Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 9 of 13
So in order to ensure a building falls in its own footprint the one thing you have to do is to make sure there are no large vertical members that will topple. ??
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2124251799530760088&hl=en
MP3 at www.myspace.com/countercoup
Thermite at WTC. Airliners don't carry Thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585
www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#Jones3
Controlled Demolition Inc was paid $3-billion govt contract to "demolish" WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8500406504731486597&hl=en
FBI confessed in fed court that FBI paid Emad Salem $1.5-million and gave him the bomb to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, and refused to arrest him, as recorded on 100 hours of audiotape and reported by NY Times:
www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem
Communist rap group run by FBI's Black Panther Cointelpro predicts 9/11 bombings 6 months before 9/11/2001
www.texemarrs.com/032002/the_coup_album_lauded.htm
Deadliest school massacre perped by US govt school board politician using controlled demolition by dynomite
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bauerle/disaster.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
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
"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 false idea occupying that niche. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh they could certainly hit the towers, I think.
Flying a commercial jumbo isn't like stick jockeying a barnstormer, once you have it in the air there's actually very little hand and stick TO it, you see - there's a goddamn plethora of electronic aids that can do almost anything but burp and change the passengers kids, and if you know how to use THOSE, you can do a pretty good job of flying the plane from takeover to point B.
I am being deliberately vague here cause of security reasons, but really, if you know what buttons to push on the console, it's prettymuch all automatic.
And on a humorous note, when "the bitch" starts telling you to pull up, ignoring her is a bad idea.
(Southwest Airlines Flight 1248)
I have a crapload of simulator experience in multiple aircraft thanks to some investment interest and access to unused simulators, you'd be amazed at what chicanery it's possible to pull off in a 737-200 if you don't really care what you do to the plane in the process, and the bigger they are, the more automated they come.
That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not. Just saying it is hard to argue, "Yes, it is hard," and "No, it isn't." There isn't much to say beyond that, because it is all opinion. I'm explaining why I don't respond to your posts--there is nothing to say.
Originally posted by citizen:
why hold me to a higher standard?
And yes, I am under the impression they had no flight experience, only very basic stuff in single engine airplanes, and simulator experience of larger planes. If that is incorrect, please post a link to correct me.
(If you want to get technical and say a little bit of single-engine experience counts as "flight experience," I'll grant that. But as far as I am concerned, they have no flight experience--whatever they have is negligible for the purposes of my question--and definitely none in jumbo jets.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that is the usual answer to that question. But it is not consistent with responses of pilots that I've talked to. They say it takes skill. Of course, maybe they're supposed to say that. But I am under the impression that while automatic controls can fly a plane, they aren't very useful in the kind of target flying used to impact the towers.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.
Of course, I am always open to hearing more opinions on the topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it does take skill to land a jetliner and take off. And it requires skill and experience to fly the jet to maintain a smooth and safe journey for your passengers.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Well, that is the usual answer to that question. But it is not consistent with responses of pilots that I've talked to. They say it takes skill. Of course, maybe they're supposed to say that. But I am under the impression that while automatic controls can fly a plane, they aren't very useful in the kind of target flying used to impact the towers.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's an easy one to answer, I am surprised no one else brought this up.
Of course, I am always open to hearing more opinions on the topic.
BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it. In fact, they pretty much fly themselves once you get in the air.
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
CTS – what you need is a source of information about the WTC collapse that is based in facts and scientific principles, and not in hysteria and the highly suspect “gut feelings” of non-engineers. I suggest the following:
First, an easily digestible (in terms of techie terms) slide show narrated by the lead in the NIST investigation team. I’m sure the full report is online somewhere if you take the time to look for it, but the slide show gives you an idea of the computer modeling that was done – the disintegration of the planes at the instant when they hit the towers, the immediate effect of the impact on the buildings, the slower effects of the fires, and the mechanics of the collapse:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html
Second, there’s a peer reviewed and published paper by civil engineer Zdenek Bazant. It goes into the basic physics of the collapse, including how failed structure at one floor could lead to the building collapsing as it did. Appendix 2 addresses the question of why the upper part of the South Tower did not pivot (like a falling tree) although it did tilt slightly as it began to fall. This is your falling-in-the-footprint issue.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (paper)
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTCfig-asce.pdf (figures)
I’ll note that this paper is a bit daunting in terms of technical language, but if you want to argue the feasibility of the “official” story, you have to address the conclusions Bazant comes to. The mechanical issues are very real, whether they are fun to read about or not.
For example, if you expect that the South Tower should have fallen like a tree, as you seem to, the onus is on YOU to explain how the dynamic horizontal forces at the base of the upper (collapsing) part did not shear the columns holding it up. If you lack the technical experience to argue at this level, I suggest you search the literature to find a rebuttal by an actual engineer, and not an ordinance expert or an economist (your OK bombing “expert”). Find a peer reviewed study that questions the offical story in technical terms, and then you’ll have something.
Third, here’s a site that debunks several 9/11 myths, both technical and other:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Including the pancake issue: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Building 7: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Hijackers still alive: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
And more and more that I could list, but why don’t you just visit the site yourself?
Finally, CTS, I must note that you have not replied to any of the posts that give you exactly what you say you want: a discussion of the technical issues. Foster and Fletch2 posted technical information that you appear to have just ignored. And yet you give a big THANK YOU to the one poster who at all agreed with you, (I’m not counting PN) though he gave you no facts at all.
There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning. But what are you really asking for? Do you really want to talk facts, or are you only out to find people to agree with your gut level suspicions?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you a pilot? Is anyone here opining on this subject a pilot? Not discounting or dismissing your opinion, but it does help to put it in context.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
BUT if you’re not taking off or landing or concerned about your passengers, then any idiot can do it.
Everyone is saying any idiot can fly a plane. But that was not my question. My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour? This targeting is, in my opinion, much more than just flying a plane.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There has been a response to this already on this thread - your assumption of no real flight experience is wrong. Four of the pilots - one on each plane - held FAA certificates as qualified pilots. There are witnesses who went to flight school with these people. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My question specifically is if someone with no real flight experience can target a building 200 feet wide going 500 miles an hour?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, he's not right. And I'm beyond tired of having this conversation. It has now replaced the all timers, like.....
Young Earth Creationism
Moon landing hoax
2nd Shooter in JFK assassination
lol.. its funny you should mention those examples... im willing to consider any of the possibilities. i guess that makes me a kook? still, im willing to guess you would appreciate our skepticism on matters of climate change, or other covert socialist schemes... so try and keep it in context. when it comes to world governments, in light of history, it never hurts to be suspicious
for all i know, 9/11 was a communist conspiracy, perpetrated by a number of groups, designed to smother American constutional liberty under the false pretenses of a "war on terror". given that the patriot acts, military commission act etc, have done that, i may be right, if even inadvertently
regardless, its always better to have an alert, scrupulous populace, then one too willing to take the "machines", the establishments marching orders, almost ver batum, especially when the philosophical flaws are apparent to anyone with half a brain and a functional pair of gonads
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME