Spring RTS Engine

Wow and so is your whole post which consequently does what the media does 90% of the time and blows something out of proportion...

pintle wrote:and not using factual evidence

My factual evidence:

-When a gigantic airplane filled with highly flammable gasoline crashes into a tower, the tower will suffer massive damage, and will start on fire. The fire is capable of BENDING much of the steel that holds the tower up, possibly making the tower collapse.

-It is difficult to execute massive plans without anybody finding out. This means that the fewer people who know about the real thing, the better. But the theory about Bush and the WTC involves many many many people, including BYSTANDERS AND BUISINESS PEOPLE WITH NO AFFILIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT, as well as the media.

-Bush doesn't need a reason to invade something. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attack, and yet Bush still invaded it.

-Nobody does stuff that they think is evil. And Bush seems to think a lot of stuff is evil, such as axises and Muslims.

GTG for now, I'll think of some more later.

Lindir The Green wrote: My factual evidence:

-When a gigantic airplane filled with highly flammable gasoline crashes into a tower, the tower will suffer massive damage, and will start on fire. The fire is capable of BENDING much of the steel that holds the tower up, *{possibly}* making the tower collapse.

-It is difficult to execute massive plans without anybody finding out. This means that the fewer people who know about the real thing, the better. But the theory about Bush and the WTC involves many many many people, including BYSTANDERS AND BUISINESS PEOPLE WITH NO AFFILIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT, as well as the media.

-Bush doesn't need a reason to invade something. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attack, and yet Bush still invaded it.

-Nobody does stuff that they think is evil. And Bush seems to think a lot of stuff is evil, such as axises and Muslims.

GTG for now, I'll think of some more later.

I highlighted your speculation in the first point. I wont go into independant engineering reports. Or the testimony of the chief executive of the firm who supplied said steel. Or the testimony of the guy who certified the steel. Or the comparisons to other buildings which had planes crash into them, or bigger, longer fires.

Your second point... im not sure where to begin. It's an opinion, flawed reasoning, and CAPITALISED RANDOM STATEMENTS!111!!ONE. Also i have stated before, with opinions on the issue blazing as they have been on this thread, there is no need to keep it uberdupersekrit!

#3 "operation swift justice" or "change our proxy government in Afghanistan because the last nutters we gave guns, money, and training to aren't really working out" as i prefer to refer to it was in direct retaliation to the 9/11 attacks (despite the massive delay in actually sending in ground forces as opposed to bombing population centres and media outlets, not to mention flying family Bin Laden out of the USA on september the 12th) Also in every poll of americans i have seen the vast majority believed that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was in retaliation for 9/11

#4 People do stuff that they think is evil all the time. Bush has demonstrated that he does not think mass murder of civillians is "evil" (on your terms) numerous times, I think I will use my favourite example again: Fallujah

What are we gonna do if we come to an agreement over this issue anyway? Storm capital hill (non violently of course ) and get Mr Bush arrested? Tell Afghanistan we're sorry for our latest (in a long line of) campaign of bombing them back to the stone age?

Lindir The Green wrote:

pintle wrote:and not using factual evidence

My factual evidence:

-When a gigantic airplane filled with highly flammable gasoline crashes into a tower, the tower will suffer massive damage, and will start on fire. The fire is capable of BENDING much of the steel that holds the tower up, possibly making the tower collapse.

-It is difficult to execute massive plans without anybody finding out. This means that the fewer people who know about the real thing, the better. But the theory about Bush and the WTC involves many many many people, including BYSTANDERS AND BUISINESS PEOPLE WITH NO AFFILIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT, as well as the media.

-Bush doesn't need a reason to invade something. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attack, and yet Bush still invaded it.

-Nobody does stuff that they think is evil. And Bush seems to think a lot of stuff is evil, such as axises and Muslims.

GTG for now, I'll think of some more later.

I think some people would argue legalizing torture is to be considered evil
Anyways I'm undecided, while I can't conceive of plans that big, I can't really disprove it, even whether there was a motive is disputable.

I'm going to have to settle with: I don't know enough about it and any kind of fact devoid of scientific research could just as easily be made up regardless of the source, the media, a political party, some random guys research, whatever.

I'm guessing that the government was just to incompetent to prevent 9/11 and later exploited peoples feelings about it to look good and do whatever they want, which in turn made people suspicious.

Lindir The Green wrote:

pintle wrote:and not using factual evidence

My factual evidence:

-When a gigantic airplane filled with highly flammable gasoline crashes into a tower, the tower will suffer massive damage, and will start on fire. The fire is capable of BENDING much of the steel that holds the tower up, possibly making the tower collapse.

See this video. The on-site construction manager for the WTC states that "...the building was designed to have a 707 crash into it". Keep that in mind.

According to Wikipedia, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston Logan International Airport and bound for Los Angeles International Airport crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER aircraft. Keep that in mind.

Similarly, Wikipedia tells us that United Airlines Flight 175 also was flying from Boston Logan to LAX. It was Boeing 767-222.

Let's compare some technical statistics. Specifically, as the aircraft's jet fuel is what caused the fire, let's compare their fuel capacity.

According to Boeing, the maximum fuel capacity of the 767-200ER (AA Flight 11) is 23,980 US gallons. The maximum fuel capacity of the 767-200 would be less than that. The maximum fuel capacity of the 707 is 23,855 US gallons. The numbers are comparable.

But you might say, "well, the 767 is bigger than the 707, right?" You'd have a valid point. It is quite a bit bigger, in dimensions. However, force of impact varies with mass, not with dimensions.

According to Jane's Civil Aircraft (HarperCollins 1996), the 767 has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 156,490kg (this is for the 767-200, the weight would probably be less for the -200ER, but as UA175 was a -200, this will do). The 707 has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 151,315kg. Again, the numbers are comparable.

So, given that:
1) The WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707,
2) The 767s that hit the WTC towers were comparable in fuel capacity and weight to 707s,
3) The towers collapsed,
what is wrong with this picture? Either the on-site construction manager of the WTC is lying or mistaken about the buildings whose construction he supervised, or Boeing and Jane's are lying to us about the characteristics of the 707 and 767, or something else caused the towers to collapse.

Now, that doesn't directly lead us to believe that the towers collapsed because of demolition. Perhaps substandard materials were used in the tower - certainly a plausible explanation. Why hasn't it been explored by the government and media?

-It is difficult to execute massive plans without anybody finding out. This means that the fewer people who know about the real thing, the better. But the theory about Bush and the WTC involves many many many people, including BYSTANDERS AND BUISINESS PEOPLE WITH NO AFFILIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT, as well as the media.

I don't know which theory you're talking about, but the theory that the government knowingly allowed the attacks to happen involves surprisingly few people.

Of course, if your assertion were true, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because the plot as told in the accepted story is a "massive plan", and people would have found out, and the plot would have been stopped.

-Bush doesn't need a reason to invade something. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attack, and yet Bush still invaded it.

Whoa - Bush doesn't need a reason to invade something? I see your faith in US representative democracy is weaker than mine! Iraq was correlated with 9/11, with al-Qaeda, and with the War on Terror (tm) by the government or by conservative pundits in the media. Yes, the given reason was "WMDs". But did you listen more carefully than that? We didn't want Iraq to have WMDs because they might fall into the hands of the terrorists.

-Nobody does stuff that they think is evil. And Bush seems to think a lot of stuff is evil, such as axises and Muslims.

What someone says and what he or she believes are not necessarily one and the same - especially for a politician!

GTG for now, I'll think of some more later.

Sure, I'll always be here to shoot it down for you!

Fanger wrote:Wow and so is your whole post which consequently does what the media does 90% of the time and blows something out of proportion...

I've done you the favor of responding to your unsubstantiated allegations and flamebait with reasoned rebuttals.

If you aren't going to do me the same favor, perhaps you should consider withdrawing from discussion.

honestly i don't think anyone can or does know the "truth" unless they are a part of it and they tell us. But how do we verify if they are??? honestly there are too many what ifs and holes in everyone's reasoning be they a conspiracy theorists or someone who thinks that is a bunch of crap.

My big question is though if it was the government, what are u guys gonna do about it?

j5mello wrote: My big question is though if it was the government, what are u guys gonna do about it?

become more cynical than i already am?

I won't bother saying much.

-When a gigantic airplane filled with highly flammable gasoline crashes into a tower, the tower will suffer massive damage, and will start on fire.

The fires caused by burning jet fuel were out long before the towers collapsed. Trapped people inside the towers could be seen waving out the gigantic holes the airplanes left -- hardly something you could do if the entire area was hot enough to melt the steel superstructure of the building.

Also, even if burning jet fuel were capable of causing the steel superstructure to fail, the severity of the devestation, the complete and utter collapse of the towers so suddenly and at such a high speed, would have meant that each and every floor, each and every section of steel superstructure would have had to have failed at precisely the same moment throughout the entire building from the ground floor to the impact hole. For all 3 buildings.

My one and only grievance with the 9/11 conspiracy theory is the sheer skill that would have been involved in perfectly setting the two towers to collapse into their own footprint. Most demolition companies have a hard time doing that to a building only 20 stories high, let alone 100+ stories high. That said, the probability of a non-demolition collapse following such perfect demolition guidelines is astronomicalyl, perhaps infinitely low. The fact that it happened twice (I'm not counting WTC7 in this as it isn't 100+ stories high, but the same principle applies) is mind-boggling. So, in essence, my "grievance" is nothing more than added leverage to the idea that no mere plane crash brought those towers down.

The towers both fell at considerably less than free fall. After one floor failed, the combined moving weight of all the above floors susequently crushed each floor below it. Steel has lost fully half its strength by 1100 degrees F. And once again, someone, somewhere, would be quite happy to get his face on every news station in the world by outing a company that made such a controlled demolition.

Decimator wrote:The towers both fell at considerably less than free fall.

contrary to the evidence i have seen. Source/Reference please.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

If making buildings collapse in on themselves is so easy, then why do companies and cities pay highly trained specialists hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it?

Mostly because people don't generally like flying themselves into buildings.

Edit: and this:

An unmodified 767 costs between $100 million and $112 million.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... kc-767.htm

Decimator wrote:Mostly because people don't generally like flying themselves into buildings.

But it doesn't require an airplane to induce this sort of collapse; only a large airplane-like explosion at the top. No need for controlled demolition and miles of explosive cord and thousands of carefully placed explosive blocks; the whole thing about that sort of specialized training and care required to make a building collapse down upon itself is simply a fabrication by the companies who make a business in that area, I suppose.

Well, you could always set a house on fire instead of paying for it to be demolished, but people don't do that, even out in rural areas where there's nothing at risk.

Just a small off topic bit here.

I've watched Farenheit 9/11 and Supersized Me. Both films were rubbish bits of infantile propogande (completely irrespective of my personal views), yet everything I'd heard about them indicated that they were good films. Is this really the level of resoned film-making in america? Really?

Deathblane wrote:Just a small off topic bit here.

I've watched Farenheit 9/11 and Supersized Me. Both films were rubbish bits of infantile propogande (completely irrespective of my personal views), yet everything I'd heard about them indicated that they were good films. Is this really the level of resoned film-making in america? Really?

They were propaganda films intended to aim at the heart and emotions, not really the reasoning abilities.

Since everyone knows that Europeans don't have emotions, they wouldn't make sense to you

Felix the Cat wrote:If making buildings collapse in on themselves is so easy, then why do companies and cities pay highly trained specialists hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it?

Because the alternatives involve a guy in a backhoe hacking out pieces of the structure from the bottom, and you can't legally obtain the right kind and amount of explosives to topple a building unless you are a highly trained professional. It wouldn't be a huge problem if there was some magical easy way of simulating a 747 crashing into a building, but that's not really realistic.

Going to read the rest of the thread in a bit, I just finished the first page.

To reiterate, I don't necessarily believe in any conspiracy theories, I just think that there's a lot that doesn't add up in 9/11 and the post-9/11 world.