Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11

[boomshakalaka]

Someone said something along the lines of "its sad that 'flag waiver' is an insult". I think whats sadder is that 'open minded' is synonomous with 'hippy' and 'liberal'. Dont be afraid, open your mind, think freely. Dont stop a train of thought because you feel its unpatriotic.

anyways Im with CC, back to bbv, laughter is +ev.

[Quicksilvre]

Going with nearby authority is pretty typical, no matter how goofy it is.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at one point 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. People are stupid. Oh, and if anybody believes the loose change video, show them this.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

This Popular Mechanics article is as weak as all the far-fetched conspiracy propaganda. Sure, it's easy to refute the myths that are obviously ridiculous, or the one's that were never really 'myth's' to begin with.

Personally, I don't believe there was a conspiracy, but the problem with the theorists (and generally, conspiracy theorists with any 'conspiracy') is that they push all the ridiculous and fantastic and sensational ideas. This discredits the more subdued and reasonable ideas

Like I said, I don't believe in the 'conspiracy' but to this day, countless arguments on internet forums and the like, there are a few key things that have never been addressed.

Anyhow, I apologize for getting involved in another discussion in the first place. Some of the notions and beliefs that leak out sadden and frustrate me on so many levels.

Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks. Im so sick of seeing that article thrown around as if its the definitive word on this subject.

This is just one of those things that we probably will never know the truth about. You can believe one way or another, or somewhere inbetween. However if you cant see that either is possible, thats pretty sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may be true that the Popular Mechanics article is less than definitive, it's patently absurd to assert that "we'll never really know the truth."

We know exactly what happened, how, and why.

[robber baron]

This is the last post of yours that I will respond to regarding 911. I was the person that said the flag waver comment.

There is nothing wrong w/ being open minded and a free thinker. In fact it is admirable and should be encouraged. However, a lot of people approach this from a biased blame America first perspective. The feeling is those poor brown terrorist are incapable of such hatred and evil w/out big fat privileged America being somehow involved. That is what I have a problem w/. And no I do not think that America is beyond reproach, but in this instance 9-11 blaming America is like blaming the female rape victim for maybe being friends w/ the guy years ago or inviting the guy/rapist out for a drink.

It disturbs me a great deal.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm surprised nobody has thought to question the integrity of the buildings. the architects certainly knew that neither building would survive a plane crash. who gave the OK that these large non-plane-proof important buildings could be constructed? the us government.

now, it might be a stretch to claim that the government intended these buildings to have planes crashed into them but for this thread it isn't that unreasonable.

so, the government must be responsible. of course, there is always the theory that the buildings were never there in the first place. you may laugh, but this is supported by striations in the rock structure below the site of the supposed buildings... it indicates that nothing was ever built there (btw, this is probably what nath is talking about, if he is in the know).

it seems like the big mystery isn't whether bin laden was in league with anyone, or whether or not he is still interested in whitney houston, but whether a crime was even committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.

HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?

SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).

Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn't travel to the other stories.

HARRIS: The planes that crashed yesterday were much bigger than that. They were 757s.

SWIRSKY: And also the fuel capacity is much more tremendous.

Chicago Tribune archives:

From the Chicago Tribune

Skyline symbols of economic might
Engineers shocked by towers’ collapse
By Blair Kamin
Tribune architecture critic

September 11, 2001, 12:18 PM CDT

The World Trade Center, a symbol of American economic might, survived one terrorist attack in 1993. It was designed to withstand the impact of a jet, but both its towers collapsed this morning after planes rammed them.

The structural engineer who designed the towers said as recently as last week that their steel columns could remain standing if they were hit by a 707.

Les Robertson, the Trade Center’s structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.

Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.”

National Institute of Standards Investigation:

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

Suuurre, genius. Nothing was ever there. It was all an illusion. The E-V-I-L gubbermint hired 3000+ people to pretend they lost loved ones. Wish I was "in the know". Then I could wear one of these these fashionable numbers!

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well the US underproduces food,

[/ QUOTE ]
American farmers are so damned lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the farmers fault, the government will pay you to not use a certain amount of your land.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm surprised nobody has thought to question the integrity of the buildings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, no one except about a zillion people. You can look at entertainme's post for more information, but to sum it up, the towers behaved as they would expect to when hit by 767s full of fuel going at top speed.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the US funded and trained Osama during the Afghan war with the soviets, so there is a historical link to working with the US.

It doesnt take a L Ron Hubbard degree of imagination to come up with a good narrative from there to now.

[/ QUOTE ]

stop hating america please.

rj

[boomshakalaka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at one point 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. People are stupid. Oh, and if anybody believes the loose change video, show them this.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

This Popular Mechanics article is as weak as all the far-fetched conspiracy propaganda. Sure, it's easy to refute the myths that are obviously ridiculous, or the one's that were never really 'myth's' to begin with.

Personally, I don't believe there was a conspiracy, but the problem with the theorists (and generally, conspiracy theorists with any 'conspiracy') is that they push all the ridiculous and fantastic and sensational ideas. This discredits the more subdued and reasonable ideas

Like I said, I don't believe in the 'conspiracy' but to this day, countless arguments on internet forums and the like, there are a few key things that have never been addressed.

Anyhow, I apologize for getting involved in another discussion in the first place. Some of the notions and beliefs that leak out sadden and frustrate me on so many levels.

Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks. Im so sick of seeing that article thrown around as if its the definitive word on this subject.

This is just one of those things that we probably will never know the truth about. You can believe one way or another, or somewhere inbetween. However if you cant see that either is possible, thats pretty sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may be true that the Popular Mechanics article is less than definitive, it's patently absurd to assert that "we'll never really know the truth."

We know exactly what happened, how, and why.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre being serious? bah I wish I just stayed away from this crap. People are so dense. You really do believe that there are no mysteries surrounding 9/11?

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
You really do believe that there are no mysteries surrounding 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the official accounting of events explains everything a good deal better than any other theory that I've seen