Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 6 of 13
You know I have to point out that you are on the internet the most powerful research tool ever created by man. With a few brief keystrokes I have managed to come across information that others claimed was "classified", as it turns out, not so much with the classified as with to lazy to look up the info. If you are really interested in finding the truth then maybe take a few mins and really search this great database for some of the facts. The transcripts of 93's little black box or the transcripts of other passengers calls. Hell I don't know maybe the opinion of a qualified civil engineer or demolitions expert (many claim to be so I would recommend that you do a bit of a background search before accepting them as experts, and before believing everything that comes out of their mouth).
Just saying that if your going to be yelling conspiracy you should be able to knowledgeably quote the facts of the case and provide supporting scientific evidence from reputable sources. Otherwise you look ignorant, and quoting the opinion of people who have no background in those fields is not sufficient to make one look informed about the subject matter.
Side note if you can't find any supporting evidence from people respected in those fields it is not evidence of a conspiracy. Occam's Razor holds that the simplest explanation is the one that is most often right. That said it would seem to me that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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?
I hope you find someone else to teach your kid physics.
Ever balanced a bat vertically on your hand? It's hard isn't it? Requires a lot of adjustment? By contrast it actually takes effort to knock over a stool, even though the stool and the bat are about the same length. The reason for this difference is to do with the position of the center of gravity of an object compared to the area of it's base. Center of gravity is kind of the average point where most of the mass of an object resides. The base of an object is that part of the object that transmits this mass to the ground.
For an object to be stable and not topple it's center of gravity has to remain within the area of it's base. In the case of the balanced bat the base is tiny which is why keeping it balanced needs constant adjustment. The system is inherently unstable and your balancing act is your attempt to keep the center of gravity within the base. You don't need to do that with the stool because the base is so much bigger, the CoG is very comfortably within the area of the base. That explains why it is relatively stable.
When you look at the buildings and think they should topple you are probably imagining a lumberjack cutting a tree. Two things to understand are that trees are rooted at the bottom and have a mass of branches at the top. The CoG of the tree is likely to be very close to the edge of the area of the trunk if not outside it. Without roots trees would fall over. Instead the strength of the trunk holds them up. When a jumberjack cuts the tree he removes the structure that is holding the unstable tree upright. Once enough structure is removed the tree topples because it's CoG is outside of the area of its base.
In the case of a building the CoG is almost always along the building center line and well within the base. Unlike a tree where the trunk not only holds up the weight of the branches but also prevents the tree from toppling in a building the structure only holds the building up. Because the CoG is so far within the base there is no possibility of it tumbling.
Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards. To get the building to topple like you imagine you would need to not only weaken the support but also exert enough force near the top to move the CoG of the section of the building above the breech tens of feet outside of the area of the base of the building. Since that force was not there the building fell downwards. It had to.
Quote:
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.
AnFo (ammonium nitrate and fuel oil) is used in quarrying because it's a very very cheap explosive. It used to be a fav of the IRA back in the day. You need far more of it than you would something more energetic like TNT and that's why it ends up in truck bombs rather than in napsack bombs.
Watch and enjoy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A few notes on OKC, while I cram down lunch here.
ANFO is a low order explosive, not suitable for concrete, any farmer around here could tell you so since they use it to blow stumps, and due to the distance between the truck and the building - isn't really likely to have cause the damage.
Two unexploded munitions of a far more sophisticated type were removed from INSIDE the building, one of which was attached beside a natural gas line.
During the event, two seperate seismic events were recorded.
All of those are known facts, and as I have always said, you have to ask the RIGHT questions.
Like...
Did any of the internal bombs go off ?
Who placed them and when ?
Without answers to those questions, the offical story on OKC falls apart completely.
And now, as to the Twin Towers.
Since many of the so-called hijackers have since been found alive and well elsewhere - what evidence is there to identify the actual perps ?
Why are those technologically impossible phone calls being considered evidence ?
Who made the stock trades that day ?
Who sent the Odigo message ?
Why did the FAA quality manager at ARTCC destroy the tapes ?
Why did Condi tell Willie Brown to stay off planes ?
Where are the aircraft black boxes ?
Was building 7 Pulled or not ?
If so, who wired the charges and when ?
What inferno ?
Show me some pictures, and counter the testimony of on site fire personnel who thought the situation was completely manageable.
Asking the right questions is a big step, I refuse to speculate without enough evidence to do so, however it's abundantly clear that the official story is bunk, and without real information due to unanswered questions, such speculation is gonna happen in many directions.
I also cite history, these cover stories never hold up, but rarely are they ever resolved fast enough to do the people negatively impacted any good either.
That also brings into question the motivation behind the presented cover story, as in why they feel the need to shovel such obvious bullshit in the first place.
We don't know, can't know - and it's damned unlikely we'll find out in time to take any realistic action about it, but hell if imma flame someone for trying no matter how wacked out I believe they might be.
Just imagine how other historical events might have unfolded if no one bought the cover story that gave those in power excuses to forment them ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't. In fact, I am in the position I'm in because I don't assume anyone is incapable of being wrong, including those who dished out the "official" stories.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...just don't automatically assume that because someone has a title, they're incapable of being wrong.
I read the Brig. Gen's report, and it made sense to me. So, ok, you guys want to dismiss him as ignorant as well... that's your call. It's my call that his points are well supported and is consistent with structural mechanics as I understand them.
I see a lot of comments about how tiring and tedious all this "questioning" is. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinions. But why are you on this thread? The thread is about whether Jesse Ventura is right to question 9/11. You don't think he is, you've said so, move on. What is wrong with the rest of us who don't find it tedious in discussing the issue further?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Since many of the so-called hijackers have since been found alive and well elsewhere - what evidence is there to identify the actual perps?
Right.....'cause Mohammed Atta is now playing shortstop for the MSNBC softball team. I guess it must have been Rev Wright and his congregation flying those planes home to roost. Well..not the actual Rev, 'cause he's living large in his 10 bedroom mansion on the golf course in a 98% white neighborhood...man, those hate-whitey DVD's sell great!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't know what happened on 9/11. I don't know if our govt or if any govt is responsible for the WTC towers collapsing. So no, I am not crediting govt with this kind of abiliity.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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!
What I am crediting our govt with is lying. There is abundant evidence throughout all of history that if nothing else, govts know how to lie. Sometimes, they don't lie very well. But they lie well enough to be able to enter wars and justify policies. It doesn't take a whole lot of competence to do that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I learned a new word today:
Quote:
Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists."
Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis. Solipsism refers to several world views whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent. Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:
1. Nothing exists;
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
Solipsism syndrome is a pathological psychiatric condition involving dissociative mental states. It is a common belief among Developmental psychologists that infants are solipsist.
Author Robert A. Heinlein often toyed with themes of a solipsistic "multiverse" in various stories and novels. A good example is his short story "All You Zombies".
George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 features a climactic metaphysical debate: the central character, Winston, argues against "the belief that nothings exists outside your own mind," or the "fallacy" of solipsism; O'Brien, his inquisitor, explains that "collective solicism" would be a better name for the totalitarian scheme, but would also be nearly the opposite of solicism in theory. Winston ultimately loses this debate, and learns that truth defined by power and not the human mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
Amazing how many Solipsists worship Big Brother as their god.
Quote:
September 911 Surprise as seen on History Channel TV
www.piratenews.org/flight93.html
www.piratenews.org/911con.html
www.September911Surprise.com
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.”
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rarely mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?"
GEORGE BUSH JR: "I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him."
"9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
—FBI agent Rex Tomb, June 6, 2006
www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden."
—General Richard Myers, chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff
www.myspace.com/911pressfortruth
OPERATION NORTHWOODS - the signed confession by US Govt for perping terrorist attacks in USA
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, heh heh heh, just so long as I'm the dictator, heh heh heh."
—Governor George W Bush, November 2000
"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. Being right too soon is socially unacceptable. Belief gets in the way of learning. The hardest part of gaining any new idea is sweeping out the falseNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Questioning entails listening to answers you don't agree with. Since you've ignored answers you don't agree with and dismissed them by focusing on one small side aspect (not to mention expressed the opinion that those with a different opinion to you should not be expressing that here on this thread), it comes across not so much as asking questions, as looking for positive confirmation of preconceived opinions. The other name for this would be confirmation bias.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I see a lot of comments about how tiring and tedious all this "questioning" is. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinions. But why are you on this thread? The thread is about whether Jesse Ventura is right to question 9/11. You don't think he is, you've said so, move on. What is wrong with the rest of us who don't find it tedious in discussing the issue further?
It's fine to ask questions, but only if one is willing to actually listen to the answers, even if they're not what one wants to hear.
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:THANK YOU.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Asking the right questions is a big step, I refuse to speculate without enough evidence to do so, however it's abundantly clear that the official story is bunk, and without real information due to unanswered questions, such speculation is gonna happen in many directions.
I always wonder why asking these questions is so threatening. What's wrong with saying, "I don't buy it"?
Here are two more questions.
Where the hell was our Air Force on 9/11?
How did people with no flight experience successfully target the twin towers 209 feet wide flying jumbo jets 150 feet wide going 500 miles/hr? Not once, but twice.
(Imagine someone with no driving experience taking an exit ramp slightly wider than the car, going 100 miles/hr. It's a pretty impressive feat.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's been well documented the Saudi terrorists trained on flight simulators to learn how to fly and steer the jets.
When the jets hit they were not going anywhere near 500 mph. I ( and a billion others ) saw the 2nd plane hit...looked like it was going pretty slow after it made its' big looping curve around to get into position to hit the 2nd tower.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME