9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

Let me rephrase: we will talk once you have finished.

'Kay?

agreed

heres the list from billys book. starting at 1

1. Michael Moore
# Arthur Sulzberger
# Ted Kennedy
# Jesse Jackson
# Anthony Romero
# Jimmy Carter
# Margaret Marshall
# Paul Krugman
# Jonathan Kozol
# Ralph Neas
# Noam Chomsky
# Dan Rather
# Andrew Heyward
# Mary Mapes
# Ted Rall
# John Edwards
# Al Sharpton
# Al Gore
# George Soros
# Howard Dean
# Judge Roy Moore
# Michael Newdow
# The Unknown American Terrorist
# Lee Bollinger
# James Kopp
# Dr. Martin Haskell
# Paul Begala
# Julian Bond
# John Green
# Latrell Sprewell
# Maury Povich
# Jerry Springer
# Bob Shrum
# Bill Moyers
# Jeff Danziger
# Nancy Hopkins
# Al Franken
# Jim McDermott
# Peter Singer
# Scott Harshbarger
# Susan Beresford
# Gloria Steinem
# Paul Eibeler
# Dennis Kozlowski
# Ken Lay
# Barbara Walters
# Maxine Waters
# Robert Byrd
# Ingrid Newkirk
# John Vasconellos
# Ann Pelo
# Markos Moulitsas
# Anna Nicole Smith
# Neal Shapiro
# David Westin
# Diane Sawyer
# Ted Field
# Eminem
# Shirley Franklin
# Ludacris
# Michael Savage
# Howard Stern
# Amy Richards
# James Wolcott
# Oliver Stone
# David Duke
# Randall Robinson
# Katherine Hanson
# Matt Kunitz
# Jimmy Swaggart
# Phil Donahue
# Ward Churchill
# Barbara Kingsolver
# Katha Politt
# Eric Foner
# Barbara Foley
# Linda Hirshman
# Norman Mailer
# Harry Belafonte
# Kitty Kelley
# Tim Robbins
# Laurie David
# The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity
# The Vicious Celebrity
# The Dumb Celebrity
# Chris Ofili
# Sheldon Hackney
# Aaron McGruder
# Jane Smiley
# Michael Jackson
# Barbara Streisand
# Kerri Dunn
# Richard Timmons
# Guy Velella
# Courtney Love
# Eve Ensler
# Todd Goldman
# Sheila Jackson Lee
# Matthew Lesko
100. Rick and Kathy Hilton

your point being?

Actually, the research of the trained Civil Engineers show that they do.

"Common sense" once said the world was flat, exploration proved them wrong. "Common sense" once said the Earth was the center of the Universe. "Common sense" once said that man couldn't build a machine that could fly. "Common sense" still tells some people that a being as complex as a man could never have been the result of evolution.




Yes, I'm familar with Pascal's Wager that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. But you know what, it didn't make me stop being an Atheist either. And I'll remind you that Pascal's Wager is the origin of Pascal's Flaw, a state of incompleteness of an argument or its failure to arrive at its desired conclusion. Statements containing a Pascal's Flaw often arise in discussions where the offending party can no longer provide evidence to support their case. Which is where you are now.

You are free to hold onto your beliefs or "faith" in your common sense in the face of the scientific reseach. Personally, I'm going with the science. But when you start trying to pass off your faith as irrefutable facts like a Baptist Fundamentalist trying to sell Creationism as science I'm going to call bullshit.

no point, just thought I'd post it and save wading through right-wing mush.

dear o dear.. plenty of evidence to support THE case has been presented and summarily dismissed and/or ignored. infact you skipped over the post pointing to the report stating the building fell due to fire an favor of getting me on the pascals wager thing.. perhaps you should tackle the harder points made rather than the easy targets like the Pascal thing aye?

*just incase you missed that one I shall repost it*

From the American Society of Civil Engineers publication:

Many of the buildings suffered severe fire damage but remained standing. However, two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse. WTC 7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approximately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occurred in an interior section of WTC 5.

Ok, sorry, fair enough. Call it an attempt at humor that went straight into the toilet.

Specifically as to the cause of the loss of interior columns:

The proposed probable cause is fire that burned for hours through the day may have exposed various structural elements (specifically the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7) of the building to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength under load to the point of causing collapse. These weren't "apartment fires" as you described them, they were fires believed fed by the various stores of diesel fuel for the variety of generators maintained on the property. Steel under compression becomes soft with heat (it doesn't have to melt btw) and fails to support the compression. That compression then is passed on to other surviving members of the structure. Once the load paths start to fail, they redistribute to the other paths and fail them as well.





There was sufficient debris impact to cause physical damage (approximately 10 stories, 25% of the building depth) to the 1/3 of the south face to the center and to the bottom of the building. I think you are mischaracterizing its potential impact to call it "some peppering by debris". As to the time, when a structure breaks down internally that does not mean that the roof starts to fall at that moment. Instead the stresses build up on the remaining supporting members. So the start of the structural failure could have been hours before the collapse.





Their findings said that the most probable cause was a chain-reaction collapse from the combination of the fire that burned for hours, the structural damage WTC 7 sustained, and the unusual construction of WTC-7. Not just the fire, not just the structural damage.





Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Larry Silverstein Properties, apparently issued a statement that clarrified that the "it" Silversteen was referring to in his conversation with a Fire Department Commander was a fire fighting team that had begun trying to control the fires in WTC-7. Don't know much about it but if you are really curious you can contact them via email or phone. Their contact info is on their website at http://www.silversteinproperties.com/.

"In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six."

HERES THE VIDEO OF IT BEING SAID


when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

So you would argue that "pull" couldnt mean demo a building and stand up for "it" meaning a team of firefighters... *boggles*

As already answered in theg previous post. The most probable cause was a chain-reaction collapse from the combination of the fire that burned for hours, the structural damage WTC 7 sustained, and the unusual construction. Not just the fire.




At the simplest level, houses burn because they are made of wood and other combustable materials that burn, not steel and concrete. Houses don't usually collapse because they aren't under the same stresses and load as a 47 story office building.




That's it? They claimed that nothing like this has been seen before. Well no kidding. I don't think there is anyone debating that at all. But so what exactly does this prove? The fact that it has not previously been observed in the US doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The fact that you'd never had quite this large an event of this type with this combination of elements almost certainly makes this a unique circumstance (its not every day that you have an event like 9-11 you know?). In fact they don't hide the fact, they are saying quite clearly this is a significant finding. The piece you quote is on page 7 of the document. But if you go on to read the rest of the document you will see their observations and findings on page 14, where they state the probable cause of WTC 7 collapsing from structural damage and fire. So were they only telling truth on Page 7 that you quoted, but were lying and covering up on page 14?

This document was in produced in 2002 BTW. If you read the June 2004 NIST Progress Report (Page 17 & Apdx L) (of which the ASCE is part) you'll see their most recent released hypothsis on WTC 7 collapse is basically the same as in the original document:

1. An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
   

1. Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
   

1. Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
   

It shoulds be noted there is no evidence as reported by the engineers of the controlled demolition you've said was so irrefutable based on viewing a video clip. If it were that irrefutable you would think of those Engineering organizations would have found something.

No, you're creating a strawman argument I didn't make.

I said I don't know much about about it, but that the guy's spokesman apparently said he was talking about the fire team. My actual argument would be that neither you nor I know for certain what the hell Silverstein was talking about. The fact that you have audio of a demolition worker using the term "pull" to mean bringing down a structure doesn't mean that when Silverstring (who isn't in demolitions) obviously meant the same thing when he said "pull". I use "pull" in all sorts of contexts that have doing to do with blowing up buildings.

Do you have an audio clip of Silverstein saying it in full context as well?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT.swf

thats about as complete as it gets.. as far as I can find.

as opposed to your left wing bullshit?

pull it is not a demo term, so stop trying to pull something out of your arse

none of which accounts why it fell at freefall speeds.

Just wanted to point out about 'houses NOT collapsing when burned". Bull! I have seen that exact thing happen to a house that burned across the street from me. And , IT was only two stories. The buildings in question here were a lot friggin taller. The weight bearing section were holding up an incredible amount of weight. Causing even minor damage in the right spots would shift things enough to cause a collapse. This was the very reason buildings of this size weren't built until fairly recently. They had a tendency to collapse. I am NOT an expert, but common sense, and grade school learning should be enough to see that the events that happened could easily cause the collapses. I am NOT saying that there was or wasn't a conspiracy. I am just saying that it is stupid to say the attacks could't have done it.

Thing is, the first part of establishing the the "Free Fall" claim for WTC 7 is to calculate the actual time it took for the tower to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult. Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation. I've seen all sorts of estimated numbers. For example, one claim is that WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. This is based on a familiar video found almost every on the net. There is nothing wrong with the measurement itself, but what we see on the video are the top 14 floors, WTC7 had 47 floors. Supporters of the "free fall" theory appear to stop counting when WTC7 disappears behind the building, but there are stil 33 floors to go. So my guess is 6.5 should be 12 seconds or maybe even more.

According to NIST, the east mechanical penthouse (a structure approxmately 116 x 131 feet), began its collapse 8.2 seconds before the "global collapse" ensued. Since the collapse probably started on the lower floors, esp. 5-7, failures could have taken some time to make it to to the penthouses. These internal collapses may account for the seismic data showing an 18-second duration.

The east penthouse starts to go between 4-5 seconds in. The visible collapse here is at least 13 seconds. If you take NIST's 8.2 and add Steven Jones' 6.6, you get 14.8 seconds.

I've also seen reports of seismic records indicated rumblings as much as 30 seconds before the visible collapse began, indicating a massive internal collapse.

So there is alot broad estimation and just plain guessing that is being fed into the whole assertion of "free fall" on WTC 7 to begin with, which is problematic. At that point it becomes a matter of "faith" IMHO, for those that choose to use the numbers that support the "free fall" claim. Not a matter of imperical data and engineering science. And from that perspective they can chose to believe whatever they like, so long as they don't claim their belief is irrefutable and unquestionable scientific proof.

uh hu...

There are two of each letter "u" and "h" in that quote. Such things can only mean there is a secret conspiracy. And what do those three dots mean?

I demand a full investigation, Richie might be AQ sending coded messages to KB here. And is it a mere coincidence that KB is only one letter away from KGB? How blind can you people be?

ROFL.

I *swear* it's those goddamn Zeta Greys up to their old tricks again. If we're not careful we're all going to wake up with a sore ass in a pasture surrounded by mutilated cows. MARK MY WORDS!

That's an awful lot of numbers you throw out to obscure what is clearly visable on film.

Inability to grasp math does not a conspiracy make. LMFAO.

Math can be made to say anything.
Have you seen the footage of WTC #7 falling?

I understand Math fine. I can use Mathematics to prove an elephant can stand on top of daisy.