[QUOTE=TurbisV2;32243814]
so now whenever i hear about 9/11 i get a mental image of this crappy static tv image of two smoking sky scrapers...[/QUOTE]
Same, but i had heard about it on the way to school, and when I got there they were trying to get the TV to work, but only had a really staticy black and white picture, so now that's the first thing I think of.
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=homemade.;32254361]yes I know that but if you wanna compare Christianity and islam.
[url]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm[/url]
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
I am not prejudice of muslims and do not judge them by islam.
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
Christianity and Islam:
A Side by Side Comparison*
* It is not the purpose of this site to promote any particular religion, including Christianity.
However, we do enjoy refuting nonsense, such as the claim that Muhammad
and Jesus preached a morally equivalent message, or that all religion is the same.
"Allah:"
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them."
(Qur'an 8:12)
Muhammad:
"Fight everyone in the way of Allah and
kill those who disbelieve in Allah."
(Ibn Ishaq 992)
Jesus:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
(Matthew 5:14)[/QUOTE]
Are you really being serious.
Here's some nice nonviolent bible quotes for you:
When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)
"The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
[QUOTE=Talkbox;32255163][MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_detailpage[/MEDIA]
just out of interest, what do you guys think of this? Dont rate bricks until you watch the whole thing ( the latter half of the video is the most notable part )[/QUOTE]
Oh lord, here we go again.
WTC 7 was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.
[t]http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg[/t]
As you can see from the graphic above, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.
Boeing 767's are not the only objects capable of inflicting damage to a structure. The collapse of both WTC 1 and 2 caused a huge amount of damage to a very large area around them.
[t]http://www.debunking911.com/vpyc1j.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/february2007/280207wtc3.jpg[/t]
[t]http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/2006AnnualMeeting/wtc-lg.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/WTC7/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1083.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg[/t]
[t]http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg[/t]
You can see debris striking and causing damage to WTC 7 from multiple angles.
[t]http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtc7debris8.jpg[/t]
And ultimately creating a massive 20 story gash along the side. The building was already severely damaged, with the weight of it's 47 floors redistributed to it's remaining columns.
[t]http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7gash.jpg[/t]
The falling debris caused severe fires that were fueled by a series of diesel generators located on the lower floors where most of the fire was concentrated.
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSr9MYOvxUH5e6UXsXg5__xVUuIQBGEM-kX_cSRmOHsocUwONth9xS96UZU[/img]
Around 2:00 firefighters noticed a bulge in the Southwest corner of the building and began hearing creaking sounds coming from WTC7. At 3:00 firefighters began to pulling back to let the fires burn unchecked, fearing collapse inevitable at this point. WTC7 was also uniquely designed in that its entire upper section was supported by three main trusses above the 7th floor. Exposed to fires for 7 hours and critically weakened, Truss 1 in the Northeast corner finally failed at 5:20. The collapse progressed vertically all the way to the roof as evidenced by the collapse of the East Penthouse.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&feature=player_embedded#![/media]
Unable to handle the redistributed weight of the building the remaining trusses failed 8 seconds later resulting in the full collapse of the building. There really wasn't anything strange about the collapse of WTC7 and Firefighters weren't surprised when the building collapsed as predicted.
That's the watered down version. I don't want to spend an hour explaining a building collapse, I didn't even dip into my notes or saved files and pictures for this. Everything here was pulled off of Google and Youtube.
I think a lot of the conspiracy theories regarding the collapses are coming from people who just don't have the ability to comprehend what happened. We don't have any real precedent for what happens when a 1300 foot structure comes down like that. The towers didn't just pancake neatly into their basements, the reinforced exterior skin fanned out and wiped out everything in the immediate area.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32258796]I think a lot of the conspiracy theories regarding the collapses are coming from people who just don't have the ability to comprehend what happened. We don't have any real precedent for what happens when a 1300 foot structure comes down like that. The towers didn't just pancake neatly into their basements, the reinforced exterior skin fanned out and wiped out everything in the immediate area.[/QUOTE]
One of the reasons I like to research the WTC attack. There is just [i]so much[/i] to it. Every picture, every story has so much involved in it, there isn't one solid answer for everything.
I don't really consider 9/11 to be some ~inside job conspiracy~ but I've read a good few very convincing articles and seen videos, that just plain prove that we've been lied to or important details that have just been ignored or whatever. But as codemonkey said there's just so much information I don't have a solid opinion at all. All I really know is that i don't believe the official story for a second. It could be exactly as they reported it, but if so why did they cover up and lie and shit, it doesn't really make sense
I'm not trying to start some 9/11 was an inside job argument because that's not what i'm saying, I'm just saying that it confuses me and doesn't add up very well. Which is why I doubt it.
What did they lie and cover up exactly?
There is very little to no contradiction in the official reports compared to the dozens of Truther theories. I'm convinced that people become 'Truthers' out of blind ignorance and a lack of understanding. Not just understanding the technical aspects, but the human one.
If one person at the WTC site, with debris falling around him, the towers burning, people jumping to their deaths as rescuers frantically try to reach those trapped misspeaks and says something that doesn't sound right they assume that's the smoking gun. That it's all a conspiracy. No one accounts for the amount of emotional stress or strain put on the people there that day, the misinformation that circulated and just what it was really like to be there.
The famous one being Silverstein's comment to 'Pull it' which Truthers assume is him referring to a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of WTC7 but it was his referring to the firefighters that were trying to fight the fire in the building.
Technical aspects that they often misunderstand are like the windows blowing out as the Towers collapses, thinking it's a controlled demolition charge when in reality they're just floors collapsing ontop of other floors forcing air out of the windows.
I think the most disgusting display of Truther ignorance and inability to feel compassion for people was an entire thread of Truthers agreeing with one another that the pictures of the Jumpers were all photoshopped. That either there were no Jumpers at all or they were dummies or already long dead bodies put there prior to the attack and thrown out windows using mechanical cranes.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32259661]
I think the most disgusting display of Truther ignorance and inability to feel compassion for people was an entire thread of Truthers agreeing with one another that the pictures of the Jumpers were all photoshopped. That either there were no Jumpers at all or they were dummies or already long dead bodies put there prior to the attack and thrown out windows using mechanical cranes.[/QUOTE]
well that's just desperate.
what's next? The towers were never there in the first place?
[editline]12th September 2011[/editline]
you should make like a website or something like "why your bullshit 9/11 conspiracies are wrong" but there's probably something already like that. maybe a thread here with more detail?
That would require me writing out huge articles for every 'Truther' argument to refute them. That would require a huge amount of time and effort on my part and I don't feel it's a reasonable use of it. Most Truthers when presented with an alternative theory will either ignore it, pick a piece of it to refute or just carry on with their previous assumptions. I don't go into these things trying to convert Truthers but I do feel like I have to at least explain what happened that day to an extent which was why I explained WTC7 and previously the fires and pancake collapse of WTC1&2.
I have a feeling a thread like that would only incite more trolls. More trouble than I think it's worth personally.
Also this is the Truther 'Jumpers are fake' thread.
[url]http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-jumpers-videos-t21730.html?[/url]
The amount of outright disinformation and fabrication in that thread is mind numbing. From the claim only "7-8 Jumpers Jumped' to the supposed 'Jumper landed' picture (Post #2 'Admin' Phil Jayhan posts it at the end. It's from a suicide, not 9-11.) and the claims of Edna Cintron never jumping. (She really does jump.)
Than they pick apart this guy in another thread for having compassion while they're devoid of it.
[url]http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-video-guy-t21653.html[/url]
I've lost all respect for Truthers. Although most don't take it [i]that far[/i].
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32258614]Oh lord, here we go again.
WTC 7 was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.
[/QUOTE]
A steel framed high rise that is designed like that cannot fall that fast or that symmetricly via a localised truss failure. It is physicly impossible. The way it fell suggested that all of the remaining core columns had to fail at the same time.
[QUOTE=Talkbox;32260600]A steel framed high rise that is designed like that cannot fall that fast or that symetricly via a localised truss failure. It is physicly impossible. The way it fell suggested that all of the remaining core columns had to fail at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Where did you get your engineering degree to be able to make a statement like that with such absolute certainty? 9/11 was quite literally the first time [or one of them] we've seen modern skyscrapers exposed to such stresses outside of a simulation. The fact that it looks similar to a demolition does not mean it is a demolition. WTC 7 was massively damaged by debris from the collapsing tower. It's no suprise that the common uneducated masses have a hard time interpreting what was seen that day. The people who pointed to the windows blowing out as a sign of explosives failed to understand that it was in fact air being heavily and very quickly compressed into the near airtight floors below by the collapsing floors above. Nearly everything conspiracy theorists have pointed out has been disproved or explained [using simple physics or chemistry even] time and time again.
Just accept that there is pretty much no way the lay dog can accurately interpret what happened that day from news footage and photos. That's why we have engineers. We wouldn't need college degrees if anybody could do it. Go try and diagnose an illness from a video of a sick patient, and photos of them, inside and out. It's not very easy, is it? With all of that information, you would have more than what is accessible to the public about 9/11 and there is still a snowflake's chance in Hell that you would diagnose them correctly.
Codemonkey's post is about as accurate as it gets, but clearly there will be no convincing you of reality.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;32260684]Where did you get your engineering degree to be able to make a statement like that with such absolute certainty? 9/11 was quite literally the first time [or one of them] we've seen modern skyscrapers exposed to such stresses outside of a simulation. The fact that it looks similar to a demolition does not mean it is a demolition. WTC 7 was massively damaged by debris from the collapsing tower. It's no suprise that the common uneducated masses have a hard time interpreting what was seen that day. The people who pointed to the windows blowing out as a sign of explosives failed to understand that it was in fact air being heavily and very quickly compressed into the near airtight floors below by the collapsing floors above.
Just accept that there is pretty much no way the lay dog can accurately interpret what happened that day from news footage and photos. That's why we have engineers. We wouldn't need college degrees if anybody could do it.
Codemonkey's post is about as accurate as it gets, but clearly there will be no convincing you of reality.[/QUOTE]
If a steel structured building is damaged by fires and debris on one side and has a localised truss failure its not going to fall at near freefall speed symmetricly into a nice convenient pile, almost instantaneously pulverising everything above the point of collapse. What makes you think saying the opposite is any form of reality when it is a physical impossibility?
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32260418]That would require me writing out huge articles for every 'Truther' argument to refute them. That would require a huge amount of time and effort on my part and I don't feel it's a reasonable use of it. Most Truthers when presented with an alternative theory will either ignore it, pick a piece of it to refute or just carry on with their previous assumptions. I don't go into these things trying to convert Truthers but I do feel like I have to at least explain what happened that day to an extent which was why I explained WTC7 and previously the fires and pancake collapse of WTC1&2.
I have a feeling a thread like that would only incite more trolls. More trouble than I think it's worth personally.
Also this is the Truther 'Jumpers are fake' thread.
[url]http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-jumpers-videos-t21730.html?[/url]
The amount of outright disinformation and fabrication in that thread is mind numbing. From the claim only "7-8 Jumpers Jumped' to the supposed 'Jumper landed' picture (Post #2 'Admin' Phil Jayhan posts it at the end. It's from a suicide, not 9-11.) and the claims of Edna Cintron never jumping. (She really does jump.)
Than they pick apart this guy in another thread for having compassion while they're devoid of it.
[url]http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-video-guy-t21653.html[/url]
I've lost all respect for Truthers. Although most don't take it [i]that far[/i].[/QUOTE]
Fucking disgusting.
I'm not doing this free-fall theory bullshit either. FreakyMe is entirely right.
Also my statement:
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32260418]Most Truthers when presented with an alternative theory will either ignore it, pick a piece of it to refute or just carry on with their previous assumptions.[/QUOTE]
Just accurately predicted what happened. Out of everything I posted, the evidence I provided he picked one thing, quoted it (even though it has no relevance to what he just said) and makes a statement providing no sources or any clear reason [i]why[/i] what he said is the truth and what I said is false.
His avatar probably was an early indicator of how futile that was going to be. Now, usually in this situation the Truther will point out my reluctance to answer his question as me 'running away' or as a clear indication of my own ignorance on the subject.
Protip: You cannot cite "Physical impossibility" and nothing else as a credible source for your theory.
[QUOTE=Talkbox;32260803]If a steel structured building is damaged by fires and debris on one side and has a localised truss failure its not going to fall at near freefall speed symmetricly into a nice convenient pile, almost instantaneously pulverising everything above the point of collapse. What makes you think saying the opposite is any form of reality when it is a physical impossibility?[/QUOTE]
And what sources do you base this "physical impossibility" on? How many modern skyrises have had a 20 floor gash put into the side of them, had fire and physical damage destroy the support structure leading to an eventual collapse that you [or anybody] have seen? If you are going to argue this, you better muster up something other than claiming over and over again that it is physically impossible.
Did you even read Codemonkey's post? That should clearly answer any questions you have about the physical possibility of it.
It is very possible that a building would collapse like that. It did not just fall because the column was destroyed. It fell because the column was destroyed, leaving the weight of all of the above floors on the remaining supports, which then failed.
If you knew absolutely anything about engineering or even basic physics you would know that taking one support out from under something probably won't make it collapse in only that one place. The rest of the support structure is suddenly exposed to an inordinate and unexpected level of uneven stress, which could easily compromise the integrity of the entire building. With the fact that fire was eating away at the innards of the building, it is no surprise that it collapsed completely.
[QUOTE=Talkbox;32260600]A steel framed high rise that is designed like that cannot fall that fast or that symmetricly via a localised truss failure. It is physicly impossible. The way it fell suggested that all of the remaining core columns had to fail at the same time.[/QUOTE]
with everything as weakened as it was after 7 hours of stresses and structural failures building up, I'm pretty sure that the failure in the one of only three main columns reaching its critical breaking point and beginning to collapse would cause some extreme stresses on the other two.
Given the structure above the breaking point would be connected horizontally through lots of floorspace, it is no stretch of the imagination that if one breaks it would tug the other two towards it; like if you have a piece of paper floating on water and you push down at one point, the rest of the paper will remain linked to itself and pull inward towards your finger. Not sure how simpler I can make that example, but you should understand that given all of the columns were failing, one finally collapsing would not need much extra punch to pull the others with it.
By the way, I don't have a degree in engineering but I study and practice architectural code, civil engineering and technical engineering as part of my business. I spent the past three months working on building a full model of an airport addition, aimed at showing its support structures.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;32260930]with everything as weakened as it was after 7 hours of stresses and structural failures building up, I'm pretty sure that the failure in the one of only three main columns reaching its critical breaking point and beginning to collapse would cause some extreme stresses on the other two.
Given the structure above the breaking point would be connected horizontally through lots of floorspace, it is no stretch of the imagination that if one breaks it would tug the other two towards it; like if you have a piece of paper floating on water and you push down at one point, the rest of the paper will remain linked to itself and pull inward towards your finger. Not sure how simpler I can make that example, but you should understand that given all of the columns were failing, one finally collapsing would not need much extra punch to pull the others with it.
By the way, I don't have a degree in engineering but I study and practice architectural code, civil engineering and technical engineering as part of my business. I spent the past three months working on building a full model of an airport addition, aimed at showing its support structures.[/QUOTE]
And he [or somebody] will without a doubt point out that paper is nothing like steel and mention something about melting points to refute your entire post.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;32260999]And he [or somebody] will without a doubt point out that paper is nothing like steel and mention something about melting points to refute your entire post.[/QUOTE]
no kidding. Let's make this a little more interesting.
Set up three jenga towers, remove as many pieces as possible, and lay a long, wet rag across the top of them.
remove one block
why even have a 9/11 memorial thread every year
all it becomes is a big fucking argument where someone tells us to "get over it" and then it becomes this big islamophobic debate.
this thread is to remember those who lost their lives on that day, not to hold all your ill-conceived arguments or stupid conspiracies regarding 9/11, i mean like seriously enough is enough.
To anyone who uses the WTC7 collapse as proof or evidence of a conspiracy:
Everyone forget about the engineering/technical aspects of the collapse. Forget about expert opinions and eyewitness accounts. Just think of this: What did anyone have to gain from destroying WTC7 in a controlled demolition? The two tallest towers in the city had just fallen and thousands were dead. Most everyone around WTC7 had been evacuated and were out of harms way. Why destroy such an insignificant building after the message had already been sent?
For what it's worth on topic religious aspect of this thread, I am a Christian. I like to believe that I have the mental capacity to realize that not all of the Islamic religious group was on board with the 9/11 attack, and I only blame the radicals responsible. Likewise, I thinks it's pretty undeniable that there are plenty of extremists in all religions, ESPECIALLY Christianity. Westboro Baptist Church is doing a great job at making every single Christian out there look like scum.
The only thing that irks me is that I'm only among a short few Christians I know that hold the same views. Just wanted to say that there are some sensible Christians out there.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32261426]To anyone who uses the WTC7 collapse as proof or evidence of a conspiracy:
Everyone forget about the engineering/technical aspects of the collapse. Forget about expert opinions and eyewitness accounts. Just think of this: What did anyone have to gain from destroying WTC7 in a controlled demolition? The two tallest towers in the city had just fallen and thousands were dead. Most everyone around WTC7 had been evacuated and were out of harms way. Why destroy such an insignificant building after the message had already been sent?[/QUOTE]
'Insurance Policy'
The cite the same reason for the rest of the WTC complex but it's not based in reality. The WTC wasn't losing any money, the Insurance policy they did have covered acts of Terrorism (They got it after the 1999 bombings) but all that money was used in the clean up and reconstruction which so far has cost much more than their insurance policy rewarded them.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32261515]'Insurance Policy'
The cite the same reason for the rest of the WTC complex but it's not based in reality. The WTC wasn't losing any money, the Insurance policy they did have covered acts of Terrorism (They got it after the 1999 bombings) but all that money was used in the clean up and reconstruction which so far has cost much more than their insurance policy rewarded them.[/QUOTE]
yeah, wtc isn't quite the same as a bar with fire insurance, but the conspiracists have the wonderful addition of a cover-all deus ex machina explaination just saying "the government has a reason and we just don't know what it is yet". dumb, but conspiracists gonna conspirafy
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;32260684]Where did you get your engineering degree to be able to make a statement like that with such absolute certainty? 9/11 was quite literally the first time [or one of them] we've seen modern skyscrapers exposed to such stresses outside of a simulation. The fact that it looks similar to a demolition does not mean it is a demolition. WTC 7 was massively damaged by debris from the collapsing tower. It's no suprise that the common uneducated masses have a hard time interpreting what was seen that day. The people who pointed to the windows blowing out as a sign of explosives failed to understand that it was in fact air being heavily and very quickly compressed into the near airtight floors below by the collapsing floors above. Nearly everything conspiracy theorists have pointed out has been disproved or explained [using simple physics or chemistry even] time and time again.
Just accept that there is pretty much no way the lay dog can accurately interpret what happened that day from news footage and photos. That's why we have engineers. We wouldn't need college degrees if anybody could do it. Go try and diagnose an illness from a video of a sick patient, and photos of them, inside and out. It's not very easy, is it? With all of that information, you would have more than what is accessible to the public about 9/11 and there is still a snowflake's chance in Hell that you would diagnose them correctly.
Codemonkey's post is about as accurate as it gets, but clearly there will be no convincing you of reality.[/QUOTE]
This sums up a lot of my thoughts. 9/11 is, from a purely engineering analysis standpoint, an event with no parallel in history. Up until now, nobody know what would happen if you introduced a large impact and pool of burning jet fuel/office supplies halfway up a 1,300 foot building. We could have done the math and made some predictions, but there was no event you could point to and demonstrate that the fire would or wouldn't be enough to weaken the steel and trigger a collapse. The steel-frame buildings that Truthers point to and say "See, fire guts steel buildings but doesn't collapse them!" are a tenth the height of WTC. Basic historical assumptions like that don't apply to an event that is so far beyond historical precedent.
If we knew what happens when buildings that size are hit by commercial airlines, the emergency response would certainly have been different. We would have known the clock was ticking to a collapse, and the towers wouldn't have been full of cops and firefighters when they went down. 9/11 will be used as a reference in future building designs and emergency plans for decades to come, and hopefully next time a skyscraper suffers a catastrophic event we'll be better prepared to deal with it.
So how much have the new WTC upgraded compared to the old one?
[QUOTE=shian;32265082]So how much have the new WTC upgraded compared to the old one?[/QUOTE]
I hear there putting in those new elevators that don't stop if theres a fire, and water sprinklers.
Oh and, I hope they replace windows on the world with a new sexy restaurant.
[QUOTE=CoolHandLuke;32265317]I hear there putting in those new elevators that don't stop if theres a fire, and water sprinklers.
Oh and, I hope they replace windows on the world with a new sexy restaurant.[/QUOTE]
i ate at windows on the world as a little kid so many times :D I'm excited!
I have yet to see a 9/11 truther on the internet make an argument for more than a few posts before they go completely off the hinge and start talking about missiles, holograms, the NWO, or just using ad hominem attacks before either party quits
Wasn't the WTC specifically designed to take the impact of a Boeing?
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI[/media]
Just remembered: got that from here, pull your own conclusions, I have no idea what I have to think and do not have any arguments of my own.
I laugh when people say that there was a missile aimed at WTC's that day.
I also laugh when people say there was a hologram of plane, because there was plane debris left, the NYPD Crime Lab unit was on scene hours after the towers fell and found them in the rubble, and identification of the terrorist was found.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
