... who were actually working there, that horrible day.
I am almost to the point of being highly offended by some of the things said in this thread. Example:
I am almost to the point of being highly offended by some of the things said in this thread. Example:
But, it's just not worth worrying about people who may actually believe this crap.
I watched the whole thing, there are some questions however physics explains almost all the phoneme, when they demo a building they have to literally strip the interior to get a good shot. On the other hand I did have a nightmare about 6 months before this happened in it something had happened and Clinton had declared a national emergency under presidential powers canceled all elections declaring himself president for all time, after all those who died under very mysterious circumstances maybe his timing was off and it was suppose to happen a lot earlier, now there is a conspiracy for you.
ctdonath,
Thank you for the useful link. I read it and now at least a few things make more sense. I did assume the tower structure was like a waffle, while it actually is a cylindrical shell. Now it makes much more sense why the collapse was so quick due to the compaction of the floors.
However, if this model is correct, I would expect the central beam support to remain sticking out like the backbone of a comb whose prongs you break off. That was not the case.
Also, from what I can gather, the fire was limited to a number of floors near the stricking point. Why would the vertical posts be damaged below or above it?
Thank you for the useful link. I read it and now at least a few things make more sense. I did assume the tower structure was like a waffle, while it actually is a cylindrical shell. Now it makes much more sense why the collapse was so quick due to the compaction of the floors.
However, if this model is correct, I would expect the central beam support to remain sticking out like the backbone of a comb whose prongs you break off. That was not the case.
Also, from what I can gather, the fire was limited to a number of floors near the stricking point. Why would the vertical posts be damaged below or above it?
Attachments
Sistema1927
Member
The supporting "straws" were built to hold static weight, not dynamic. There is a huge force difference between a weight gently set on a support, vs. being dropped on. The WTC was built for the above floors being set upon the lower supports; when the fire weakened the metals (doesn't take much heat to lose significant tempering), the upper floors essentially dropped several stories as a unit - a HUGE impact, far beyond what the structure was built for; everything crumpled underneath. As such, there was no chance for the central support to stick up; it just wasn't strong enough.
CAnnoneer, it might be build around a central support, but everything about skyscrapers are designed around elements supporting each other. The fire weakens the steel over the 15 or so floors the fires are raging on. Eventually, one of the floors collapses. It falls onto another weakened floor. That one then collapses as well, sending shock waves through the structure. Once you have the weight of ten or so floors crashing down, even uncompromised supports can't take the weight.
As for stripping the interior of a building before collapsing it, that's for two reasons:
1. Controlled collapse. You generally want the building to come straight down.
2. Economy. You don't want to use a jetliner's load of fuel, you want to use just a few hundred(if that) pounds of explosive.
As for stripping the interior of a building before collapsing it, that's for two reasons:
1. Controlled collapse. You generally want the building to come straight down.
2. Economy. You don't want to use a jetliner's load of fuel, you want to use just a few hundred(if that) pounds of explosive.
CAnnoneer
They were jets, passenger jets, full of our people, commandeered by Muslim lunatics. Three of them. The fourth splattered in PA. What depth of synaptic confusion is required to fantasize about these conspiracy theories? What is so hard to accept about the truth?
They were our jets, full of our people, slammed into our buildings by Muslim terrorists. Period.
As far as the scariest movie I have ever seen, nothing compares to the reaction of the tinfoil hat crowd.
They were jets, passenger jets, full of our people, commandeered by Muslim lunatics. Three of them. The fourth splattered in PA. What depth of synaptic confusion is required to fantasize about these conspiracy theories? What is so hard to accept about the truth?
They were our jets, full of our people, slammed into our buildings by Muslim terrorists. Period.
As far as the scariest movie I have ever seen, nothing compares to the reaction of the tinfoil hat crowd.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
