Turn on thread page Beta

New 9/11 video watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)

    So your telling me this was choreographed with the planes hitting the precise floors where charges were set to detonate first?
    Excellent point. I would like to see a conpspiracy theorists responce to this.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    You could have an extremely high temperature fire and apply it to a steel beam and depending on the ammount of heat (size of the fire) the beam may never raise its temperature more than a few degrees.
    There's 'excellent conduction properties' and there's 'I'm exagerating it to the point of stupidity' properties.

    Steel's conductivity goes [/i]down[/i] as it's temperature rises. At 25C it can conduct 54W 1 metre for every degree differential across that metre per unit area. At 225C that's down to 47W source. At 400K it's anywhere from 35W to 18W (depending on specific type of steel) source. If the difference in temperature along a steel beam is only a few degrees as you seem to be saying it's never been able to conduct away such heat (even from only a 1500F fire), the temperature gradient would be too low.

    Hold a steel rod and apply a blowtorch flame to the other end. In a short time your hand will suddenly realise the temperature of the steel it's in contact with has just shot up to 'OW! That's damn hot' temperatures.

    Next time, look at the numbers before you start making claims like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlphaNumeric)
    There's 'excellent conduction properties' and there's 'I'm exagerating it to the point of stupidity' properties.

    Steel's conductivity goes [/i]down[/i] as it's temperature rises. At 25C it can conduct 54W 1 metre for every degree differential across that metre per unit area. At 225C that's down to 47W source. At 400K it's anywhere from 35W to 18W (depending on specific type of steel) source. If the difference in temperature along a steel beam is only a few degrees as you seem to be saying it's never been able to conduct away such heat (even from only a 1500F fire), the temperature gradient would be too low.

    Hold a steel rod and apply a blowtorch flame to the other end. In a short time your hand will suddenly realise the temperature of the steel it's in contact with has just shot up to 'OW! That's damn hot' temperatures.

    Next time, look at the numbers before you start making claims like that.
    Well since i was speaking anecedotaly and didn't quote any figures it's no as if i'm wrong.

    yes. If you apply a blow torch to a steel rod it will, depending on the time, size of the rod and amount of energy produced by the raise the blowtorch, raise the temperature of the whole rod.

    I think you'll agree that the larger the ammount of steel you are trying to heat the greater the ammount of energy required to raise it to any temperature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghost101)
    The collapses in both towers oroginate from the points of impact. In both towers, the floors that were hit are the first to go.

    So your telling me this was choreographed with the planes hitting the precise floors where charges were set to detonate first?
    It's a very good question. I won't offer an explanation at this time as I would be guessing.

    However this one unanswered question does not prove or disporve anything.

    If you think that it does then apply that logic to the official version then it would fail very quickly on a number of accounts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KizD)
    Excellent point. I would like to see a conpspiracy theorists responce to this.
    People expect the 'conspiracy theorists' to have all the answers based on limited research.

    Whereas they will accept the numerous anomolies in the official account without questioning.

    The same logic should be applied to both.

    If the numerous unanswered questions in the official account don't disprove it then this unanswered question cannot disprove the alternative account.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    People expect the 'conspiracy theorists' to have all the answers based on limited research.
    And yet they expect us to listen to all those crackpot theories based oin the same 'limited research'...

    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    The same logic should be applied to both.
    No, because one has had a full report and investigation and the other is a bunch of crackpots trying to cook up theories without proper evidence. I don't apply the same standards to both. I've already debunked the attempted use of the term 'conspiracy theory' to refer to the official line, showing how it is entirely inaccurate, I don't now think that I need to apply the same thinking to a bunch of nutcases, Bush-haters and whack-jobs as I do to the people who actually did the investigating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)

    No, because one has had a full report and investigation and the other is a bunch of crackpots trying to cook up theories without proper evidence. I don't apply the same standards to both. I've already debunked the attempted use of the term 'conspiracy theory' to refer to the official line, showing how it is entirely inaccurate, I don't now think that I need to apply the same thinking to a bunch of nutcases, Bush-haters and whack-jobs as I do to the people who actually did the investigating.
    So 1 unanswered question disproves the controlled demolition theory but the numerous unanswered questions in the official account do not affect it's credibility?

    Even more stringent logic should apply to the official account in light of the resources available.

    Given the resources of the administration there should be no unanswered questions in the official account, but there are many.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    3) If the towers fell onto other buidings there would be a greater call for a proper investigation as more significant people would be damanding answers. -
    Omg, you're right. Because as it is, nobody really cared when only a few thousand people and the two tallest buildings in the most famous city in the US collapse in front of millions of people watching on Tv.

    Guys... why exactly would they do this? Oil? Seriously? Kill thousands, go to war, for some oil? I think you overestimate the calasnous of individual people. Yes you can dehumanise them by saying it was the CIA or NSA or whatever. But as the end of the day, hundreds of real normal people with families would have to have said "what am I doing next wednesday and for a couple of years after that? Not a lot why? We're going to kill several thousand people and blow up major parts of new york? Oh great, yeah, sign me up. I'll spend the money taking the kids to disney land."

    Conspiracy theories are fun. But honestly guys, go have another look at that whole JFK thing for me, I still think there is something fishy going on there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    Omg, you're right. Because as it is, nobody really cared when only a few thousand people and the two tallest buildings in the most famous city in the US collapse in front of millions of people watching on Tv.
    Yes. People cared but the administration still managed to frustrate the investigation, even attempting to appoint Kissinger to head the commision at one point.

    The only poperty destroyed bas that of mr Silverstein. Had other buildings been significantly damaged the official account and everything surrounding it would have come under more scrutiny from the other building owners and their insurance companies.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    I think you'll agree that the larger the ammount of steel you are trying to heat the greater the ammount of energy required to raise it to any temperature.
    Would several thousand gallons of kerosene and tons of paper and wood entraped within a large concrete structure be enough energy for you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlphaNumeric)
    Would several thousand gallons of kerosene and tons of paper and wood entraped within a large concrete structure be enough energy for you?
    Most of the kerosene was burnt off in the initial fireball.

    But i don't know weather it would have been enough in comparison to the ammount of steel. The most of the official versions of the collapse focus on the temperature of the fires and not the ammount of energy and time in comparison to the ammount of steel.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    The only poperty destroyed bas that of mr Silverstein. Had other buildings been significantly damaged the official account and everything surrounding it would have come under more scrutiny from the other building owners and their insurance companies.
    And this is why I prefer philosophical discussion. At least when you don't use facts, it doesn't matter that people refuse to be reasonable and face up to them. I thought you said the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the conspiracy and it was all the CIA? In which case why are the government covering it up, I would have thought they would have been as keen as the rest of us to get to the bottom of it. Or have you changed your mind now and you think they did know?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    People expect the 'conspiracy theorists' to have all the answers based on limited research.

    Whereas they will accept the numerous anomolies in the official account without questioning.

    The same logic should be applied to both.

    If the numerous unanswered questions in the official account don't disprove it then this unanswered question cannot disprove the alternative account.
    This is what annoys me most about conspiracy theorists.

    When you accuse someone of a conspiracy, it implies that there is a widely accepted ideal. Don't get mad when people don't initially believe you. And, further more, don't expect the same hesitation towards the original assessment as there is towards your own. "I've reserached this. I studied this. I know the trurth." Stransky is a PERFECT example. The problem with these theorists, is that you hold the theory itself so close to heart, that you can't bear to think that you might be wrong.

    Unanswered questions for the other side do not equal points for you own side. Learn to debate. You can’t say, “well, they didn’t answer this question. That means they are lying right?” No. Consider the possibility that the government answered every question every person ever wanted answered.

    I don't like Bush. I would almost like to see him go down for something like this. But, the bottom line is that: A)There is zero evidence that that happen. (Manipulated, subjective speculation is not evidence.) and B) He isn't that dumb/crazy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't 911 almost tip the US economy into recession?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    Most of the kerosene was burnt off in the initial fireball.
    You're right in saying that the jet fuel burned off quickly, but it was actually more like 10 minutes than instantly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i know it's not in this video but in other videos it's clearly been evident there was something up with the pentagon attack.. no trace of any type of plane, all video evidence taken away by fbi as soon as event had happened and a large covered up box taken out of the building shortly after the attack..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 3xhilaration)
    i know it's not in this video but in other videos it's clearly been evident there was something up with the pentagon attack.. no trace of any type of plane, all video evidence taken away by fbi as soon as event had happened and a large covered up box taken out of the building shortly after the attack..
    How do they explain the deaths of people who died in the crash.. my best friends uncle (who I've spoken to on numerous occasions) lost his cousin in the 911 attacks.. I think that proves it was real flights.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    How do they explain the deaths of people who died in the crash.. my best friends uncle (who I've spoken to on numerous occasions) lost his cousin in the 911 attacks.. I think that proves it was real flights.
    i didnt say all the flights were not real, i merely commented on the pentagon attack which appeared to be a missle shaped object (proven by numerous factors on and around the scene), obviously the twin tower attacks were "real flights" otherwise you wouldnt of seen two planes on every single news report..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's the first video to convince me
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    oh dear.. there are lots of interesting points raised on both sides.. such as 'why would the government attack their own country?' and 'why did all the stuff used to build the towers disappear into dust?' etc etc.. but meh. i am so confused. maybe one day we will find out the truth.

    maybe you people should consult the other thread about this and watch the other, possibly more indepth video.. and then again, carry on the same old argument which is never going to end. (until of course, someone admits to 9/11 happening one way or another.)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.