Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 5 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is a picture of a building that failed this way. Does it bear any resemblance to the failure of the WTC buildings?
Why no, no it does not. For one thing it was partly completed fourteen story building. The World Trade Centers were slightly larger. And they were hit by jetliners.
Perhaps had the building in your example been a fully completed structure ten times larger and hit by a jetliner, then it would be a better example.
I watched a history channel show on this topic. Half the supports were knocked out by the crash, the others were weakened by the fire causing the upper floors to lose integretey and collapse. Their weight compacted each floor into the next. And then, just to show it was not a fluke or a trick...the SAME thing happened to the building next door (which, ironically, had also been hit by a plane).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If they didn't plant the Arab men that were described as taking over on other flights, then they must have had precogniton as to where those men would fly once they did take over. It is the only reason I can see as to how they knew that the WTC towers were going to be hit, and and where on the structure that they would be hit. Otherwise all the explosive charges that were set up to bring the structure down would not have worked correctly.
Imagine if the hijackers changed their targets at the last min, oops! Goodness imagine the problems that would be had if the planes had pulled the detonating cord out of contact with the explosives from entering the buildings at the wrong point. Imagine the horror that would have befallen the plotters at having people going in the two standing structures (with gaping holes in the sides) and finding all the support beams rigged to explode.
Demolition work has to be done with little bits of explosive everywhere not big explosives a few places. Even then the glass from the structure needs to be removed so as not to spray the surrounding area with deadly shrapnel from the thermo expansion resulting from any explosion. I don't seem to recall all the windows blowing themselves out with extreme force before the towers started collapsing. Evey explosive has to be wired into a main board so that the master-blaster can control every movement of the falling structure. I have no idea how they hid the miles and miles of wire that they would need to run to the detonators (using radio is only done in movies). With all the radio signals and dead zones in the building it would be just the plotters luck if some guy pressed his garage door opener and set the whole thing off early, or if the falling debris blocked later signals.
Here is a small article explaining a little bit about building demo if you want to check it out.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1787846.html
I have to point out that the conversations are not classified. If you want a transcript of the stewardess Betty Ong call to American you can go to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you think the way to promote this intelligent discussion is to proclaim anything said to you that you don't like is merely "oversimplistic mantra" do you?
Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_trusses.html
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."
At any rate I question how much intelligent discussion can be obtained here, given that the same points you've raised have been raised a hundred times before on this site and others, and debunked in their first appearance only to be regurgitated again later as if they are some brand new and damning revelation. It's really tedious, tiring and boring.
Far from "they're supposed to fail this way" being an over-simplistic mantra, it is in fact an Architectural engineering fact. Modern high-rise buildings are designed to fall within their own foot print if they do fail, to limit the damage in modern highly packed cities. The only "over-simplification" I see here is in trying to pass off effects seen on different buildings, in different places, experiencing different stresses as having some sort of bearing on what happened to the World Trade Centre towers.
Buildings are highly individual structures, they're not assembled on a production line like a car. Expecting two buildings to react the same to the same events doesn't make much sense. Thinking that a different building, even one built with similar techniques, would react in the same way to different events is simply laughable.
I'd also note, that if you look at the pictures you provided it's clear that the top of the building didn't fall perfectly straight.
One final thing to mention is the often touted fact that the Towers were aircraft proof, which is, frankly, bollocks. They were designed to resist a low speed impact from a significantly smaller and lighter plane carrying much less fuel than what actually hit. The architects and engineers, for some reason, didn't consider someone flying a fuel laden large aircraft into a building at full thrust, they considered an aircraft coming into land, thus at low speed with little fuel.
If nothing else, the alternate theory doesn't even pass cursory examination. It's more full of holes than the 'official' theory by miles, it would seem its only real strength is it isn't the governments theory, and it gives conspiracy theorists excuses to stay off the medication. Why isn't the alternate demolition theory put to the level of amateur sleuthing and misunderstanding that the official theory is? Why must we accept the demolition theory without question, but pick holes in the official one that aren't even there?
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
Come back to the light people. I'm with Auraptor on virtually nothing. But I too am getting tired of hearing this paranoid fantasy crap.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
Exactly. Conspiracists are infamous for putting up "legit" experts, whose sole "expertise" is the fact that they've achieved some high level in another, wholly unrelated field.
Even if I accepted that this Brigadier General was an expert in ordnance, how on earth does that make him an expert on truck bombs, ammonia nitrate, and fuel oil? One explosive delivery system is not interchangeable with the next...
So feel free to ask the questions; just don't automatically assume that because someone has a title, they're incapable of being wrong. Hell, if you've learned nothing else from the Bush Administration, you should have learned that fancy titles and high military rank don't equal expertise or know-how!
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where is your evidence that there were 1) Arab men, 2)Arab men who took over the cockpit, and 3)Arab men who were able to successfully navigate jumbo jets to hit specific targets at 500 miles/hr?
If they didn't plant the Arab men that were described as taking over on other flights, then they must have had precogniton as to where those men would fly once they did take over.
Conventional demolitions do work as you describe. But there are other ways of demolition as well.
Thanks for the link to Betty Ong's cell phone call. I don't see anything in there about Arab men either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One final thing to mention is the often touted fact that the Towers were aircraft proof, which is, frankly, bollocks. They were designed to resist a low speed impact from a significantly smaller and lighter plane carrying much less fuel than what actually hit. The architects and engineers, for some reason, didn't consider someone flying a fuel laden large aircraft into a building at full thrust, they considered an aircraft coming into land, thus at low speed with little fuel.
Thank you. So far as I've ever seen, there's no such thing as an aircraft-proof building. Not even Saddam's deepest bunkers were *that* aircraft-proof... :)
I, too, am weary, leery, and wary of these same old discussions. I'm one of those "nutcase crazytalkers" who think our government is on a course of true evil, but even I won't buy that they purposely caused 9/11. What they DID do is abscond with our feelings of patriotism, shock, fear, and loss AFTER 9/11, and use those feelings to further their own nefarious goals and agenda.
It's a beyond-odd place to find myself - next to AuRaptor and Hero on this issue, but it's where I stand on this one. Nattering and muttering about 9/11, making shifty allegations about shady alliances, and repeating debunked myths ad nauseum isn't going to change my mind. You can believe what you want, but my belief system relies more on proof and fact than rumor and innnuendo.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it's a logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority'. In fact, the opinion of an expert has the same requirement of proof as anyone else's. In other words it's also a logical fallacy to say "he's an expert in explosives, and he agrees with me, so I'm right!" is no less flawed if 'he' is an explosive expert than if he's an agricultural expert.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Conspiracists are infamous for putting up "legit" experts, whose sole "expertise" is the fact that they've achieved some high level in another, wholly unrelated field.
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
Also, I can't believe that THIS administration - or ANY administration - is smart enough to keep such a massive conspiracy covered up so effectively. Nixon tried it with a simply, stupid little office burglary, and he and his guys couldn't even pull off that cover-up!
Crediting the government with this kind of ability really is giving them far too much credit- and giving yourself far too little for falling for it!
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Though I do have to say I wouldn't put it past them to know that something was going to happen with planes soon, and to turn a blind eye. Que sera, sera ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME