100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Who believes a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists. http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it." And what does that have to do with the information and the links? Because he's a liberal he must be lying? And the links to experts and physicists must be lies too? You support one while you discredit another. Whether you want one set of facts or another, there is someone with a title to back you up. So who can say one person is a conspiracy theorist and another is not if both are supported by professionals with reasonable cause to doubt the other. I think I will trust my instincts, my gut, and what I have been shown, and live with the outcome. My instincts tell me that I am not a conspiracy theorist, but rather a realist, with many questions unanswered by official explanation. The same I as felt about the Kennedy assasination and the miracle bullet. I refuse to be that gullible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NIST demands $13,278 for massive photo/video library of 9/11 NYC events
This author recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a massive visual database of 9/11/01 events; it was accepted, though the terms required payment of $13,278.88. This large fee amounts to a de-facto denial of the request, a significant event for those citizens actively questioning the events of that world-altering day. The NIST Collection NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is a federal agency which conducted a massive $20 million Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. During the course of this study the visual database, comprised of 6899 photos and 6977 segments of video, was exhaustively compiled, organized, indexed and cataloged by NIST. Much of the media came from private, corporate or independent photographers, while some of it came from various government agencies including the NYC Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Federal Emergency Managemement Agency (FEMA) and the NYC Police Dept. (NYPD). Despite the final NIST report being published late last year, few of the photographs and none of the videos from the visual database have been publicly released. A Need for this Information The Internet is teeming with 9/11 related media: websites, photographs, stories, videos, sound recordings and more. Yet much of this media is of poor quality. Videos have missing audio tracks, low visual resolution, or are missing frames, context or identification of the source. In some cases, audio tracks appear to be dubbed over the original recordings. For example, the same exact exclamation of fright, in the form of a scream, can be heard in at least two different video recordings of the destruction the World Trade Center towers 1 & 2. In other cases, the voices of newscasters completely obscure any other sounds the recording might have held, yet the newscasters were obviously recorded later than the image. In yet other cases, identical series of moving picture frames (movie clips) are available over the internet with varying audio tracks; this makes identification of the original exceedingly difficult. Unfortunately, the ease with which media, especially digital data, can be manipulated without leaving much of a trace renders the majority of the readily available 9/11 recordings questionable in terms of integrity (regardless of the appearance or apparent source). Unanswered Questions This NIST visual database undoubtedly provides many details concerning what exactly happened to the three large buildings which were completely and suddenly destroyed on September 11, 2001. Fire engineers at home and abroad, as well as an American physics professor, have publicly questioned the NIST investigation; this further emphasizes the need for this visual database to be made public. Professors, writers, journalists, government officials, and ordinary citizens worldwide have seen through the inadequacies of the three official investigations (FEMA, NIST, 9/11 Commission) into the events of 9/11. The details of what happened in New York City that day are important because, despite the efforts of the mainstream media to repeat endlessly the conclusions of the unquestionably biased and ineffectual 911 Commission report, many United States citizens still have long lists of unanswered questions about that disastrous day. The verified original source material for many of the 9/11 recordings, which NIST holds in its massive accumulation, would aid many professors, journalists, students, researchers and members of the general public to resolve their questions concerning some of the most contentious issues surrounding the total destruction of three buildings in NYC on 09.11.2001. For example, Professor Steven E, Jones, of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, recently (Fall, 2005) released a paper, entitled Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, in which he explains the evidence which supports an alternative hypothesis for the destruction of the three buildings WTC 1, 2, & 7 in New York City on September 11th, 2001. Citing the symmetrical nature of the collapses, the presence of molten metal deep in the debris, the failure of any building to collapse similarly prior to or since 9/11, the presence of horizontal ejections of smoke and debris during destruction & the duration of descent, Jones calls for a truly independent, international panel to consider all viable hypotheses. His 25 page paper ends with this call: To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. Unreasonable Demands This returns us to the aforementioned $13,278 demand by NIST in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the NIST visual database ( available here ). NIST is not making this material easily available to the public, nor to any individual researcher. Their demand for this large sum limits this valuable collection to a few well funded institutions, or to very wealthy private individuals. NIST claims that this sum is to cover search and review fees, as well as duplication costs; this is difficult to qualify, and is not explained or justified by NIST (Unfortunately, nothing requires them to do so). The above assertions demonstrate the unreasonable, unhelpful stance NIST is taking with regard to the serious claims, questions and debates many people both here and abroad are engaging in. The timely release of this data, even if only to qualified academics, at a reasonable cost is absolutely necessary for the international research community. To fail the academic community by refusing to make available this material is to engender suspicions, fuel many conspiracy theories and waste the tax dollars which paid for the collection. This failure is currently achieving all three. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High School Physics Prooves Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. http://9eleven.info/HSPhysics.html Except for the fact that there was NO visual evidence of a controlled explosion at site. NO windows blown out or anything at time of collapse. The ENGINEER who DESIGNED the building independently came up with the SAME conclusion as the 9/11 commission. Lets see-PHD in engineering and built the building or a guy with a PHD in African studies. I go with choice A. Do your homework on that one before you sum it up. Plenty of "explosions" were heard by wittnesses. Seen on camera. Why would windows have to blow??? Not entirely impossible. And you believe some ENGINEER? Think of what this Engineer could have to gain from his position |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists. http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. Yep, there are many sites one can visit to help with your point.... the government is counting on it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama shot JFK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a page to numerous links addressing the collapse of the towers, the physics behind it, and the claims of conspiracy theorists. http://www.debunking911.com/ An analysis of the 'free fall' argument http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm An article on Molten Metal http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm There are many links on this site and links on the linked sites that have very good information on the collapse of the towers. I'll give you that there are more sites on the intenet supporting a conspiracy than there is against. That's because conspiracies are interesting. But I can almost always see a more reasonable explanation. Yep, there are many sites one can visit to help with your point.... the government is counting on it. There are many more that support a conspiracy. How does this help the government? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Fri 06/12/09 03:26 PM
|
|
Barack Obama shot JFK. it was at the request of the fed reserve board JFK was pushing for the removal of the federal reserve On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid. http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama shot JFK. On 2nd thought, it wasn't Barack. It was D!ck Cheney. He was out doing some urban hunting and well..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama shot JFK. It was E Howard Hunt.... and GHW Bush (W's dad) just to name a few, and Hunt was found guilty, not in a criminal court, but in a slander suit against a paper that printed proof of his guilt. In the trial the paper produced its evidence and the court ruled it was sufficient proof and found them NOT GUILTY of slander, thereby proving Hunt guilty. He was also involve with Nixon deeply and headed the Watergate breakin if you recall...... and also remember, Texas was the home of Lyndon Johnson.... Sorry rose.... we all know how you Texans love a good turkey shoot tho...  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama shot JFK. It was E Howard Hunt.... and GHW Bush (W's dad) just to name a few, and Hunt was found guilty, not in a criminal court, but in a slander suit against a paper that printed proof of his guilt. In the trial the paper produced its evidence and the court ruled it was sufficient proof and found them NOT GUILTY of slander, thereby proving Hunt guilty. He was also involve with Nixon deeply and headed the Watergate breakin if you recall...... and also remember, Texas was the home of Lyndon Johnson.... Sorry rose.... we all know how you Texans love a good turkey shoot tho...  I just started scanning the thread again I know...it's Texas' fault 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JimmyTheGent
on
Fri 06/12/09 07:03 PM
|
|
AM radio after midnight. A lot of it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High School Physics Prooves Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. http://9eleven.info/HSPhysics.html Except for the fact that there was NO visual evidence of a controlled explosion at site. NO windows blown out or anything at time of collapse. The ENGINEER who DESIGNED the building independently came up with the SAME conclusion as the 9/11 commission. Lets see-PHD in engineering and built the building or a guy with a PHD in African studies. I go with choice A. Do your homework on that one before you sum it up. Plenty of "explosions" were heard by wittnesses. Seen on camera. Why would windows have to blow??? Not entirely impossible. And you believe some ENGINEER? Think of what this Engineer could have to gain from his position An explosive expert estimated it would take a crew of 12 guys 72 DAYS to set up the explosives to blow up a single tower and it would take 125 TONS of C4 and it would have blown out every window in the building.??????????????????????????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old Texas saying, 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old Texas saying, 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!' or push em in???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worst part of TX is that everyone equates the Bush family with it and they are actually from CT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worst part of TX is that everyone equates the Bush family with it and they are actually from CT. I thought they all equate us with riding horses and yelling yee haw 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were "squibs" evident projecting from the sides of the towers below the collapse. They can be seen on most videos of the collapse.
It is reported that there were "workmen" in and out of the building starting 3 months before 9/11 doing "upgrades" to cable and wiring. This is documented. Also, in the weeks prior to 9/11 dog patrols were pulled from the towers and there were numerous "shut downs" causing all business inside the towers to close for days at a time. What you suggest is very possible with that amount of time for preparation. It is a noted fact that many floors of the tower were vacant, there was a problem renting it. It was basiclly condemned because of the asbestos used in construction, and the estimated cost to repair it was billions. The cost to demolish it was also over a billion $$$, yet 3 months before 9/11 Larry Silverstein took out a 99 yr lease and insurance with a "terrorism" clause. But it's all just coincidence. Like the fact that all the Enron and WorldCom trial records and files were in bldg 7.... which also collapse and wasn't hit by a plane.... hmmmm, no jet or jet fuel, fell from the top into a neat little pile..... another miracle! 3 times in the same day! AMAZING! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worst part of TX is that everyone equates the Bush family with it and they are actually from CT. I thought they all equate us with riding horses and yelling yee haw AND THE GIRLS DO RODEO! YEE HAW!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry I'm not adding to the topic....looks like people have covered things pretty good on both sides....BRAVO |
|
|
|
|
