Here's the real truth: somebody will always be unsatisfied. We can have billions of studies done, and somebody will still have a problem with them, because everybody has an agenda. Impartiality is a myth; so long as human beings are involved it doesn’t exist.

Bottom line: what happened, happened. Its in the past, you aren't going to change it, and there's plenty of problems on this Earth you CAN change. Focus on those.

Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am)

Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people? Government Blues.

What about all the rescue workers who dug bodys from the rubble who are now coming down with and dyeing from diseases relating to 9/11, that wouldn't have happened if the buldings has toppled over. What about the hundeds of people who survived by running out of the buildings only to breath in the dust cloud. If it was controlled demolition it was a poor job.  

Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:54 pm)

Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am) Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people? Government Blues. What about all the rescue workers who dug bodys from the rubble who are now coming down with and dyeing from diseases relating to 9/11, that wouldn't have happened if the buldings has toppled over. What about the hundeds of people who survived by running out of the buildings only to breath in the dust cloud. If it was controlled demolition it was a poor job.

I disagree, if the buildings cracked and actually fell they would have taken out many more buildings and many more bystanders.  They would have fell at a 90 degree angle onto the city, the buildings are so tall it would have taken half of manhattan with them, including gas lines and stuff.

Quote (Cobalt60 @ Mar. 26 2006, 9:23 am)

Quote (YummyPork @ Mar. 26 2006, 1:03 am) Quote (dysfunctional @ Mar. 25 2006, 7:36 pm) (a) jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. (b) remember the "big-ass-fireball"? (that was the jet fuel ==> "foosh!" gone. spent) © jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Un...freakin'... believable. Melting steel isn't even the issue. Floors below could not simply sustain the weight of a collapsing floor above, because there were insufficient center supports on the floors.  When one started, it simply became an ever increasing collapse.  I mean really!  How tough is that to understand. This was all discussed openly in the 9/11 hearings.  Including the fact that anything built in the future should not be constructed in that manner. The towers falling was a weight issue resulting from lack of center supports. How many floors were intact above the impact?  15? 20?  Drop a 20 story buiding on anything and it will collapse. ok.   but the towers fell at "freefall" speed. (we've been through this all before on this board) if the towers had collapsed from the top down, then the floors "beneath" the damage would provide 'bouyancy' to the falling building, and slow the fall. ie: as each floor 'pancakes' onto the next, there would be a certain amount of energy needed to "break" the supports on each additional floor. ==> this would all add up as net 'loss' of energy by the falling debris, because, the energy of the falling debris is being used to do work (ie: to "break" the supports on the next floor, and the next,  and the next, x 100 floors) the ONLY way the towers could fall at "free-fall" speed is if supports on EACH of ALL the lower floors (ie: each floor BENEATH the falling debris) was already "blown out" ==> so 'breaking' them wouldn't take away any momentum from the falling debris (because this energy came from explosives).   this is a tell tale sign of a controlled demolition.

Speculations unsupported by any direct measuements of what actaully happened.

What was the speed?  How was this measured?   How accurate were the measurements?

How many floors fell onto the floors below and how much energy was  "stored" in the structure that fell from above?    

How much energy would be required to overcome the supports of the floors below?

How much support would be required to slow the accelerating mass of the multiple floors (again - how many were there and how much mass...) below "free fall speed".

Do you have these numbers?   How were they measured?   Has your hypothesis been tested anywhere, ever?


I'm going to have call this all nonsense until I see some answers to the above.

Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 2:16 pm)

Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:54 pm) Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am) Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people? Government Blues. What about all the rescue workers who dug bodys from the rubble who are now coming down with and dyeing from diseases relating to 9/11, that wouldn't have happened if the buldings has toppled over. What about the hundeds of people who survived by running out of the buildings only to breath in the dust cloud. If it was controlled demolition it was a poor job.   I disagree, if the buildings cracked and actually fell they would have taken out many more buildings and many more bystanders.  They would have fell at a 90 degree angle onto the city, the buildings are so tall it would have taken half of manhattan with them, including gas lines and stuff.

I totally disagree, how many people were hurt by flying glass and other debrie. The building would have come down in chunks not in one piece, and the weight would have limited the distance from building. the way the building was constructed it would have collapsed in on itself as it fell.

Quote (Peaceable Frood @ Mar. 26 2006, 8:53 am)

Quote (LightningBoy @ Mar. 25 2006, 8:25 pm) How many times has this been gone over and shot down? Charlie Sheen is a disrespectful, drug addict, wife beating punk. But then again, he IS a Hollywood elitist, meaning he's an expert on anything. Anyone who believes ANYTHING he says is a fool. Wait....you'll get pissed off when someone refers to Bush as a neocon or calls the religious right 'bible thumpers' but it's okay to call someone an elitist. I just wanted to clear up the double standard.

Don't put words in my mouth. Everyone is entitled to their criticisms. Or is the double standard that only you are?

Quote (YummyPork @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:32 pm)

I'm going to have call this all nonsense until I see some answers to the above.

by the same token you should probably call the "official" story nonsense
(as you seem to be saying , it can't be proven one way OR the other)



ie:  the "official" story didn't give you these details...
...and yet you believe it with no question   why the double-standard?

Quote (YummyPork @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:32 pm)

I'm going to have call this all nonsense until I see some answers to the above.

answers (in general) don't come seeking for us.
we have to consciously seek the answers.

and if we don't,  then "....until I see..." will never happen.
and everything is nonsense.

((its called "taking the blue pill"))  

Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 1:33 pm)

Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 2:16 pm) Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:54 pm) Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am) Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people? Government Blues. What about all the rescue workers who dug bodys from the rubble who are now coming down with and dyeing from diseases relating to 9/11, that wouldn't have happened if the buldings has toppled over. What about the hundeds of people who survived by running out of the buildings only to breath in the dust cloud. If it was controlled demolition it was a poor job.   I disagree, if the buildings cracked and actually fell they would have taken out many more buildings and many more bystanders.  They would have fell at a 90 degree angle onto the city, the buildings are so tall it would have taken half of manhattan with them, including gas lines and stuff. I totally disagree, how many people were hurt by flying glass and other debrie. The building would have come down in chunks not in one piece, and the weight would have limited the distance from building. the way the building was constructed it would have collapsed in on itself as it fell.

IF that is the case, then why even use explosives to weaken the structure onto itself?

It really is an interesting conspiracy theory to say the least

Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 9:23 pm)

Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 1:33 pm) Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 2:16 pm) Quote (George W Carver @ Mar. 26 2006, 12:54 pm) Quote (NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am) Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people? Government Blues. What about all the rescue workers who dug bodys from the rubble who are now coming down with and dyeing from diseases relating to 9/11, that wouldn't have happened if the buldings has toppled over. What about the hundeds of people who survived by running out of the buildings only to breath in the dust cloud. If it was controlled demolition it was a poor job.   I disagree, if the buildings cracked and actually fell they would have taken out many more buildings and many more bystanders.  They would have fell at a 90 degree angle onto the city, the buildings are so tall it would have taken half of manhattan with them, including gas lines and stuff. I totally disagree, how many people were hurt by flying glass and other debrie. The building would have come down in chunks not in one piece, and the weight would have limited the distance from building. the way the building was constructed it would have collapsed in on itself as it fell. IF that is the case, then why even use explosives to weaken the structure onto itself?

Dude, you proposed the hypothesis
 

Quote

(NSBF @ Mar. 26 2006, 11:56 am) Let's just say HYPOTHETICLY that the buildings were brought down in some government controlled demolition.  Do you think they would do that as a fail safe, so the buildings wouldn't topple over onto manhattan killing many, many more people?