Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 31 of 151 (417200)
08-19-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by molbiogirl
08-19-2007 9:36 PM


you see those are questions we cannot answer. We can only look at this from a scientific viewpoint. However what we do know is that its possible that the hijackers were fake. A passport fell from one of the planes and the government said "look we have the evidence of this hi jacker. And he was found alive and well in another country. They immediately took back what they said about the passport.
Edited by lost-apathy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 9:36 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 10:02 PM lost-apathy has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 151 (417202)
08-19-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 9:45 PM


Two things.
First, provide a link supporting your contention about the passport.
Second, dozens of calls were made during the hijacking(s). Passengers made mention of the hijackers. The hijackers contacted air traffic controllers. Video at Dulles (where American Flight 77 originated) captured all 5 hijackers as they boarded the aircraft. The passenger manifests of each plane listed the names of the hijackers. What of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 9:45 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-19-2007 10:13 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 38 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 151 (417206)
08-19-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by molbiogirl
08-19-2007 10:02 PM


also it is irrelevant to the topic
Frankly, it is also totally irrelevant to the topic whether or not the "hijackers" were fake.
The only issue is "Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11" and the answer to that is, of course, "Yes it is."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 10:02 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 10:47 PM jar has not replied
 Message 39 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:07 PM jar has not replied

  
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 34 of 151 (417207)
08-19-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2007 1:11 AM


Ok finally someone who wants to debate seriously...
quote:
Yeah, that's generally what thousands of gallons of JP-5 jetfuel will do to steel columns.
There were pools of molten lava that did not cool completely for a few weeks. There were videos of lava spewing out of the side of the building before its collapse. Think of how hot it needs to be for a steel beam to break. We have stoves that are made of steel, and we can run it all day long and it won't melt. The government said it was due to fire, but this is obviously not the case.
quote:
Then what do you think it was? Smoke and mirrors? I assume you watched the event unfold.
I believe it was due to demolition. In order to bring down a steel framed building of that size you have destroy the base. The whole building collapsed, which says a force greater than a airplane hitting it had to have acted upon it. There were also many descriptions of explosions from firemen policemen and civilians who were at the site.
quote:
You're right. Obviously the government amassed tons of dust particles and housed them in the lobby of the Trade Centers, and upon radio-controlled detonation, it deployed plumes of dust in the air to create the illusion of a terrorist attack.
In controlled demolition when explosives act upon the buildings it creates a force great enough to pulverize concrete into dust.
You can watch the movie 911 revisited. It is worth the hour and half. It could change your whole perspective on things.
quote:
I'm sure that somehow had nothing to do with the fact that a jumbojet came careening into a building at hundreds of miles per hour. Physics says that mass x velocity x thousands of gallons of jet fuel causes catastrophic outcomes.
First watch a video of a plane crashing into the building. It dosen't flinch a inch. These are also huge steel beams we are talking about it's impossible for a a plane to cut every single beam to the point where the whole building collapses. The bottom floors should still be intact.
Another thing i forgot to mention is WTC 7. How is it that the building collapsed in on itself just from debris from the other towers. And the government hasn't even mentioned this in the commission report.
Penn and teller is just a comedian, you should watch some professors give lectures on this subject.
Edited by lost-apathy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 1:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2007 10:32 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2007 11:44 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2007 10:48 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 151 (417210)
08-19-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 10:18 PM


There were pools of molten lava that did not cool completely for a few weeks.
Lava is molten stone. Why would there be stone on an airplane? In a 100-story building?
There was no lava.
We have stoves that are made of steel, and we can run it all day long and it won't melt.
Dude, your stove at home goes to maybe 500 degrees. Barely hot enough to burn paper. The burning jet fuel caused temperatures of more than 2000 degrees. The fires were so hot they burned for three months after the buildings collapsed.
In order to bring down a steel framed building of that size you have destroy the base.
Yes. But it's abundantly obvious from the videos that the towers collapsed from the top down.
Which is what you'd expect from a weakening of their structure by fire somewhere near the top.
which says a force greater than a airplane hitting it had to have acted upon it.
Gravity was that force.
The bottom floors should still be intact.
Except that they were crushed by the top floors.
How is it that the building collapsed in on itself just from debris from the other towers.
Because a million tons of building debris landed square on top of it. Why wouldn't it have collapsed?
You're not making any sense.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 10:18 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 151 (417212)
08-19-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 3:16 PM


We have no idea who was involved but what we can figure out is the science of the building collapses.
Go right ahead. Hint: this will involve actual math.
The explanation the government gave is obviously flawed.
The word "obviously" is not actually a substitute for evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 3:16 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 37 of 151 (417214)
08-19-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-19-2007 10:13 PM


Re: also it is irrelevant to the topic
Sorry, jar.
lost wrote:
Now think critically for a second. If it was the pancaking effect, wouldnt you think it would take a while for the building to collapse? Each floor provides resistance to the falling floors, however we can see there was no resistance because it fell at near free fall speed. Around 9 seconds! now can you imagine over 100 floors being collapsed in a pancake fashion one on top of the next in 9 seconds? We can drop a rock off the top of the building and it will reach the ground in about 9 seconds.
The buildings did not fall at near freefall speeds.
You didn't read my clips, did you?
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com
To wire the Towers for detonation would have taken 12 people 24 days. How was this done without notice?
There were no traces of thermite.
However, rather than tackle that head on, I'd like to ask that you provide the evidence that thermite was present at Ground Zero. Links will do nicely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-19-2007 10:13 PM jar has not replied

  
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 38 of 151 (417216)
08-19-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by molbiogirl
08-19-2007 10:02 PM


If you read the 911 commission report, they mention a list of 19 Hi-jackers. Yet a few of them have been found alive and well. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
And for your cell phone theory.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
However I really do not like talking about the Hi jackers and the cell phones because the evidence on both sides is very elusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 10:02 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 11:29 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 39 of 151 (417217)
08-19-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-19-2007 10:13 PM


Re: also it is irrelevant to the topic
Possible by some miracle. Yes, however not very probable from the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-19-2007 10:13 PM jar has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 40 of 151 (417224)
08-19-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 11:06 PM


Hijackers
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
This entire site relies on one piece of evidence: the cellphones couldn't work.
And to refute the evidence that cell calls had been made, the site chalks it up to: The commission lied.
Did the families that received the calls lie too?
Wiki:
A.K. Dewdney, in a study conducted in Canada in 2003, suggested that mobile phone calls from planes are actually impossible.[171] He argued that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this assumption, economist Michel Chossudovsky suggests the calls were fabricated or never made at all.[172] Critics of this study have pointed out that mobile phone signals would not have been the same in Canada in 2003 as they were near the northeast coast of the United States on September 11. Additionally, Carnegie Mellon researchers have concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations.[173]
During the flight of Flight 93, 13 passengers made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (and all but two of these were on air phones). There were far fewer phone calls from Flights 11, 175 and 77, leading to some claims that these calls may have been faked even if the Flight 93 calls were real. Reportedly, the only two calls from these flights that were recorded were placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. Proponents of this theory have pointed out various anomalies relating to the phone calls
Lost:
Yet a few of them have been found alive and well.
Wiki:
Some conspiracy theorists go further to suggest that the hijackers were not on the planes at all. This claim was fueled by erroneous initial news reports shortly after 9/11 that indicated that some of the hijackers were still alive. The BBC and the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on September 23, 2001, that some of the people named by the FBI as hijackers were actually alive and well.[163][164] One of them was Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC even distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive. The Justice Department says that this was a typographical error.
All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved and by other news organisations such as NBC.[165][163][166] In 2002, Saudi Arabia admitted that the names of the hijackers were correct.[167] The editor of BBC News Online has said the identity confusion in the original BBC article that sparked the theories may be due to the hijackers' names being common Arabic names, and that the BBC has later superseded the original article
And, as I mentioned before, there are the manifests, the security footage, and the contact with air control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:06 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5418 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 41 of 151 (417225)
08-19-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
08-19-2007 10:32 PM


Ok maybe I should have used molten metal. video footage and pictures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOja0Bw9RE
quote:
Because a million tons of building debris landed square on top of it. Why wouldn't it have collapsed?
Oh a million tons? Have you seen any videos of WTC 7 collapse? It comes down in 6 seconds. In a perfect fashion. Why didn't they mention it in the commission report? Not only that but there were other closer buildings to the twin towers which got debris, and they didn't collapse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2007 10:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by molbiogirl, posted 08-19-2007 11:36 PM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2007 12:07 AM lost-apathy has not replied
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2007 1:15 AM lost-apathy has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 42 of 151 (417226)
08-19-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 11:35 PM


It comes down in 6 seconds.
Please address the freefall post upthread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:35 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 151 (417229)
08-19-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 10:18 PM


There were pools of molten lava that did not cool completely for a few weeks. There were videos of lava spewing out of the side of the building before its collapse.
Well, in that case, all becomes clear. The Twin Towers were brought down by the volcano which suddenly errupted in Manhattan.
Unless for some reason you have no idea what the word "lava" means.
I believe it was due to demolition. In order to bring down a steel framed building of that size you have destroy the base.
And yet a mere glance at videos of the collapse show that it collapsed from the top down.
The whole building collapsed, which says a force greater than a airplane hitting it had to have acted upon it.
Gra-vi-ty.
There were also many descriptions of explosions from firemen policemen and civilians who were at the site.
Which you don't quote.
In controlled demolition when explosives act upon the buildings it creates a force great enough to pulverize concrete into dust.
I'll ask again. Have you ever watched a video of a real controlled demolition?
First watch a video of a plane crashing into the building. It dosen't flinch a inch.
Ah, it must have been a special plane with non-flinching capacity. Normal plane flinch before hitting buildings ...
... no, wait, what the heck are you talking about?
These are also huge steel beams we are talking about it's impossible for a a plane to cut every single beam to the point where the whole building collapses.
And yet if you look at the videos, you can see where the planes made great big holes in the buildings.
Another thing i forgot to mention is WTC 7. How is it that the building collapsed in on itself just from debris from the other towers.
Now there's a question which answers itself.
It had a twenty-storey hole in it, you don't think that might have weakened the structure somewhat?
Penn and teller is just a comedian, you should watch some professors give lectures on this subject.
Professors, eh?
Are we talking here about the theologian James Fetzer ... or Judy Wood and her "Keebler Elves Hypothesis"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 10:18 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 151 (417235)
08-20-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by lost-apathy
08-19-2007 11:35 PM


Oh a million tons? Have you seen any videos of WTC 7 collapse? It comes down in 6 seconds. In a perfect fashion.
"In a perfect fashion"? You mean it fell downwards? Blimey, gravity must have been in on the conspiracy. I guess Sir Isaac Newton must have "pulled" the building.
Why didn't they mention it in the commission report?
Because the report was meant to be a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks", rather then a dissertation on what happens to buildings if you knock a twenty-storey hole in them.
Not only that but there were other closer buildings to the twin towers which got debris, and they didn't collapse.
Did any of them have twenty-storey holes in them?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by lost-apathy, posted 08-19-2007 11:35 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 151 (417236)
08-20-2007 12:19 AM


Note To Creationists
Incidentally, if there are any creationists reading this --- hi there, nemesis_juggernaut! --- and if you've ever wondered what you look like to non-creationists ... you look like lost-apathy.
"I don't understand how this happened. Therefore I do understand how this happened. Bushdidit."

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024