Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 4 of 13
Quote:How do you know Arab men hijacked 4 planes? You see, you don't have to actually plant the men, if all you have to do is plant the lie.
Originally posted by Foster:
Some how they must have planted Arab men that would hijack four planes.
Quote:What exactly did they say when they called? Have you heard those conversations? Why are those conversations still classified?
Then they planted people on the planes that would make calls to the ground describing what was going on.
Quote:How do you know those explosives need multiple crews? What if they used explosives that don't need massive crews?
And then they had to have multiple crews place explosives in both towers without any of the people (including security personnel) noticing.
Look, I don't know what happened. But I do know the official story is not consistent with the way things work and are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and investigating the issues for something that is closer to the truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"BUT HE HAS NO CLOTHES ON !"
People tend to do what they see other people doing. A lot of times it's a good thing - you might not have smelled the smoke but you'll probably run if you see other people running. Sometimes it's not so good - that's why a crowd of people can look on as a woman is murdered, claim to see the holy spirit amongst fellow worshipers, or drink and then go driving if everyone else does. It's part of the human heuristic.
http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/d
p/051788433X
Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds (Paperback)
Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas.
In fact, cases such as Tulipomania in 1624--when Tulip bulbs traded at a higher price than gold--suggest the existence of what I would dub "Mackay's Law of Mass Action:" when it comes to the effect of social behavior on the intelligence of individuals, 1+1 is often less than 2, and sometimes considerably less than 0.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.
I buy this story as much as I buy a Ryder truck full of fertilizer exploding the Federal building in OK City--by being parked in front.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Other buildings built with a similar design to WTC (perimeter support of floors) also pancake when wall-support is damaged - for example, tilt-up buildings pancake when the walls fall away in an earthquake. (The walls are poured on the ground and 'tilted' up, while in their propped-up positions floors are then installed to tie the walls together. The props are of course later removed. During an earthquake the ties between the walls and floors break, the walls fall away and the floors pancake.) One example is here, you'll see a photo of a school where the walls are gone and the floors pancaked directly on top of each other. Many of the 'modern' buildings in Mexico City were built with tilt-up construction, and pancaking-floors was the most common type of damage in those buildings during the Mexico City earthquake.
http://www.bhs.idaho.gov/bhslibrary/eqsafetymasonry.pdf
***************************************************************
So not only is it possible, it's likely for that type of construction.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Finn and Kwicko have got it right. The impact of the airplane would not have brought down the WTC if it wasn't for the fire. If you look at a stress/strain graph for steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation you will see that the point where steel loses its strength is called the point of "plastic deformation". This is the point were steel no longer springs back to its original shape like it does in "elastic deformation". The point of "plastic deformation" is effected by temperature. One of the primary reasons the WTC failed is that the original impact of the airplane striped much of the fire barrier from the steel columns. The impact also did some structural damage but not enough to bring down the building. The combination of the structural damage, premature plastic deformation in the steel columns caused by fire, and the fact that the airplanes hit a few levels down from the top of the building, all contributed to the catastrophic failure. Even with the structural damage and the fire, the buildings probably wouldn't have collapsed if the airplane had hit the top level of the building. It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.
I like to point out to the physics illiterate and the conspiracy nut cases that the 2nd building hit was the first one to fall. Why? Because the 2nd plane hit lower down on the tower. The impact area had more weight pushing down on it than did the 1st tower hit. And once the 1st to fall came down, it was only a matter of time before the other tower did the same. It was unavoidable at that point.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The chances are pretty good. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn’t happen. However, there wasn‘t very much perfection in the pancaking. Considerable debris fell on nearby buildings.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It was the inconceivable weight of the building levels above the strucurally damaged level that caused catastrophic failure. When the damaged level failed the upper levels easily crushed the other levels as they fell.
Quote:Probably because you don’t understand that very well either. The fertilizer was an oxidizer, the explosive was ANNM/ANFO, which is a very high energy explosive used in blasting mines. The only thing that saved the building from being level straight to the ground was that the ingredients were poorly mixed, and it didn’t achieve an optimal detonation conditions. A similar truck bomb in London resulted in over a billion pounds of damage.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I buy this story as much as I buy a Ryder truck full of fertilizer exploding the Federal building in OK City--by being parked in front.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Buildings are designed to fail this way, so its actually very very likely. They're method of construction also favoured this type of failure.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I might buy that if the upper levels toppled over as the building fell. But those levels pancaked perfectly, one on top of the other, and practically disintegrated while falling. What are the chances of that happening, without some sort of demolition job?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure, I'll grant that maybe I'm ignorant. But I don't think Brigadier General Benton K. Partin is ignorant. And he doesn't buy it either.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Probably because you don’t understand that very well either.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok8.htm
--------------------------
Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb.
--Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_trusses.html
Originally posted by citizen:
Buildings are designed to fail this way, so its actually very very likely. They're method of construction also favoured this type of failure.
Here is a picture of a building that failed this way. Does it bear any resemblance to the failure of the WTC buildings?
In fact, read the whole page. I'd like to have an intelligent discussion of these issues, if anyone were to have arguments that weren't part of the oversimplistic 9/11 mantras, such as "they're supposed to fail this way."
--------------------------
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
--Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was an excellent PBS how that showed actual debris and how it had failed, piece by piece. For example the perimeter vertical girders were bent and peeled like a banana skin, support girders were sagging and therefore too short to span the walls, etc.
You say you want a fruitful discussion. We will not be able to have a fruitful discussion however, if you do not come up to speed on ALL the facts, and instead pick and chose only the ones you support. For example, it is an indisputable fact that buildings whose walls are tied together by the floors, do pancake - straight down - as their primary mode of failure when the ties break. So rather than being an impossibility as you originally claimed, it is an extraordinarily common occurrence.
As for Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, he seems to have shuttled between ordnance, support flights, aeronautics and systems engineer, all in a support (not lead) role. I'm not sure what about his experience makes him qualified to do a civil engineer's job of structural failure analysis.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME