Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious
You just missed the entire point. Funny how you won't address PNAC

Im not addressing PNAC because everything you are saying just goes in circles, if i address PNAC youll back to molten steel, then planted charges, then "show me precedence of where some specific thing happened the last time a skyscraper was hit by a transatlantic flight". :roll:

Actually, you're not addressing PNAC because it's true
Going around in circles? You're the one who kept denying explosions...yet you eventually admitted they occurred. You're also the one claiming "rubble" fires melted steel (without proof), when jetfuel fires couldn't (as admitted by the government).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.

WTC7 was in the FEMA (though I doubt their contention that fire alone caused the collapse) report and NIST is due out with their report later this year.

Unfortunately, no photos exist (AFAIK) of the center south side of the building to tell how much stuctural damage it sustained from WTC1 debris.

A picture of SW corner (taken from the NW) does diplay some significant stuctural damage. Text

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.

WTC7 was in the FEMA (though I doubt their contention that fire alone caused the collapse) report and NIST is due out with their report later this year.

Unfortunately, no photos exist (AFAIK) of the center south side of the building to tell how much stuctural damage it sustained from WTC1 debris.

A picture of SW corner (taken from the NW) does diplay some significant stuctural damage. Text

FEMA called for further investigation because they admitted their reason for "collapse" was inadequate and had a "low probability" of occuring. They were not able to examine a single piece of steel from WTC7. If there was structural damage on only 1 side of WTC7, explain why it didn't topple over...and explain why it fell symetrically downwards. Also, explain the explosions heard seconds before WTC7's collapse Don't forget to explain the pyroclastic dust clouds from WTC7 as well.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.

WTC7 was in the FEMA (though I doubt their contention that fire alone caused the collapse) report and NIST is due out with their report later this year.

Unfortunately, no photos exist (AFAIK) of the center south side of the building to tell how much stuctural damage it sustained from WTC1 debris.

A picture of SW corner (taken from the NW) does diplay some significant stuctural damage. Text

FEMA called for further investigation because they admitted their reason for "collapse" was inadequate and had a "low probability" of occuring. They were not able to examine a single piece of steel from WTC7. If there was structural damage on only 1 side of WTC7, explain why it didn't topple over...and explain why it fell symetrically downwards. Also, explain the explosions heard seconds before WTC7's collapse Don't forget to explain the pyroclastic dust clouds from WTC7 as well.

Half of the structure was cantilevered over a electrical substation so that could have effected how the building collapsed. From what I remember of the video it looked like the southeast side of the building fell slightly before the north and west sides. I'll await the NIST report to see what the engineers have to say about that.

Assuming your theory is correct for a second, why collapse the building at all let alone hours after WTC1&2? Also, fires were allowed to burn on multiple floors. Any of these fires could have set off the explosioves that were supposedly used to collapse the building. Most modern plasic explosives are insentive to heat but the blasing caps and primacord used to detonate them are not.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.

WTC7 was in the FEMA (though I doubt their contention that fire alone caused the collapse) report and NIST is due out with their report later this year.

Unfortunately, no photos exist (AFAIK) of the center south side of the building to tell how much stuctural damage it sustained from WTC1 debris.

A picture of SW corner (taken from the NW) does diplay some significant stuctural damage. Text

FEMA called for further investigation because they admitted their reason for "collapse" was inadequate and had a "low probability" of occuring. They were not able to examine a single piece of steel from WTC7. If there was structural damage on only 1 side of WTC7, explain why it didn't topple over...and explain why it fell symetrically downwards. Also, explain the explosions heard seconds before WTC7's collapse Don't forget to explain the pyroclastic dust clouds from WTC7 as well.

Half of the structure was cantilevered over a electrical substation so that could have effected how the building collapsed. From what I remember of the video it looked like the southeast side of the building fell slightly before the north and west sides. I'll await the NIST report to see what the engineers have to say about that.

Assuming your theory is correct for a second, why collapse the building at all let alone hours after WTC1&2? Also, fires were allowed to burn on multiple floors. Any of these fires could have set off the explosioves that were supposedly used to collapse the building. Most modern plasic explosives are insentive to heat but the blasing caps and primacord used to detonate them are not.

There's a problem...those explosions are not being acknowledged by NIST or any investigating organization connected to our government.

"Why collapse the building at all"? Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

http://wtc7.net/background.html

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.

WTC7 was in the FEMA (though I doubt their contention that fire alone caused the collapse) report and NIST is due out with their report later this year.

Unfortunately, no photos exist (AFAIK) of the center south side of the building to tell how much stuctural damage it sustained from WTC1 debris.

A picture of SW corner (taken from the NW) does diplay some significant stuctural damage. Text

FEMA called for further investigation because they admitted their reason for "collapse" was inadequate and had a "low probability" of occuring. They were not able to examine a single piece of steel from WTC7. If there was structural damage on only 1 side of WTC7, explain why it didn't topple over...and explain why it fell symetrically downwards. Also, explain the explosions heard seconds before WTC7's collapse Don't forget to explain the pyroclastic dust clouds from WTC7 as well.

Half of the structure was cantilevered over a electrical substation so that could have effected how the building collapsed. From what I remember of the video it looked like the southeast side of the building fell slightly before the north and west sides. I'll await the NIST report to see what the engineers have to say about that.

Assuming your theory is correct for a second, why collapse the building at all let alone hours after WTC1&2? Also, fires were allowed to burn on multiple floors. Any of these fires could have set off the explosioves that were supposedly used to collapse the building. Most modern plasic explosives are insentive to heat but the blasing caps and primacord used to detonate them are not.

There's a problem...those explosions are not being acknowledged by NIST or any investigating organization connected to our government.

"Why collapse the building at all"? Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

http://wtc7.net/background.html

I was pointing out that the fires would have likely set off at least some of the planted explosives before the time the building collapsed. There is no evidence of that.

IRS legal offices? (I don't think any of us really miss those )

As for the other Federal Agencies, why would the Federal government destroy their own offices? Anything of vital importance would be backed up off site as a matter of policy.

It made sense for them to have offices there given the financial law enforcement obligations of those agencies.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

The Loch Ness monster?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

The Loch Ness monster?

The CIA was keeping Bigfoot and the Roswell UFO in their offices.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

There's a problem...those explosions are not being acknowledged by NIST or any investigating organization connected to our government.

"Why collapse the building at all"? Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

http://wtc7.net/background.html

I was pointing out that the fires would have likely set off at least some of the planted explosives before the time the building collapsed. There is no evidence of that.

IRS legal offices? (I don't think any of us really miss those )

As for the other Federal Agencies, why would the Federal government destroy their own offices? Anything of vital importance would be backed up off site as a matter of policy.

It made sense for them to have offices there given the financial law enforcement obligations of those agencies.

Well, fact of the matter is, pre collapse explosions did occur. Do explain why government agencies have not acknowledged that simple fact Give up? Coverup.

"why would the Federal government destroy their own offices?" Let's ask them... along with those pre collapse explosions.

 

[palehorse]

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11

what in the hell makes a movie star "highly credible"?! Does that mean more folks should look into Scientology because tom Cruise said so?

right there is where you lost me with this tinfoil-hat garbage... GL with your thread and your therapy!

Click the links in my sig quickly! before it's too laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Slick50
too funny.

Carlos Esteves won't accomplish 1 thing by his generalized ignorant statement.He changed his name from carlos to Charlie ROFL.

Only positive thing he ever did was get Ginger lynn

and he also got to get with Denise Richards damnit! maybe that makes him "credible" to the folks like "THAT guy" in my sig?...

 

[CptFarlow]

Originally posted by: CptFarlow
I wasn't planning on posting anything more at all, but I came upon this and figured you guys might want to have something else to ignore...

But seriously, read it and decide for yourself. He does bring up valid points that need to be looked into. There is no denying that...

Wow...I totally forgot to include the link...sorry about that...

Well, here it is.

 

[alchemize]

And what do his peers think?

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

 

[CptFarlow]

Originally posted by: alchemize
And what do his peers think?

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

You just happened to forget to mention this:

Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"

He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor?s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

Found on Wikipedia right after what you quoted.

 

[sumyungai]

I have an answer as to why there was an explosion of sorts before the building collapsed. What do all high-risers have? An elevator. When the airplane hit the building, it must have snapped the cables holding the elevators up. The elevators dropped and when it hit the bottom, there would be a loud explosion on the bottom floor and then white smoke from the dust and debri. Does that make any sense?

As for the molten steel, lots of jet fuel burning steel as well as all the materials around it has a good chance of melting steel.

You conspiracy theorists can sleep better now without the tinfoil hats getting in the way.

/thread

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
I have an answer as to why there was an explosion of sorts before the building collapsed. What do all high-risers have? An elevator. When the airplane hit the building, it must have snapped the cables holding the elevators up. The elevators dropped and when it hit the bottom, there would be a loud explosion on the bottom floor and then white smoke from the dust and debri. Does that make any sense?

As for the molten steel, lots of jet fuel burning steel as well as all the materials around it has a good chance of melting steel.

You conspiracy theorists can sleep better now without the tinfoil hats getting in the way.

/thread

LoL at you.

Edit: Thanks for the laugh. You sound exactly like Acanthus...and his claims have been trashed. I would suggest that you actually spend more than 30 seconds researching the multiple explosions at WTC. You're also wrong about jet fuel.

 

[Red Dawn]

Like Alec Baldwin he's a third rate actor, that doesn't make his opinion any more special that some idiot in a bar who thinks everything Bush does is right. In fact it puts it on par with the Drunken Bush apologist.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Sharon Stone supports Sheen: http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_showbiz_sharon_stone.htm

More newspapers start to question the Bush (the worst liar, the least trustworthy, the most manipulative of all presidents) appointed 9/11 commission report:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/new-hampshire-paper-wire-runs-front.html
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/san-francisco-chronicle-talks-about.html


San Francisco Chronicle Talks About 9/11

Long Live The 9/11 Conspiracy! (archive) - SFGate.com

Here it is: an absolutely exceptional inside scoop on the white-hot world of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, writ large and smart by Mark Jacobson over at New York magazine, and it's mandatory reading for anyone and everyone who's ever entertained the nagging thought that something -- or rather, far more than one something -- is deeply wrong with the official line on what actually happened on Sept. 11.

See, it is very likely that you already know that Sept. 11 will go down in the conspiracy history books as a far more sinister affair than, say, the murky swirl of the Kennedy assassination. You probably already know that much of what exactly happened on Sept. 11 remains deeply unsettling and largely unsolved -- or to put another way, if you don't know all of this and if you fully and blithely accept the official Sept. 11 story, well, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

But on this, the third anniversary of the launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by way of whoring the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his cronies' appalling gain, what you might not know, what gets so easily forgotten in the mists of time and via the endless repetition of the orthodox Sept. 11 tale, is the sheer volume, the staggering array of unanswered questions about just about every single aspect of Sept. 11 -- the planes, the WTC towers, the Pentagon, the fires, the passengers and the cell phone calls and the firefighters and, well, just about everything. It is, when you look closely, all merely a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go.

Verily, Jacobson, in his New York mag piece, encounters crackpots and fringe nutballs and those who think Sept. 11 was connected to aliens and electromagnetic fields and the Illuminati. It can, unfortunately, get a little crazy. But there is also a very smart, grounded, intelligent and surprisingly large faction -- which includes eyewitnesses, Sept. 11 widows, former generals, pilots, professors, engineers, WTC maintenance workers and many, many more -- who point to a rather shocking pile of evidence that says there is simply no way 19 fanatics with box cutters sent by some bearded lunatic in a cave could have pulled off the most perfectly orchestrated air attack of the century. Not without serious help, anyway.
..
There is also the very big question of what happened to 7 WTC, the only building not hit by anything at all, but which collapsed anyway, in a perfect controlled-demolition sort of way, for no reason anyone can sufficiently explain. But which just so happened to contain vital offices for the IRS, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and more.
..
The overwhelming quantity, the bloody, deadly stench of it. Fact is, it is quite impossible to watch the entire "Loose Change" documentary and not come away just a little shaken, a little awed by the sheer number of perversely interrelated facts and aberrant coincidences-that-aren't-coincidences, shaking your head at how it all seems to irrefutably prove there is far, far more to the Sept. 11 tragedy than just crazy Osama and his band of zealots, as you begin to sink into a sighing morass of rage and frustration and suspicion and mistrust. You almost can't help it.

Of course, there is another option. There is another way out. You may, as is the standard cultural default, simply ignore it all, scoff and roll your eyes and shrug it all off because it's just too bleak and distasteful to entertain the idea that the dark Sept. 11 thread winds all the way through the NSA and the FBI and the White House and the Project for the New American Century and Dick Cheney's mangled soul and God only knows where else.

But then again, no. You have to look. You have to try. Knowledge is power, and while the truth may be spurious and slippery and messy and deep, the pursuit of it is just about the only thing we have left. Give that up, and all that's left is spiritual numbness, emotional stasis and death. So what are you waiting for?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

There's a problem...those explosions are not being acknowledged by NIST or any investigating organization connected to our government.

"Why collapse the building at all"? Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

http://wtc7.net/background.html

Nice page. So what information do we get here? One, there were government offices in the WTC complex. OMG, have have to tell people! Government offices in the center of one of the largest, most well known cities in the world! It's a conspiracy!

Two, the command center was moved from its office in the building to another location. Again, big flipping deal. First off, the building was damaged. Second, you do NOT put an emergency command center in harms way, period. Let's just read what the article they linked to says:

"On the morning of Sept. 11, the mayor rushed to his command center shortly after the attack, but was forced to flee one location after another when the towers and adjacent buildings began collapsing, according to the New York Times.

Despite the scope of the catastrophe, city employees were able to establish a fully functioning, alternative emergency management command center within three days of the catastrophe. "

 

[will889]

 

[1EZduzit]

I've always thought it's a wonder more buildings didn't come down.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: noto12ious

There's a problem...those explosions are not being acknowledged by NIST or any investigating organization connected to our government.

"Why collapse the building at all"? Well, you have to ask yourself what was actually inside WTC7.

http://wtc7.net/background.html

Nice page. So what information do we get here? One, there were government offices in the WTC complex. OMG, have have to tell people! Government offices in the center of one of the largest, most well known cities in the world! It's a conspiracy!

Two, the command center was moved from its office in the building to another location. Again, big flipping deal. First off, the building was damaged. Second, you do NOT put an emergency command center in harms way, period. Let's just read what the article they linked to says:

"On the morning of Sept. 11, the mayor rushed to his command center shortly after the attack, but was forced to flee one location after another when the towers and adjacent buildings began collapsing, according to the New York Times.

Despite the scope of the catastrophe, city employees were able to establish a fully functioning, alternative emergency management command center within three days of the catastrophe. "

What did we learn? Well, we learned that the government had every reason to get rid of WTC7. Maybe we should ask government why it was intentionally omitted from the 911 Commission Report, along with a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

I like your attitude though (seriously). People like you are always willing to doubt the irrefutable facts...you make things enjoyable considering the sad topic at hand I think you're looking at this the wrong way, though. As you continue denying such simple information, more and more people are being exposed to the facts each day (people who previously had no idea, such as myself). For example, the doubters kept pushing up threads of 9/11 Conspiracy movies in the off topic forum, which just happened to catch my attention in January of 2006. I freely admit, I bought the official story until then. So to people like you, I say thanks for bumping the threads with your denials :thumbsup: No matter how hard you try, the truth will continue spreading. From email to email... AIM profile to AIM profile. The real culprits of 9/11 may never be brought to justice, but the truth will continue to spread. Internet FTW The truth finally made CNN Headline News 3 straight nights last week? An article from the SF Chronicle yesterday? It looks like Americans do have a conscience. Go figure.

 

[palehorse]

Please click the links in my sig before it's too laaaaa.......

seriously. STOP INHALING!

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CptFarlow
I haven't been able to read the entire thread...but has anybody actually looked at how long it took the towers to fall? They each took about 10 seconds to fall. Let's assume that the official "pancake theory" actually happened. That means that one floor fell onto the next, causing a chain reaction. If that were the case, then there would be a delay between each floor being hit, and the energy being transfered to the next. That is not the case on 9/11. The towers fell at about 30 floors per second. That is nearly freefall speed!

Your assumption is inaccurate. The floors were not independent. Each was connected to each other. The force of each floor falling would create stresses that would radiate through to every floor below it. Imagine a house of cards.

You are right...they were all connected, but the fact remains that they fell at nearly freefall speed. Steel and concrete cannot fall through other steel and concrete without slowing down. If one of the people in the window dropped a steel beam out of the window, it would hit the ground in about the same amount of time that the tower fell.

Do yourself a favor and look up "pyroclastic flow."

Take a cardboard box. Jump on it. Did it crumple at freefall speeds? Yes, of course it did. When you have a HUGE weight on top of something that can't support it, it will collapse very rapidly. Skyscrapers are designed in a way that they will stay together up to a point and then collapse. They don't normally "partially" collapse, expecially in the case of the larger ones.

Your anology does not take into account gravity nor mass (carboard weighs what compared to you even if you are only 90lbs soaking wet?).

In other words. Bullsh!t.

Do you come up with these or is there someone writing it down for you?

Basic law of inertia, stand on the corners of a cardboard box, it might hold you up, jump just 3 inches into the air and land in the same spot, does it crumple slow or fast?

Its not a tough principle to grasp.

Umm, for a equal evaluation you would have to include 40 sumthin steel support collums in the middle of your cardboard box. Oh yeah and add king kong to the top of both the wtc buildings.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: alchemize
And what do his peers think?

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

You just happened to forget to mention this:

Jones replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"

He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor?s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

Found on Wikipedia right after what you quoted.

How is that relevant to all of his peers saying he is a dumb ass and they don't agree with him? I didn't forget it, it was irrelevant to his peers opinion on his theory.