911 Pentagon Video Released

[pupa]

Problem is to many people dig up to much shi@t on the internet and post it with conviction! I still say there was NO USA conspiracy, It's just PPL looking for something that isn't! Ditto

 

[Highflyer_GP]

This coming from someone who says his fireplace reaches over 1500 degrees celcius and that's a proven fact because he said so

 

[kilo39]

Guys - I am outta this thread - thanks for the fun times, but I don't have the appetite for it any more. Almost since I got into the thread, I have pushed for what credible scientists have had to say on the matter - and this concept was met with derision from many of you - but as we see here, and I not going to say it was purposefully done, an argumentum ad nauseam has introduced and legitimised the heavily used (I am not even going to bother counting the number of times I heard about steel and its melting point) concept of "liquefied steel as an observed phenomenon in the official documents". So - somehow a false statement gets introduced into a discussion (as happens on the internet), it is not verified, gets promoted, and then it becomes "fact". Can you not see the how inherently problematic this is? Many conspiracies are grounded on these "facts" - or maybe a combination of such "facts" and actual facts - so they can appear very convincing indeed (and we get a cascading series of conclusions set in motion by such fabrications like "the report says liquefied steel in wtc... steel doesn't liquefy until 1500 degrees... the report is incorrect... why did government give us an incorrect report?.... the government falsified the report because they are behind what happened"). It is all very dangerous (both logically and practically) and the internet is absolutely full of stuff like this.

But that is completely untrue ignacio. My last post was directly from the report - here it is again - and I will show you why the report is nonsense - and why I am justified in my use of the word (liquefy).

2. The failure of the impacted floor system: The explosion following the impact may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation around the steel columns. The 60 tons of flaming jet fuel easily raised temperatures to 1,500° F or more. Exposed to such intense and prolonged heat, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. This may have caused a reduction of the buckling force of the connected 2-3 floor structural system.
"Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT"
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&

# Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
-
However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and cross trusses, and the joints connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of the steel dropped markedly with exposure to fire, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202F (650C).[6]
-
Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the building's concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping[14]. This would have placed additional stress on the bunched core columns which themselves were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable; the huge mass of the falling structure had sufficient momentum to act as a battering ram, smashing through all the intact floors below

"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.
-
Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse," he said. "The floor trusses are likely to have been the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. The dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion becomes unstoppable."
M.I.T. panel participants

The quote above is essentially the official report - and certainly taken from an official source - ie, yours MIT. If necessary we/I will go back and find the urls - but it shouldn't be necessary.

So - laugh at me if you will - but I will stick with my published scientists, and my 26 eyewitnesses who saw the Pentagon plane. Maybe the rest of your propositions do have some validity, but I don't have the time to try to work out what is fact and what is "fact", where you are directly quoting a report or where you are quoting something you might have seen where some guy mentioned something that kinda looked like the report. Trying to determine truth, from half-truth, from falsehood is just too time consuming!

Can't you see it? I am posting your published scientists??!

Within context - the word liquefy (and it wasn't introduced by me) - is equal in meaning to "melt" - especially - within the context of "molten metal within the basement." Or metal within a furnace.

And - now you are running away - on the basis of semantics: liquefy verse melt or whatever word you/I want to use. Also - in regard to the quotes above - none of the official report - or your esteemed scientists actually answers to any of the questions - any answers they do give are nonsensical - and proven so - by independent scientists, or professionals in their field. Once again - explain tons of pulverised concrete turned into dust etc. You stance on semantics within this context - shows once more the weakness of your arguments - the official story is shown to be crap - and the scientists (who have no choice but to write the nonsense to the best of the ability) - are in the payment of the government and dependent on grants, salaries, etc paid by that same government. To the extent - when they discover something hidden in SubClause C or wherever - they then try discredit the scientist/engineer. I say it again - and you immediately want to leave: the official story is weak, proof is weak, etc. Overall - not even on the single issue of semantics.

 

[kilo39]

ignacio
So I will keep believing the official account until I either see some solid scientific evidence or a video that debunks it, but, by all means, you guys continue with your questions and conspiracies... just not my cuppa tea!

You are swimming in contradictory evidence (including any number of videos, equations, and diagrams) - but you don't see it.

Am I allowed to use the word "sheep" ?



/edit/and to top it all - we have the us gub doing their best to quash, delay or just not release - any real evidence - duff report - screaming and protesting against any "real" report. I move their report (and your scientists) aren't worth zip.

 

[pupa]

You are swimming in contradictory evidence (including any number of videos, equations, and diagrams) - but you don't see it.

Am I allowed to use the word "sheep" ?



/edit/and to top it all - we have the us gub doing their best to quash, delay or just not release - any real evidence - duff report - screaming and protesting against any "real" report. I move their report (and your scientists) aren't worth zip.

Kilo39, What is your take on this, who was the culprits and why? An USA GVT conspiracy? Reading the last post it came over different than in the heat of the argument!

 

[Xarog]

And to attack ignacio's debating skills rather unfair.

About as unfair as attacking any piece of false information. If he makes logical fallacies, he should be called on them.

Ecstatic to see you back, old buddy... as you can see I have entered into detente with the conspiracy theorists (CTs) and will attempt to constrain my attacking ways while you all constrain your fanciful fabrications.

Good. Now kindly answer this :

Well, I am actually pretty much opposed to the conspiracy as a whole - militant Arabs hijacking planes is obviously the simplest explanation for what happened in this case.

It's the simplest, but it doesn't explain everything. See the problem? It's like claiming Newtonian physics is better than General Relativity, because it's simpler. But Newtonian physics doesn't actually represent what happens in the real world (it's still useful to us, though, because we generally deal with speeds so low compared to the speed of light, that the changes in mass and time are unnoticable.)

Yes - I agreed - it is dismissive and ad hominem... I personally do not mind this style of debate, but, I have come to understand that you are very much against it. Of course, if I read a theory that is borne out of total speculation or pulled out of thin air - I will think it is "kooky" and might even say as much... I am sorry, but I will not be censored when I think something is a totally fantasy and wish to express this. Likewise, if I am ad hominem attacked (like I was for a great deal of posts by prometheus), ad hominem defences are quite likely... this is only human!

Why not just say that it's total speculation and pulled out of thin air? That's much more descriptive than calling something "kooky" - and it gives people a better idea of what you're taking issue with. If you call something of mine kooky, I'm simply going to think "what a jerk", if you told me what I'm saying is pure speculation, I'm going to go looking for corroborating evidence.

I don't really want to debate what a kook is - but the bottom line if someone is promoting the accepted/official view of a story, they can not be defined as a kook. This is just how the word is defined.

What if kooks decide the official story?

 

[nocilah]

what strikes me as the funniest **** ever is this:

the pentagon is the headquarters of the most powerful military might on earth.
The prolly had more cameras n **** around their base then we have in the whole of south africa and yet all they can release is some dodgy freaking 3 framed thing which look suprisingly like a scud missile anyways.

what i dont understand is why didnt they just get some military cg expert in and just recreate the whole freaking thing and sell that to the public? i mean if hollywood can do it then the US AYE Military can.

eh... fsck it... current american leader is a twat. and that is not a theory but fact!

 

[mooK]

Maybe they don't have 400fps camera's because they don't anticipate filming an aeroplane crash into them at about 500km/h

Perhaps you don't understand what kind of camera is required to film a plane travel past a stationary point at 500km/h and garner much detail.

 

[Xarog]

what i dont understand is why didnt they just get some military cg expert in and just recreate the whole freaking thing and sell that to the public? i mean if hollywood can do it then the US AYE Military can.

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm guessing anything CG could be proven to be CG - and if that's the case, then everyone would know that the govt was lying their heads off.

If you're trying to cover it up, far better to release blurry, but real, recordings.

 

[kilo39]

pupa
Kilo39, What is your take on this, who was the culprits and why? An USA GVT conspiracy? Reading the last post it came over different than in the heat of the argument!

pupa - in all of this I was/am just drawing attention to the absurdity of the official story - and when it is pressed it has no substance. And now ignacio has gone awol - because I am disputing that his scientists, or the official report, or his postings off MIT have any substance. It is the first time I have ever read 'engineering' reports using words like; may have, would have, my theory, etc. "When the core columns gave out" - total assumption. The conspiracists sites have less 'may have', 'would have', etc. If anything the conspiracists have put themselves out on a limb making these outrageous claims - but the best ignacio can do is swear by his scientists - when those scientists reports and proofs have been shown dubious at best. The best you can say - which ignacio has acknowledged at least three times (when pressed) - they don't know - it's just a theory. As much a theory as the conspiracists - and if anything the conspiracists have done more in-depth research and have more valid/as valid theories, proofs, photo evidence etc, etc.

As to who is the culprits and why? I have no idea. But - for sure - the fbi knew of the cell in new york - the BL family flew out of usa on the same day - one of the few flights authorised - and BL himself may have been on this plane. They were warned repeatedly - but refused to pick up the cell.

All the issues - the total obliteration of WTC - pancakes and molten metal. The pure visuals of the thing. The backsliding and evasiveness of the gub on this issue. It sucks. And the root of the word liquefy didn't come from me.

Plain fact: 911 has allowed the patriot act, untold eavesdropping, spying on usa citizens - our own fallout here ECT - the crackdown world wide on free communications (unspied on) -. And in all this - continuation of the american war machine and arms industry - orphan of the cold war - now retasked with untold budgets. The profits going to american companies - the lies.

In truth - I have got to the point where I don't believe any of it anymore - and I don't know whether you've noticed - but the tone has changed - at least from the uk - the un expansion is a now a good thing - apologies from bush for his warlike language. The world is tired of their bullsh#t. And make no mistake - if there is any stoppage of oil supply by any nation - Venezuela, Iran, etc - then real trouble for western economies - so lets secure it now.

And sorry to mention JFK - but it is fact - they 'don't know' - the greatest investigative bodies can't solve the death of a president - anomalies - secret service off duty etc, etc, etc. Same crap.

Here we are arguing temperature - but there are 'hundreds' of other anomalies - but once again - ignacio, such as - would have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards this - exactly the attitude of the usa gub. And - no jokes - I sat and watched one video - then an hour later it was another.

Plainly - the spooks are above the law and a law of their own. The media creates our reality - but out there - there is real video, real photos, real equations, real concern. But no - these are the kooks. On the basis of 2006 - and we still don't know - and we still haven't had an investigation addressing the concerns raised. NIST 'truncated models' etc. All nonsense. How do you expect me to believe the official line - when it so vague and so much a theory. And lets not forget BL was a cia creation, Afghanistan. One and the same spooks. Plus, plus, plus. I see no aeroplane - photos taken minutes after - plain before your eyes - hundreds of cameras but the best they can do - etc, plus, +++

So - what's the vote - did lee harvey use a magic bullet? Anything is possible - including a massive/big/fair size/small conspiracy. I think it would take a relatively small team and 3 or so generals - get norad to stand down etc.

Votes??!

 

[eye_suc]

hehehehe, this is awesome... cg missiles

hows about crazy people rather? crazy has always been around. and it doesnt take much motivation for crazy to do what crazy does. will it make a difference in your lives (meaning the south african public) if there WAS a missle or not?

EDIT: and no more ... it looks silly if it is used every time a fact has been stated

 

[pupa]

Well my take is already stated, I think its all a lot of rubish, The USA do not really know, this thing was well orchestrated and made them look like!@ssholes, so yes they would not like to show they were caught on the nap, They could, if this was a conspiracy for the reasons you stated, used better means, why cause themselves such financial ruin? They went years backward or rather progress were delayed. Also the "evidence" these conspirators received could have, if USA wanted, be doctored to give much better "evidence" These conspirators keep on saying they are the masters of deceit, Why do it so poorlyt then?. 40 Years from now this will still be a myth as with all other conspiracy theory's!

 

[killadoob]

look at bombs in england

the english where really upset about this war on terror then suddenly bombs where going off

strange if you ask me

 

[eye_suc]

and its only a "conspiracy" because some people can never accept things for what they are. if your wife divorces you, is it a conspiracy because you dont know why it happened?

instead of wasting hours and hours theorizing about conspiracies, how about talk to a loved one! thats WAY more fun and in the long run should mean more to you. unless of course they get killed in a conspiracy cover up! *shifty eyes*

 

[pupa]

look at bombs in england

the english where really upset about this war on terror then suddenly bombs where going off

strange if you ask me

No more as strange as these bored peeps seeing ghosts where there is none!

 

[icyrus]

Also - in regard to the quotes above - none of the official report - or your esteemed scientists actually answers to any of the questions - any answers they do give are nonsensical - and proven so - by independent scientists, or professionals in their field. Once again - explain tons of pulverised concrete turned into dust etc. You stance on semantics within this context - shows once more the weakness of your arguments - the official story is shown to be crap - and the scientists (who have no choice but to write the nonsense to the best of the ability) - are in the payment of the government and dependent on grants, salaries, etc paid by that same government. To the extent - when they discover something hidden in SubClause C or wherever - they then try discredit the scientist/engineer. I say it again - and you immediately want to leave: the official story is weak, proof is weak, etc. Overall - not even on the single issue of semantics.

I'm not interested in debating the "facts" but if the bold points are true then howcome this isn't major news? I know you'll point out that the US government controls the media - but does it control all major media outlets around the world? And wouldn't it make a damn good case for the Democrats to get their man into the White House?

I've asked all of this before but it seems to be ignored by all but Xarog ...

 

[kilo39]

Well my take is already stated, I think its all a lot of rubish, The USA do not really know, this thing was well orchestrated and made them look like!@ssholes, so yes they would not like to show they were caught on the nap, They could, if this was a conspiracy for the reasons you stated, used better means, why cause themselves such financial ruin? They went years backward or rather progress were delayed. Also the "evidence" these conspirators received could have, if USA wanted, be doctored to give much better "evidence" These conspirators keep on saying they are the masters of deceit, Why do it so poorlyt then?. 40 Years from now this will still be a myth as with all other conspiracy theory's!

One of the most well planned military operations in the world - well orchestrated - but nah, done by a bunch of people with boxcutters - out of the blue - no clue, we didn't know anything - we were caught on the nap. Yah, getting NORAD to stand down must have taken a nice letter from BL. People complain about my semantics but can't see the weakness in their own statements. 40 years from now it will still be a myth - (oh you mean) like those other conspiracies? The only thing that has been done poorly is the investigation - or acknowledgement that there are concerns.

I'm not interested in debating the "facts" but if the bold points are true then howcome this isn't major news? I know you'll point out that the US government controls the media - but does it control all major media outlets around the world? And wouldn't it make a damn good case for the Democrats to get their man into the White House?

It is major news - do a simple search on google - funny its just the conspiracists who make it news? Professionals, professors, the weakness of the report. It is news but nobody wants to hear - and the people that do are immediately labelled conspiracists. Why (do they need to) control all the media - when they control the court of public opinion - people like ignacio - who refuse to see beyond the official report - even though that report has holes like "swiss cheese" As to the democrats - watch the next election - oh, unless we can conjure up some crime against the american people of course.

And now ignacio has gone off in a huff - he complains about my use of language - but refuses to see the language of the report; may have, should have, would have. This to him is credible but my assertions/claims are not.

Well - it really does make no odds to me - and there is a major problem/I am the one pointing. People with the relevant qualifications have pointed - but none of it is good enough - unless it is in the official report. Which is shown to be weak, and probably the most delayed, stalled report ever (excluding our own telkoms of course.)

So - we will continue to wonder and it will become another JFK. I mean - who really cares anyway - ?

That/this is the problem with conspiracies - they are not perfect (close enough for government work.)

(how can I not roll my eyes?!)

 

[eye_suc]

(how can I not roll my eyes?!)

must be genetic.

 

[pupa]

must be genetic.

At last you got it, FActs all over the internet!

 

[Xarog]

I'm not interested in debating the "facts" but if the bold points are true then howcome this isn't major news? I know you'll point out that the US government controls the media - but does it control all major media outlets around the world? And wouldn't it make a damn good case for the Democrats to get their man into the White House?

I've done some more thinking about this. American media is extremely pro-government, and extremely pro-right at the moment. This is most aptly represented by Fox news, which is basically a propaganda tool rather than any real attempt to provide honest journalism. You simply need to look at coverage of what's going on in Iraq as an example.

As for why the democrats aren't asking difficult questions, who knows? It's possible they simply bought the official line of events as most have. The WTC attacks was a terribly emotional event for most Americans (and people have milked that for all its worth, it seems) - I still wonder exactly how critically the majority views the events. The democrats might also consider the results of the WTC attacks - i.e. the fact that the USA seemingly has a carte blanche license with regard to it's behaviour overseas, as a good thing which would mean that they wouldn't want to upset the status-quo.

It's also possible that the democrats were in on the events (or at least some of them that are in key positions in the party, if not the government), and thus they didn't want their own involvement known.

Finally, most 'respected' news stations won't touch anything that doesn't come from official sources.