X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
911,bush,deer,headlights,raw,uncut Uncut video of Bush at Booker Elementary on morning of 9/11
Comments  who voted for this video securedesk
- Krupo
- joedirt
- pho3n1x
- SnakePlissken
- therealblankman
- PinkGlitter
- andrew
- rickegee
- dotdude
- ant
- joemawlma
- michie
- bizinichi
- gwaan
- siftbot
Uncut Video Of Bush At Booker Elementary On Morning Of 9/11 Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. d3bas3r
(116 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Anyway, that's the only novel thing I have to add that I don't remember adding before.
Also, I found this to be a very cogent summary of your points, with a few new ones thrown in for good measure: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7089
Note that WTC was affected by more than fire - there was the matter of jets crashing into them as well. So your statement that "No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11" can also be stated as "No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, ever. But it has happened with the additional impact from being rammed by a fast moving jetliner."
Now let's say I agree with the assertion that "Steel-framed buildings can only collapse at freefall speeds into their own footprints when subjected to controlled demolition."
Um, okay. So if I agree that means there must've been a controlled demolition, and if I disagree, it's because that's not what happened in this case?
Let's go with that:
1. the towers fell at a speed slower than freefall b/c the building wasn't wired to explode, so there was kinetic energy loss as it fell, and
2. they exceeded footprints while collapsing - common knowledge from viewing the events live on TV, plus, if you want permanent evidence that debris hit other structures, note that it's part of the reason why WTC7 collapsed as well.
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Physics say it'll take *at least* 9.1 seconds (square root of (2 times (416-10) divided by 9.81) for an object fall down from that height.
Observations, calculations and measurements indicate that it took around 12 or 13 seconds for the towers to collapse, so they didn't fall at "freefall speeds" at all.
The report goes into detail about resistance/kinetic energy, concluding on how much energy you need to crush concrete (the towers had energy that exceeded that requirement by a factor of 10). Air resistance is 1.5% of the crushing force. And each floor slowed descent by no more than .015 seconds.
Interesting note that these "A325" bolts used in constructing the buildings weren't strong enough - the columns could've withstood a little more stress before using up their full strength.
Sounds like a reliable source to me: http://911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html
It's disturbing to read such a cold dispassionate, dare I say it, scientific examination of the input energies required to crush concrete to 60 micrometre particles, but it's all well within the physical realm of possibility.
There's two interesting conclusions from these readings.
1. they claimed the buildings could withstand impact of airplanes
2. they did, for a while - enough time to evacuate a whack of people out; sadly not all - obviously not those above the impact floors, and not the firefighters who bravely ran inside to try and help - but until the building succumbed to all that damage, it stayed up.
Let me know if you find any errors in Dr. Greening's calculations.
1. Ask them, not random people on the internet who probably have as much idea about how the secret service works as you do (i.e. very little). I'd say it was a bad call on their part.
2. Are you an engineer? If not then don't make these kind of assumptions. There are millions of people more qualified than you who have no problems with the official version of events.
3. I agree wholeheartedly. People clinging to a story with has no real evidence, basing their arguments on emotion, and claiming they are the only ones who know the truth.
4. Random quotes don't make your argument stronger. Bad form.
5. In another topic I asked for a concise and clear resource that explained the arguments for a consipracy theory. If you provided one I would be very interested.
Why is the goal of 911myths.com so bad? He is obviously not profiting in any way from the website, unlike the many authors and directors who are trying to cash in with their book or documentary. The author clearly states his objectives on the site. Wanting to approach the arguments in a level and reasonable way is a good thing, even for you. It gives you a chance to view a well stated rebuttal which you should be able to address if your arguments are valid. From what I saw of the site it seemed quite balanced. It presented the viewpoints of the conspiracy theorists, including references, and then presents the opposing viewpoint. It includes sources and allows the reader to follow up on many points on their own. It is also ready to admit that there is no single defining answer, and that their is still room for debate. That is something that I have yet to see a conspiracy site do.
You keep appealing to emotions in your posts. The Iraq war is a separate issue to 9/11. If you remember, the government didn't need to orchestrate a huge conspiracy to take America into that war. They ran an old-fashioned propaganda campaign.
With regards to the secret service, I admitted I had no idea. It is definately an interesting point but you need to address it on it's own. When you try and tie it in to this whole conspiracy issue then you are clouding the waters and making it harder to discover the real reasoning behind it.