Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 12 of 13
Quote:I am feeling grossly misunderstood. I am holding nothing out as proof.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof
Quote:And I do. I am just saying all this analysis boils down to whose "expert" opinion you value, and does not bring me any closer to any conclusions.
Analzing each of your questions is necessary,
Quote:Perhaps you are not listening. I don't have a bag of conspiracy theories.
If you are interested in finding the truth, having your bag of conspiracy theories deflated a bit is a GOOD THING.
Quote:I have never made either statement. What I said was buildings with deformed supports seem to behave differently than building with removed supports; WTC behaves more like the latter than the former. And it is highly unlikely that an inexperienced pilot with not even an IFR rating can fly a 767 at 750 ft/sec into a target that is 200 feet wide.
But you will never get to the truth if you insist on chasing your tail on ridiculous ideas like "it should have fallen like a tree and not in it's own footprint." And "a trained pilot can't possibly fly a mostly automated plane through a mostly empty sky on a perfecly clear day."
Quote:And again I have to point out I don't believe anything, other than the official story is full of holes.
Again I find myself wondering: what is it you want? To find the unknown truth, or to be proven right in what you already believe?
Quote:Of course not. It is perfectly ok though to question evidence and the conditions under which they are applicable.
EDIT: It is not OK for a scientist to ignore evidence because he or she just doesn't like things that way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Citizen - I was thinking that if you had a vertical member that toppled outward it would topple outside of the building footprint. Other than that - of course everything else stays within b/c it falls straight down. Even a 100 foot vertical member (assuming they have such things) if it toppled inward would stay within the building footprint - b/c most large modern buildings have at least a 100 foot width/depth.
So, to absolutely guarantee that a building will fall in its own footprint (or a reasonable approximation of it) the one thing you need to do during design is limit the length of the vertical members. Either that or afterwards bring them down in such a way as to fall inward, or both.
That was a side trip I know, but interesting to me anyway.
Living in an earthquake zone I tend to keep up with what brings buildings down and how do they come down when they do come down. That's how I got my information on tilt-up buildings and the Mexico City earthquake - and about how it is that buildings (and freeways like the Nimitz) 
pancake as a very specific type of failure. (If you aren't familiar with the event, what you are seeing is the upper-level of the freeway lying directly atop the lower elevated level of the freeway, with a few unfortunate cars and trucks smashed flat in between providing a few inch gap. The supports for the upper level splayed outward and down and some came off in that direction.) Having seen a lot of buildings with wall/floor support structures pancake it wasn't a surprise to me to see the WTC buildings - with a similar support structure - pancake as well. But the whole thing about buildings coming down in their own footprint in general was new and interesting though I should have guessed it just from the physics involved - :smacks forehead: DUH !.
Back to WTC, since the vertical members did NOT fall inward (they were curved back 180 deg, peeled out and down, like a banana peel) it argues that the buildings were NOT imploded in a way as to make them fall correctly inward. Or, in other words, it was NOT a controlled demolition.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You do not reply to a post and never refer to it's very relevant information until I pressure you over it. What can I interpret that as, other than dismissal?
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Usually, I read everything Rue writes and links to. Don't mistake not responding for dismissing.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But to dismiss the information Rue presents, just because you don't like the messenger...
Quote:Thank you! That is useful information! Now we're getting somewhere.Quote:Rue's article is written by someone with 100 hours in a single engine plane. He thinks he can fly a 767, but he's never actually done it. My article was written by someone who HAS flown heavy aircraft. His experience carries more weight with me.
I'm still not seeing any other reason why you're believing one article over another.
Rue, is this true? I'd check on CTS's source but I can't find the connection now... bah! Of course, real research would involve looking through many more sources...
Quote:And I've heard from quite a few sources that it's the other way around - not so hard to do. Everyone on this thread has found differing info from you, in fact. Not that it's resolved. As you say, this particular question is all about the experts we believe, since no one here has flown a jetliner.Quote:What weaknesses? Do you mean your assertion that you can see where NYC is because you've been flown around it several times? And various similar critiques? I don't know how to respond to that. No, it's not like that at all? Cause pilots I've talked to say it isn't like that at all?
Did you note the points of weakness in your pilot's article? Are you going to address those, or just skip right by them?
As far as my comment about being able to see NYC - this was in direct response to your guy's article, since he claimed that the hijackers could never have even found their way to NYC. This was one of the weaknesses I mean - the city is not hard to find! As I also pointed out, the article ignored the fact that the hijackers had GPS and windows. You yourself say it must have been like driving with half a blindfold. Why a blindfold? Because the transponder was off? How does that stop you from seeing landmarks, or a big ass building right in front of you?
Quote:What I've tried to voice is that you ask for discussion and then ignore anything you don't like, (not reponding to is ignoring!) and the reasons you give for choosing your experts, when you bother to give any, are weak. The reason you gave above - that the pilot you believe has flying experience - is strong. Can you just do more of that, and less responding with silence?
At some point, the nitpicking one way or the other isn't going to take this conversation anywhere. I've voiced my doubts, you've voiced why you think my doubts are bullshit. Let it go at that, shall we?
Cause hey, if I am misunderstanding you, it's clear that I'm not the only one on this thread. All I want is for you to carry out this discussion you claim to want, and that you make an effort to decribe your logic.
Quote:You have stated that the official story is not believable (that's the theory). You have pointed to several issues and claimed that they are holes in the offical story (proof of the theory).Quote:I am feeling grossly misunderstood. I am holding nothing out as proof.
The problem here is that this bag of "loose ends and inconsistencies" you hold out as proof
Quote:From my vantage point, there is much conclusive evidence that goes beyond opinion - ie the way the buildings fell. These are scientific issues which several people have addressed but you have seldom replied to. I suppose they will remain matters of opinion in your eyes as long as you continue to avoid the science.Quote:And I do. I am just saying all this analysis boils down to whose "expert" opinion you value, and does not bring me any closer to any conclusions.
Analzing each of your questions is necessary,
[qu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, but that's not exactly a great position to argue from. It's the same sort of position proponents of Intelligent Design use.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm speaking as a citizen, not as a scientist. As a citizen, I can say "I'm not buying it" if I want to.
Quote:Actually, it's not ok to pick at a theory because you don't like it based on gut instinct, and not offer an alternative explanation for the things the theory explains. The official theory, for all the faults you say it has, still explains the observed evidence better than "I don't know".
As a scientist, I can say there is insufficient information to come to any definitive, incontrovertible conclusions. It is perfectly ok for a scientist not to pretend to know what is going on. It is ok to have insufficient data from which to form a hypothesis or theory.
Quote:Forgive me, you seemed to be a proponent of the Demolition Hypothesis earlier.
I have none.
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:I don't have a lot of time right now, but this is a quick and dirty response. It is hard to find because you're 30K feet in the air. The pilot had to navigate 3 dimensionally (horizontally and vertically) in an aircraft he's never been in. There may have been IFR conditions along the way at that altitude (cloud cover etc). The disorientation is not a true blindfold, but the analogy is meant to touch on the fact that a pilot in that kind of aircraft has to rely on instruments. Not having experience in using those instruments is LIKE driving without being able to see everything.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This was one of the weaknesses I mean - the city is not hard to find! As I also pointed out, the article ignored the fact that the hijackers had GPS and windows. You yourself say it must have been like driving with half a blindfold. Why a blindfold?
Here are some more pilot opinions.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11692&st=0
Here is another opinion from the same website:
Quote:
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Again, not saying these folks are right, and you guys are wrong. Just that these types of opinions from pilots who have significant hours in type (of airplane) carries weight with me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have SUSPICIONS that the official story is false; I have no proof, nor have I offered any viewpoint as proof.
You have a collection of "loose ends and inconsistencies" which you keep to returning to as proof - yes proof - that the official story is wrong.
Quote:Which evidence is conclusive is a matter of opinion. When it is all said and done, it still comes down to someone's opinion. Those "scientific" issues aren't as hard and fast as you might think--that is why there is a debate amongst scientists and professionals.
From my vantage point, there is much conclusive evidence that goes beyond opinion - ie the way the buildings fell. These are scientific issues which several people have addressed but you have seldom replied to. I suppose they will remain matters of opinion in your eyes as long as you continue to avoid the science.
Just so you know, I'm not avoiding "the science." I am reading the 911 debunker links you sent, as well as some technical arguments found at this site.
http://www.ae911truth.org/#techarts
When I finish mulling it over and can summarize what I perceive to be the key issues, I'll post them and see what you have to say. Okay? Maybe you can read these articles too, so we have some common arguments to think about.
Specifically, I'm reading these articles:
http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-Ro
bertsonTranscript.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pd
f
It just takes time to study this stuff, you know? Doesn't take a lot of time to read it once, enough to form one's personal conclusions. But to understand the material well enough to engage in debate is another matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, for the record, have we gotten beyond 'buildings don't pancake' and 'they were blown up' ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For the record:
Originally posted by rue:
So, for the record, have we gotten beyond 'buildings don't pancake' and 'they were blown up' ?
Quote:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually that depends on how you define “pancaking.” Pancaking such as the floors becoming detached from surrounding structure and falling on top of one another doesn’t appear to be consistent with observation. Pancaking such as the floors falling on top of one another under the force of gravity DID happen, however, and is consistent with observation. The distinction that NIST is making is where the “break” occurred, not that the floors didn‘t fall one another. That’s a far cry from your apparent previous assumptions.
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
i think Frem made a great point(if i understood correctly), when he said we need to be questioning the various individuals, bureaucrats and private interests whoever, who can either be linked, or seemed to indicate prior knowledge or exhibited suspicious behavior. there was plenty of indications that this was foreseen, from insider trading, cancelled flights by top brass, "coincidental" policy initiatives.. their was even a rumor going around NY warning people to stay out of that part of town that morning. this type of information or evidence is paramount, if even circumstantial
the problem is too many people underestimate the machine. something of this magnititude, 9/11, the 'war on terror', the Iraq war, they just dont happen by accident, randomly, or through (innocent) mass reaction. the french revolution didnt spontaneously occur, there were conspirators behind it all along, who harnessed the energy of the populace.
this could have been handled as a federal crime, and we could have avoided a whole lot of trouble.. but instead, take a look around: we're fighting two wars, via deficit spending that is crushing our economy and dismantling our constitution. would anyone else, nevermind muslim extremists, benefit from a totalitarian America?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME