|
|
#111
09-12-2006, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
|
|
#112
09-12-2006, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
Reason I was surprised was;
A. No one argued her statements There are about 40 ppl in my class. Maybe 5 of them looked a bit upset. I'v heard it all in the bay area, however this was very unique. I'm glad this stimulated some good discussion.
|
|
#113
09-12-2006, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
This thread is like a macrocosm of what I see at the virtual poker table everyday. Everyone thinks that everyone else is a moron. The thing is though when I'm at the table I know who really is "right" and who really is a moron.
But when it comes to the area of discussing global geo-politics I have no way of determining who the "winning players" really are and I suspect no one else does either. Bascially, you're all a bunch of morons when it comes to geo-politics.
|
|
#114
09-12-2006, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] what claims did I make? no I dont think of it as a coinflip between the two. Where you came up with these two and only two possibilities as to what happened is beyond me. Lots of things could have happened, I dont know how you all are so sure that you know exactly what it is that actually took place. Cant you see that I can say almost the same thing back to you. "Official story? Keep believing everything FOX tells you to help justify things you dont/can't understand" [/ QUOTE ] Right, because this wasn't the "official story" of the NYT, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, and the AP. Just Fox News. [/ QUOTE ] As well as the CBC, BBC, Sky, and basically responsible media around the world.
|
|
#115
09-12-2006, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
[ QUOTE ]
Reason I was surprised was; A. No one argued her statements There are about 40 ppl in my class. Maybe 5 of them looked a bit upset. I'v heard it all in the bay area, however this was very unique. I'm glad this stimulated some good discussion. [/ QUOTE ] everyone is right....this should be in politics No point in arguing this in OP's instance. OP says he is uncomfortable debating. Whether the professor is playing devil's advocate or spouting his opinion, he will chew up the OP in debate. Classroom will come more to the wrong viewpoint. Pick your spots and do what you can.
|
|
#116
09-12-2006, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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! [/ QUOTE ] you are such a product of the system... i'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never heard of anarcho-capitalism.
|
|
#117
10-05-2006, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
Today in my pol. sociology class some woman in her 30?(student) claimed that US Gov't planned and staged the whole 9/11 and no one said anything.. so I yelled at her, asked if she was insane and tried tell her that it would be very impossible for US gov't to do this...
was I wrong?
|
|
#118
10-05-2006, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
[ QUOTE ]
Today in my pol. sociology class some woman in her 30?(student) claimed that US Gov't planned and staged the whole 9/11 and no one said anything.. so I yelled at her, asked if she was insane and tried tell her that it would be very impossible for US gov't to do this... was I wrong? [/ QUOTE ] Well if someone says something ignorant yelling that them will not help at all. Adressing the issue is good, calling someone insane does nothing to help the situation.
|
|
#119
10-06-2006, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amazing what my class had to say about 9/11
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
