| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Double standards | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM (2,614 Views) | |
| jim1029 | Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM Post #1 |
|
Hello, I am a "skeptic". I do not know a ton about this conspiracy theory, so sorry if this has already been answered. Referring to the towers, many people have said that fire has never caused steel-frame buildings to collapse. This is shown as "proof" that the government explanation must not be true. (I cannot back up or refute that claim, as I am not at all qualified to do so). The claim is that explosives were used instead. However, there has never been a demolition large enough to take down even one of the towers, let alone both of them. So how am I supposed to believe your explanation, if there is no precedent for either of them? Not to mention, the impact of the plane would have without a doubt severly damaged the building by itself. Also, other people have said things along the lines of "If the government is telling the truth, then why are they afraid to release x video proving it?" Well, think about this. The government has many classified files. Possibly none of them are as important or as major as what happened on 9/11. So why would they release the classified files for 9/11, and not declassify several other, not very important files? Plus, you could argue that they already have with the 9/11 Report. |
 |
 
|
| Ross | Jul 5 2008, 05:27 PM Post #2 |
|
It's a good fair point. No steel-frame building has collapsed due to fire, yet no demolition has ever been that big. I consider skepticism to be a sign of intelligence, as long as you don't let it turn to ignorance. I never can muster up enough dedication to try to convince anyone to see things a certain way, so I'm not going to try now. lol. All I can do is show people loose change, and then tell them to think for themselves about it and come up with their own conclusions. All I know is that the government is so full of shit and tied into the mob, that I wouldn't put it past them to do something like this. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Jul 5 2008, 06:35 PM Post #3 |
|
no, it is given as "evidence for", it is not given as "proof", there is a big difference between the two, pseudo-skeptics often interchange the two terms in order to unfairly make the other side look ridiculous. you don't need to be qualified to research examples of building collapses. It is not double standards. explosives WILL break steel columns, building fires WILL NOT. wtc7 was NOT hit by a plane. yes, why don't they release files, photos, tapes evidence etc, why the secrecy? what is the purpose of secrecy, except to hide something? what do they have to hide? I do not follow your logic. you seem to be saying that things are kept sceret according to their importance, this is an absurdity. Kean and Hamilton state their own 911 commission report failed, do you disagree with them? |
|
|
|
| Ross | Jul 5 2008, 07:40 PM Post #4 |
|
Oh, and welcome to the forums. If you ever come back. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jul 6 2008, 01:32 PM Post #5 |
|
Just because a demolition of that magnitude hasn't been undertaken before, doesn't make it impossible. All three WTC buildings that collapsed showed all of the signs of a controlled demolition and none of the signs of a fire-induced collapse. This is a false assumption. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded jetliner. Even the WTC construction manager suggested that the buildings could withstand multiple impacts of jetliners because the buildings were so structurally sound. Many localized exterior columns were severed or damaged in the plane impact. A few floor trusses on the impact side were also damaged. But the cores of the towers were nearly indestructable. Whatever was left of the planes after smashing through the exterior columns and floor trusses, would have been and were stopped by the cores of the buildings. There would have been only minor localized damage to the cores of the towers from the plane impacts. So, with the cores of the buildings still intact and the majority of the exterior columns intact, the buildings would have and should have never fallen. Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 01:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 10:35 AM Post #6 |
|
Welcome!
No, it is offered as a reason for you to doubt what you have been told about the bulidings. It is not offered as proof. It is a qualifying statement, nothing else.
Because the physical evidence allows for only one possibility, that explosives were used. It matters not that this had never been done before. Think of the scale. It is so large that it is hard to fathom, right? 10-50 story building demolitions are more common, in fact fairly routine. A method is known. That means, studying the method alone and duplicating it works for many of the buildings. If one of these companies, or a military specialist unit were contracted to come up with a plan to demolish a 110 story building, you'd only have to imagine it first. These planners wouldn't even need to know that this was a real thing. Just an excersize. "How would you do it, if you had to do it?" Ever seen "Shooter"? All this person or team would need to do is have the blueprints, and take the variables which are used in classic demolitions and tweak them. I am not an expert on explosives, but say a quantity of X and a destructive force of Y are needed to do a classic demolition... Then what do you do for a 110 story building? You'd take X and Y and multiply several times over. If the person in charge of the operation itself were uneasy about hte resulting model, they could just multiply it again and again. We do not know how many devices were used. WE only know THAT they were used. If you support further investigation into this matter, I"m sure we can eventually get someone to spill the beans, but the public will have to demand a new investigation first. Are you in?
Yes, in relatively small portion of the buildings. The fires died down in the first 10-20 min, and we supposedly have steel getting weaker and weaker up until the point of collapse. The steel should have been cooling shortly after the first large fires died down from consuming most of the available fuel.
Because there is no ongoing investigation about 9/11. There is no reason NOT to realease them. Think about it. Large numbers of people doubt the gov's version of 9/11. Okay, so if you wanted to pacify them, you'd come up with a video, right? But they WON'T, even when the courts tell them to via FOIA requests. Besides, it is not valid to envoke trust in government as a reason for trust in government. "They have other secrets, so why can't they have this one too?"
Read it. See if it answers ANY of the questions we raise in these films on on these forums. All it does is create the landscape of circumstances that they believe led to 9/11. For instance, they focus heavily on the hijackers. Okay, well no one these days really thinks that al-qaeda had no role in 9/11, instead we understand that this is how governments work, especially western governments. They go in with agencies like the CIA, and learn how to control terror groups by getting them to work with them to overthrow governments which the US does not like. See Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and many others. Then they come in later and say, "Hey you guys want to work with us again?" sometimes they don't wish to work with the CIA again. In the case of the Hijackers, if you study where they came from, who they've been in contact with, who they received money from, who recruited them etc... it becomes very obvious that they are only being steered by another force, that is leading them to 9/11. 9/11 is not totally 100% inside job. Yet, the best catch-phrase for when we want to shout out something in a group or put something on a bumper-sticker is "9/11 was an inside job" because it is short and right to the point, although not 100% accurate. Truth is, as you'll learn if you actually care to, is that the CIA is not a part of the USA anylonger, as it does not obey the constitution and the CONSTITUTION is what makes a thing part of the USA. They operate more or less without oversight, and many projects have no oversight whatsoever, especially since BUSH jr. Bush Sr. was CIA director. The ties run deep. The Bush family is very close to the Bin Laden family too. How can there be so many weird little coincidences and yet no one sees anything strange? Well, we do, and we aren't going to shut up about it. I hope you won't either. peace, |
|
|
|
| silverstein | Jul 7 2008, 10:48 AM Post #7 |
|
Maybe the slogan should be "9/11 may or not be an inside job, it might be, but even then we arent too sure about the percentage of its inside jobness " Not as snappy but that would be an honest representation. After all, we all want honesty, dont we? Edited by silverstein, Jul 7 2008, 10:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 7 2008, 11:04 AM Post #8 |
|
I said change your tone. 2nd and final warning. You are only twisting my words: for the record, not "100% inside job" doesn't mean we are unsure about whether US had involvement or not. It only means that we realize that the operation was not solely carried out by one group or another. The fact that pseudo-skeptics like "silverstein" insists on allowing people only these two "all or nothing" options should reveal to you the typical behavior of the so-called skeptics when they come here to do what they consider "debate". There are puppet masters pulling the strings of both islamic terror AND western intelligence. If the CIA is no longer within the preview of the US CONSTITUTION, so who are they serving? Sometimes they know they are working for CIA, and other times they do not. Atta probably knew, while some of the ones he led may not have known. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 16 2009, 06:03 PM Post #9 |
|
Bonez, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but what makes you qualified to say something like, "But the cores of the towers were nearly indestructable. Whatever was left of the planes after smashing through the exterior columns and floor trusses, would have been and were stopped by the cores of the buildings. There would have been only minor localized damage to the cores of the towers from the plane impacts. So, with the cores of the buildings still intact and the majority of the exterior columns intact, the buildings would have and should have never fallen. " Are you a structural, civil, or any kind of engineer?? My guess is not, but I could be wrong. You state that WTC was designed to stand after a plane hit them. Yes, this is correct. But, you forget to mention a few things. #1- It was designed to withstand a DC-9, not a 767. #2- It was designed to withstand a DC-9 traveling at landing speed, not at 500 + MPH. #3- it was designed to withstand a DC-9 traveling at landing speed, not fully loaded with fuel, and the fire would have been able to be extinguished within a certain amount of time. Steel looses 60% of its strenth at 50% fail temperature. This is a fairly low temperature, considering. Plus, expansion and contraction will weaken steel by almost 70%. Feel free to debate me. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 16 2009, 06:36 PM Post #10 |
|
Actually it was designed to "withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707." Shall I dig out Frank DeMartini's statement on the matter ? Never mind, here it is from January of 2001. Now compare the specs of a 707 with a 767. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/specs.html vs. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html Edit to add - You haven't had much hands on experience with steel, have you ? Edited by JFK, Jun 16 2009, 06:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 17 2009, 03:11 AM Post #11 |
|
key word : multiple 
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 17 2009, 07:58 AM Post #12 |
|
Not really Domenick. Simply because he stated "I believe it could withstand multiple impacts". That is Mr. DeMartini's belief, and not a fact whereas he stated as a fact that it was designed to withstand a fully loaded 707. < shrugs > |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 17 2009, 10:57 AM Post #13 |
|
Aactually, I do have lots of experience with steel. I have extensive knowledge of steel, its properties, its weaknesses, it strengths, it load capacities, etc. etc. etc. I also have much experience with concrete, aluminum, fiberglass, wood, etc. etc. etc. I asked in another forum, but I will ask again. Do you have any kind of degree?? Specifically in the field of structural engineering, civil engineering, etc. to be qualified to comment on how the WTC SHOUDL have reacted after being hit by a 767-200?? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 17 2009, 10:59 AM Post #14 |
|
Your question was answered in that other thread. |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 17 2009, 12:18 PM Post #15 |
|
Bonez, They also said the Titanic was "unsinkable" because it was built so well. I also would like to think that my house, that I built my with own two hands, could withstand a hurricane. But, Hurricane Andrew proved me wrong also. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jun 17 2009, 06:26 PM Post #16 |
|
First and foremost, this is a discussion forum. You don't need any qualifications to discuss topics here. If you feel you need to discuss topics with "qualified" people that only have degrees, you should try to debate someone from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth or Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Though I doubt you will get anyone to debate you at AE911T as the time for debate has long passed. That's one of the main reasons AE911T closed their public discussion forums. And just because some of us may not have degrees doesn't mean we're dumb. Nope. It was designed to withstand a 707, not a DC-9. It was designed to withstand a 707 at approach speed, not landing speed. It was designed to withstand a fully loaded 707 at approach approach. As JFK pointed out, they did say fully loaded. Fully loaded means full passengers and fuel. They also have specifically stated that this would likely happen from a plane that is lost in the fog like the B-25 bomber in 1945. Further, a plane wouldn't be fully loaded with fuel if it was coming in for a landing. So this could also mean impacting the towers after take-off. And by the way, the 707 and 767-200 are very comparable in size. Although the 767 is slightly larger and heavier, the 707 is faster. You could also say the towers were designed to withstand 767-200's. I'll show you how flawed your logic is in the other thread about controlled demolitions. Many have made that challenge, none have succeeded in winning against me yet. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 17 2009, 06:46 PM Post #17 |
|
prove it anonymous internet warlord. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jun 17 2009, 07:51 PM Post #18 |
|
Why does everyone forget that a Boeing 767 tore into the buildings? It wasn't just fire. All three towers exprienced damage and fire. The 767 took out a lot of support. The building tried to compensate by using the remaining supports to shoulder the load. The fire was the worst thing that could have happened at that point. The steel lost a lot of its strength due to the fire. It isn't hard to understand how the towers came down. Once enough support was lost the top came down and the rest of the building went floor by floor. Building 7 had major damage. It burned for nearly 7hrs straight. It collapsed. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jun 17 2009, 08:43 PM Post #19 |
|
And why do debunkers forget or omit the fact that even if you take the planes and fires out of the scenario for a minute and insert a demo team to completely blow up 4 floors, that the buildings still would not collapse all the way to the ground. Demo companies wire most buildings from top to bottom to bring a building down. A plane crash up top or even a demo job up top only would not bring those buildings down. You need the entire building wired from top to bottom, period. |
|
|
|
| KenyonG | Jun 18 2009, 11:38 AM Post #20 |
|
I don't think that is accurate. I would not want to be in the lobby of a building like TWC towers sipping a latte, after a plane crashed into the top portion. First thing is that not all buildings are built the same. If you take out enough support near the top and you have thousands and thousands of pounds perched above this void, my mind tells me to get away fast. CD teams want towers to fall a certain way. The set their demos up to try and ensure that it is controlled, that is why they rig the whole building. The WTC collapses were not controlled. Many structures on either side were damaged some fatally. I don't see how you think you can remove support with so much weight above and not expect that weight to come down. |
|
|
|
| m0n3yman | Jun 18 2009, 01:38 PM Post #21 |
|
My goodness! Look at all that fire! 
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 18 2009, 03:17 PM Post #22 |
|
Yeah, and look at the timeframe of those fires. Specifically look through the Aman Zafar photos which show fires before either tower collapsed. What caused them ? |
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 26 2009, 04:04 PM Post #23 |
|
Would that be a picture of the North side of the tower?? I think it is. Now, go find pictures of the south side of the tower. Like this: http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg Or  Now, before you say it, this is only a few floors of the entire building. This waas also taken fairly early on in the day, so much of the fire has not progressed. Your turn. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jun 26 2009, 04:34 PM Post #24 |
|
LMAO!!! you show a picture showing limited fires and then claim a victory by saying this is before the fires progressed? direct challenge : show video/photograhic evidence that these fires "progressed". you can even see through the windows that must have busted out from fire that fire on that floor already put itself out. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jun 26 2009, 04:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| beantownfan247 | Jun 26 2009, 09:45 PM Post #25 |
|
Or, maybe Dom, those are the fires that have progressed. You sir have absolutely no concept whatsoever of fire science. Fire will travel, sometimes very fast. Fire will travel up, and to the path of least resistance. Do you think that maybe the fire has moved into other parats of the building that we cannot see?? I will post more photos when I find them. Sometimes I have to do some more important things, like taking my dog for a walk, or napping, or watching baseball. Sorry to delay you. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
2:40 PM Nov 8
