BYU professor has theory about 9/11 attacks - news video

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

- Joseph Goebbels

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: dahunan
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?

Although I'm not saying that it WAS a controlled fall, the fact that they did come STRAIGHT down was and still is very strange.

The top of the building was on fire. They expalined all this on TLC or Discovery.

I think that magic bullet came out of the museum and went around teh building's circumfrance very rapidly as to produce heat, thus the direct downward fall.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

OK, stop referring to building #7 as buildings Seriosuly, WTF!

All we need now is a video of Building #7 fallign down. Where the hell is it?

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Yet another tinfoil conspiracy nut.

Clue

It's amazing that people give any sort of credence to these conspiracy nutjobs.

Just explain it, provide links, and stfu. You might garner an ounce of respect once in a while....

Yeah, they pancaked. Once the heat from the jet fuel- stoked fires weakened the steel enough, the floors gave way domino style. Those buildings were quite lightly constructed actually. Mostly sheetrock covering a light frame. It's quite likely the planes alone brought them down. The other building was weakened enough that the same thing happened to it.

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

It does if you're a partisan hack grasping at straws...

WTF are you talking about? By saying al q may have planted explosives he's being partisan?

We're not a talking a "few small fires" here. Those planes were loaded with jet fuel which dumped into the core of each building and then ignited. It was a perfect scenario for the Terrorists. Their planning is quite a bit superior to ours. Maybe Bush could hire them as part time consultants.

 

[Lurknomore]

It's well known that WTC 7 was demolished by explosives.
Officials even admitted it.
I've read alot of the consp. theories- the two towers prolly had explosives pre=planted on certain floors.
When Larry Silverstein saw that both towers were unsalvageable, he prolly said fvck it, when they start collapsing just detonate the charges so that they fall straight down to avoid having to demolish any further standing pieces. The costs of demolition would have been prohibitive.
It's just easier to collect $7billion in insurance than to try to repair the damaged floors, IF the towers had remained standing. Repair is nil impossible and there's no guarantee that the towers would have been stable. Plus no tenants would ever want to come back.

 

[arsbanned]

Links to the officials admitting explosives brought down building 7 with pre-planted explosives. Links supporting your outlandish claim that explosives would have been pre-planted in the twin towers. Ridiculous. By whom? These people wouldn't talk? Ever? They must have been WELL paid.... Is there there any evidence WHATSOEVER you can provide to support this? It's absurd.

Evidence. Links. Show me, don't tell me.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Links to the officials admitting explosives brought down building 7 with pre-planted explosives. Links supporting your outlandish claim that explosives would have been pre-planted in the twin towers. Ridiculous. By whom? These people wouldn't talk? Ever? They must have been WELL paid.... Is there there any evidence WHATSOEVER you can provide to support this? It's absurd.

Evidence. Links. Show me, don't tell me.

Here ya go:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

D-load the wmv of Larry admitting that they decided to pull it.

As for the 2 towers having pre-planted, it's common sense.
They designed it into teh structures- if there were major disturbances to the towers such as a crashing jet, extreme wind with a high possibility of collapse, then the towers must come down straight as to avoid damaging nearby structures, just like a demolition. It also makes it more feasible than a straight ahead demolition by construction equipment. Unfortunately, when the towers began to collapse with thousands still trapped, that's all the excuse needed to trigger the devices.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Lurknomore

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Links to the officials admitting explosives brought down building 7 with pre-planted explosives. Links supporting your outlandish claim that explosives would have been pre-planted in the twin towers. Ridiculous. By whom? These people wouldn't talk? Ever? They must have been WELL paid.... Is there there any evidence WHATSOEVER you can provide to support this? It's absurd.

Evidence. Links. Show me, don't tell me.

Here ya go:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

D-load the wmv of Larry admitting that they decided to pull it.

As for the 2 towers having pre-planted, it's common sense.
They designed it into teh structures- if there were major disturbances to the towers such as a crashing jet, extreme wind with a high possibility of collapse, then the towers must come down straight as to avoid damaging nearby structures, just like a demolition. It also makes it more feasible than a straight ahead demolition by construction equipment. Unfortunately, when the towers began to collapse with thousands still trapped, that's all the excuse needed to trigger the devices.

I'll play along for a second in assuming that lunacy you posted is true:

Explosives tend to degrade over time (usually becoming inert or more unstabe depending on what is used). Not to mention the obvious hazards such devices would pose in fire situation.

Since they would have no idea when such an event might happen that would require the activation of the devices there is no way to be able to accurately predict how many would fail to function or be unintentionally activated by say a multifloor fire fueled by a few thousand gallons of Jet A and office contents (thus possibly causing the same problem then they attempted to prevent - i.e. unpredictable failure). It could have been 10 years after constuction or 150.

 

[realsup]

I think it was Al Sharpton.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Lurknomore

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Links to the officials admitting explosives brought down building 7 with pre-planted explosives. Links supporting your outlandish claim that explosives would have been pre-planted in the twin towers. Ridiculous. By whom? These people wouldn't talk? Ever? They must have been WELL paid.... Is there there any evidence WHATSOEVER you can provide to support this? It's absurd.

Evidence. Links. Show me, don't tell me.

Here ya go:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

D-load the wmv of Larry admitting that they decided to pull it.

As for the 2 towers having pre-planted, it's common sense.
They designed it into teh structures- if there were major disturbances to the towers such as a crashing jet, extreme wind with a high possibility of collapse, then the towers must come down straight as to avoid damaging nearby structures, just like a demolition. It also makes it more feasible than a straight ahead demolition by construction equipment. Unfortunately, when the towers began to collapse with thousands still trapped, that's all the excuse needed to trigger the devices.

I'll play along for a second in assuming that lunacy you posted is true:

Explosives tend to degrade over time (usually becoming inert or more unstabe depending on what is used). Not to mention the obvious hazards such devices would pose in fire situation.

Since they would have no idea when such an event might happen that would require the activation of the devices there is no way to be able to accurately predict how many would fail to function (thus possibly causing the same problem then they attempted to prevent - i.e. unpredictable failure). It could have been 10 years after constuction or 150.

I'm thinking these types of devices used were prolly shaped charges, possibly chemically stable enough to endure fires without detonating- need more help on this one. Even if they had degraded over the years, I assume there would have been enough planted in case a few failed.

NYC is a very lawsuit happy place. If the towers had fallen over a five-block radius, the path of destruction might have been enormous. Lawsuits would have continued for years, enough so that the site could not possibly be developed again unless there were preexisting conditions for such a large structure. The towers went up pretty cheaply and went down the same. A tubular truss building uses far less concrete than a traditional building and so is cheaper. Most of the steel was in the outer spandrels so that when they were breached and gouged so severely, the whole structure was compromised. The fires need not have reached 2000F or whatever the melting pt. They only needed to be hot enough to SLIGHTLY weaken the trusses and outer skin to bring it down.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: realsup
I think it was Al Sharpton.

That crazy fool Sharpton! He gonna get it now!

 

[Rainsford]

People are approaching this in entirely the wrong way. I understand this from a lot of people, but this guy is a physics professor, certainly a scientist should know better. You do not examine any problem with a preconceived notion of the results you want, you look at the evidence and come up with a theory based on that evidence.

Now the evidence suggesting the official explanation is right is very easy to come by. Videos show the planes hitting the buildings, causing huge explosions and fires. The collapse points for both buildings is clearly the floors where the planes hit. Experts suggest that this type of collapse is certainly possible given the type of construction of the towers and the way in which they were damaged.

The conspiracy theories (or alternate theories, if you like) do not meet the basic scientific principles of alternative theories, they are not "better" explanations than the existing one. The concept of demolitions being used to level the towers does make the question of the straight down collapse simpler...but it raises a lot of far larger questions. Who set them, for one? If the terrorists did it, why not set the charges to knock the buildings over? That would cause far more damage, and would probably be easier to achieve than a straight down fall. Anyone can knock something over with explosives, but it takes skill to make it fall straight down. If the terrorists had been planning this for years and could have done it either way, why not cause MORE damage by tipping the buildings over? You could argue that even with the official explanation they ended up knocking them straight down, but this may not have been intended. After all, setting up demolition charges gives you far more control than flying a plane into a building. And if it WASN'T the terrorists, nobody has produced a convincing person or what motive they might have had. The first of two big theories here are officials trying to minimize the damage, but they probably would have warned rescue workers before dropping the first tower right on them, don't you think? The second is evil-doers in the US government working behind the scenes to trick us. Fair enough, but why the cover up of demo charges at all? Why not simply blame it on the terrorists, thus silencing the conspiracy theories? What do we care, either way it gives us terrorists to blame, it doesn't matter if they "only" flew planes into buildings or if they used explosives too.

Another big question is how they managed to not make it look like a demolitions based collapse. Sure, it was pretty straight down, but there were no explosions of any kind that would indicate demolition charges. If you've ever seen a building being demolished, it's pretty obvious that explosives are involved. How would they hide this, people have gone over those videos for millions of man hours...someone would have seen something. And how did they manage to make the collapse start right where the planes hit? This is also obvious when you see the videos, the towers collapsed from the points where the planes hit...the explosives would have had to have been rigged ahead of time in order to achieve this effect. Even with knowledge of the attack (which brings up all the "evil conspiracy" problems), flying a plane into a building isn't exactly a precise science, they would have either had to hit in exactly the right spot on the buildings...or the explosives would have had to have been flexibly programmed.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, any explanation of anything is always going to leave a few gaps that may not be closed for a long time. But you don't look at those gaps and throw out the whole explanation, you try and fill them. And any alternative explanation must be at least as good of an explanation in order to seriously be considered. It's like the ID debate. Does evolution leave some questions unanswered? Yes, but that doesn't mean we throw it out and come up with some BS that has way more serious flaws.

Regular P&N posters know that I am not a big one for government appologists or putting blind trust in any elected official, so I hope you know that's not what is motivating my opinion about 9/11. The only thing that is shaping my views on what happened that day is taking a critical look at what happened and seeing what makes the most sense. That's it...I have no particular motivation either way, in fact since I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the Bush administration, the idea that they might have been involved in a big conspiracy would be "good news" for me, I suppose. But there is nothing here, the official explanation is the best one we have. There are no gaping holes like there are in these alternative theories, and I really wonder how many people have their own reasons for wanting to believe them.

 

[slash196]

I'm still convinced that there's more to this than the masses are swallowing. One way or the other, the truth will eventually worm its way out.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: morkinva
All he wants is a fair shake of an investigation. It's finally getting to the mainstream media phase, I hope.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

(KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center.

Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.

BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers.

The images are seared into the minds of people across the globe. We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Jones says not so fast.

"They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on ? and its got to be fires and damage,? says Jones.

Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis ? explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.

?Notice how it's straight down,? Jones says referring to the fall of one of the buildings.

Especially intriguing to Jones was the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.

"Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition,? says Jones.

If explosives detonated like this ? if they did ? it begs the question.

"Who set the explosives?? 2News reporter Brian Mullahy asked Jones.

"I try not to go there because we have to answer the first question first ? the scientific issue first,? says Jones. "We need to consider all options for the collapse of these buildings. Let the chips fall where they may.?

Jones said that models conducted in tests since 9/11 have not been able to duplicate what happened to the buildings. He is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation.


(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

And he hopes desperately that they fall into the Presidents lap! Another liberal witch hunt at taxpayers expense. Let the DNC pay for it and have the taxpayers pay them back if anything comes of it. That would be a first!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

He's not offering a conspiracy theory - if explosives were used, they were most likely planted by AQ, and without knowing too much about the specific structures of the buildings, it still wouldn't be surprising if the buildings 'started falling' from the heights the planes hit.

AQ, especially at the time, was well funded, and had as much time as they wanted to prepare; they would hardly be the first to use secondary explosives to make things look better for the cameras.

That being said, there's every possibility the professor is wrong altogether.

My conspiracy theory is that they were a piss poor design with faulty engineering to start with. Too much dependency on the sides remaining intact and no building strength in the center.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

Ah, but he has a very elite degree and maybe Bush is at fault! It doesn't take much to read between the lines these days.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

He's not offering a conspiracy theory - if explosives were used, they were most likely planted by AQ, and without knowing too much about the specific structures of the buildings, it still wouldn't be surprising if the buildings 'started falling' from the heights the planes hit.

AQ, especially at the time, was well funded, and had as much time as they wanted to prepare; they would hardly be the first to use secondary explosives to make things look better for the cameras.

That being said, there's every possibility the professor is wrong altogether.

My conspiracy theory is that they were a piss poor design with faulty engineering to start with. Too much dependency on the sides remaining intact and no building strength in the center.

What's that - western prosperity is built on a house of cards?

That's a pretty major assertion, but you might be on to something

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:laugh: Yet another tinfoil conspiracy nut.

Clue

It's amazing that people give any sort of credence to these conspiracy nutjobs.

Of course the studies weren't adequate in that they didn't get anything good on Bush! It just must be the Presidents fault or we have to actually find a good Dimocratic candidate to run. Otherwise, we will never get back into power and Hollywood will lose respect for us. We won't be able to get on TV anymore and get paid big bucks for a thirty minute babble anymore. We may have to get a real job! If Bush can't be proven to be evil, we just have to keep making things up and the voters won't need us if they find out we are the true evil.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Hey I have an idea!

Now that you can apparently fell any steel office building by lighting a few fires, we no longer need controlled demolition! The expense would be much less, and the rubble will land in the building's footprint every time. It'll only take about an hour of fire burning to achieve this task.

Before 911, this would not have applied since no steel-framed office building ever collapsed because of fires. But on this date and forever hereafter, the laws of physics have changed. Since three (3) buildings fell from this method on the very same day, it's pretty safe to assume that it will work from now on.

Let us also ignore the email written by UL executive Kevin Ryan, which later got him fired:

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

I think we should rebuild the buildings, load them with furniture, people (Dimocrats would love to serve, of course as they really love writing stuff on paper) and stacks of documents. Then we should fly planes into them again. While they are burning, we should sent John (Firefighter) Kerry into them with a mercury thermometer shoved up his grrass and have him write the readings on paper with a 5000 degree flash point. Then we will have scientific facts to study after they fall. We could also have thousands of liberals stand in the shadows of the buildings and take notes in pedantic prose. We could train them at Harvard using federal grants for the study. Sound good enough?

 

[morkinva]

Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]

...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...

 

[realsup]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]

...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...

Why does a guy posting on gralicandgrass.org lol get more credit then Popular Science?

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: morkinva
Hey I have an idea!

I think we should rebuild the buildings, load them with furniture, people (Dimocrats would love to serve, of course as they really love writing stuff on paper) and stacks of documents. Then we should fly planes into them again. While they are burning, we should sent John (Firefighter) Kerry into them with a mercury thermometer shoved up his grrass and have him write the readings on paper with a 5000 degree flash point. Then we will have scientific facts to study after they fall. We could also have thousands of liberals stand in the shadows of the buildings and take notes in pedantic prose. We could train them at Harvard using federal grants for the study. Sound good enough?

Yeah and we could send Bush up in the other tower... And watch him LIE about how he didn't do it.

Anyway, you need to stop listening to fox and Rush... And seek some mental help...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]

...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...

How can you even cite that article as "evidence?" First, the fact that it is published at "Garlic and Grass"? Second, any idiot with a conspiracy theory in mind could have written it.

Let's face a fact ladies and gentlemen. If you WANT to find a conspiracy, you can. Pearl Harbor, the JFK assasination, MLK, Iraq, 9/11 are a few that jump to mind. It matters what frame of mind you approach it with. Thus far I have not seen a shred of evidence that supports any other theory than what I saw with my eyes - two planes hit the WTC and it collapsed. Perhaps the pancaking occured because of the structure of the WTC which was very unique for skyscrapers... who knows.

My point is people can keep coming up with theories about how this and that were impossible, but the reality is the buildings collapsed and no federal documents, or people, have emerged to dispel any of the story we have heard so far.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: MicroChrome

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: morkinva
Hey I have an idea!

I think we should rebuild the buildings, load them with furniture, people (Dimocrats would love to serve, of course as they really love writing stuff on paper) and stacks of documents. Then we should fly planes into them again. While they are burning, we should sent John (Firefighter) Kerry into them with a mercury thermometer shoved up his grrass and have him write the readings on paper with a 5000 degree flash point. Then we will have scientific facts to study after they fall. We could also have thousands of liberals stand in the shadows of the buildings and take notes in pedantic prose. We could train them at Harvard using federal grants for the study. Sound good enough?

Yeah and we could send Bush up in the other tower... And watch him LIE about how he didn't do it.

Anyway, you need to stop listening to fox and Rush... And seek some mental help...

AND learn how to USE THE F'ING EDIT BUTTON. One post is too much from the guy let alone 14 all saying the same fricken thing. BUSH! GOOD! LIBRUL! BAD! DEMOCRAT! KIL THEM ALL! It gets old.
Nothing presented has swayed me in the least. The theory that exlplosives were deliberately planted by the builders is ridiculous for the reasons stated (not practical, wears out, could accidently go off, etc) and as for al q doing it, they would not have had the necessary access to position them with the required accuracy.
If you watch the program Frontline did, the architect who designed the towers helps explain what happened.
No wind as we know it would ever have brought them down, btw. They were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 707.
The amount of accellerant that went down the core of each building and then ignited was huge. That coupled with the destruction of key skeletal parts of the buildings from the extreme force of the planes hitting brought them down.
I'm open to other possibilities though if someone presents hard evidence. Haven't seen that yet.

 

[smack Down]

I would guess that no larger building can fail in any other fation then straight or alomst straight down. The buildings just are not made to put laterial forces aplied at one floor on to the next.