15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51050548]Not entirely hold their shape no, but I feel like there should be at least one partially recognizable "floor" of some sort at the bottom, especially the floors above the 'crush zone'. Like the hat trusses, shouldn't those have at least survived enough to be in a somewhat recognizable state? I would still like an explanation as to what destroyed the core columns.[/QUOTE] I wrote a pretty lengthy post but I found this bit on wikipedia that explains it better: [QUOTE]Mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse[edit] Both buildings collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. [B]In both cases, the section of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the floors above the impact zone to fall onto the undamaged structure below.[/B] As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction, caused by the sudden rush of air from the upper levels. The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[14] While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and [B]since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.[/B][55] Collapse initiation[edit] [B]After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[/B][56] Total progressive collapse[edit] The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse,[57] also called "Pancaking".[58] Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. [B]Soon, large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside pushed by the increasing pile of rubble.[/B] The result was the walls peeling off and separating away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[59] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for a few seconds before they also collapsed.[14][/QUOTE] from this article: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse[/URL] The last bit that I bolded is probably the answer you're looking for.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048120]so you think the penthouse collapsed and then caused every supporting column in the building, east to west, north to south, top to bottom, to suddenly let loose all at the same time from a small isolated collapse of a penthouse? And I have no idea what you're getting at with the first part of your post[/QUOTE] Maybe because the part that fell first in WTC 7 was ON TOP of the rest of the building, while the hit area of the Pentagon was a WING of the Pentagon that wasn't on top of or supporting any other part of the Pentagon.

If I was home I'd post that picture I have of the huge chunk of WTC 7 torn out the side facing the North Tower and the raging multi-story inferno that was raging for hours afterward and left to burn. I'm pretty sure they're important parts of the WTC 7 collapse. People like to act like WTC 7 was left untouched but the North Tower fucked it up really good. The diesel generators didn't help the fires either. They also act like the North and South Tower fell cleanly into their footprints when they left huge fields of debris for blocks and giant pieces of WTC facade tore holes in buildings or became lodged in them.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048002]Anyone know of the reputability of the European Physical Society/Europhysics News as a journal? Are they super respected in physics? Or crackpots?[/QUOTE] Looks legit but with a mediocre impact factor. Not absurdly low, just kinda middle of the pack. Calling it a "respected publication" may be a stretch. More like "not total shit journal."

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;51051516]If I was home I'd post that picture I have of the huge chunk of WTC 7 torn out the side facing the North Tower and the raging multi-story inferno that was raging for hours afterward and left to burn. I'm pretty sure they're important parts of the WTC 7 collapse. People like to act like WTC 7 was left untouched but the North Tower fucked it up really good. The diesel generators didn't help the fires either. They also act like the North and South Tower fell cleanly into their footprints when they left huge fields of debris for blocks and giant pieces of WTC facade tore holes in buildings or became lodged in them.[/QUOTE] Because they watch all these "9/11 INSIDE JOB" conspiracy youtube videos and instantly believe them over anything else they read or are told.

Something that I'm sick of hearing is the whole "The buildings fell neatly into their own footprint" argument when it's completely untrue. If you watch any video of the collapse you can see the debris flying outward in every direction for hundreds of feet, pulverizing the surrounding buildings. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg[/t] In this picture they've cleared the roadways of debris to allow for the cleanup crews, but you can see debris covering the buildings surrounding the area and how many had sustained considerable damage. The "pancake" collapse is a bit of a misconception as well. A lot of the collapse was obscured by dust, but if you pay attention to the footage, you can clearly see that it was anything but a uniform collapse: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYW89xEYg0[/media] At 30 seconds, you can see a massive face of the building falling far off to the side: [img]http://i.imgur.com/eIu36la.jpg[/img] At 39 seconds you can see a large part of the tower still standing, which then falls away at 50 seconds: [img]http://i.imgur.com/n4ObjDV.jpg[/img] At 1:57 in this video, you can see what looks to be a large part of the tower's core still standing after the collapse. [media]http://youtu.be/R889eSvuS-w?t=1m57s[/media]

I went to school with one of the producers of Loose Change. (Yes he was in high school at the time.) Despite the fact that every point it brought up was quickly debunked, he's a millionaire now.

[QUOTE=ShawnSpencer;51051617]Because they watch all these "9/11 INSIDE JOB" conspiracy youtube videos and instantly believe them over anything else they read or are told.[/QUOTE] I spent a lot of time on the Truther Forums, I think the one I was on the most was the "Let's Roll" forum which let me tell you is home to some of the most rabidly disrespectful, disgraceful and delusional people I've ever met. I was always lurking, not really participating. I never saw anything that I read or looked at that made me buy into the conspiracy stuff. If anything spending an extended period of time on Truther forums are a good way of cementing yourself in the 'two planes crashed into the towers and they collapsed' camp. Like, I saw some of the most ridiculous things in those threads. I was there to save video and images that I thought were historically relevant, ironically 9/11 Truthers are very good at digging up every last bit of 9/11 video/image they can find. The issue is they over analyze and draw wild conclusions on everything they find. So they did a lot of work for me but Christ. I remember one thread was about the Jumpers, the 200 or more people who fell to their deaths on 9/11 and they spend literally 30 pages speculating about what kind of crash test dummies they had used, what sort of crane/jig they had created to throw Jumpers out of the Windows, what sort of food coloring/Hollywood blood they had filled them with. They made elaborate sketches of these 'jigs' until they had convinced themselves a professional prop department had created like "30" dummy bodies and had them mechanically thrown out the windows while professional camera man filmed them for impact. They contended that because no Jumper bodies on the ground were photographed (which isn't true they're just hard to find because no one really wants you to see them) that this was one of the many smoking guns behind the conspiracy. But than someone posted some bodies and in natural fashion they do their usual routine of ditching the theory and adopting a new one that was more convenient but most of them just began over analyzing the pictures of bodies. Imagine, someone who sits at their computer all day in their leisure time who spends hours zooming in, cropping out dead bodies, blood, bone and human remain fragments, circling things in paint and making form posts declaring "Look at how fake this blood is" "Uh-huh you expect me to believe that bones shatter LIKE THIS. Nice try Bush." Because that's literally what they did. They had convinced themselves so thoroughly that there were no victims on 9/11 or something that they were able to completely remove any level of empathy. I saw threads where they made it a personal crusade to dig up the contact information of survivor families, call them and interrogate them. Using such subtle methods as calling them and saying "Your son isn't dead. Where is he? What base did the planes land at?" And "You're a liar and a Government pawn etc. etc." Like, Truthers are fucking nuts. Some of them are more level-headed, I'm sure. But I think a lot of them use the Truther thing to cling to like some sort of talisman. It makes them different. It makes everyone else a sheep. They're superior and enlightened and everyone else is ignorant of the truth, but not you because you spent twelve hours making gifs of Jumpers with names like "loldontjump.gif" because you've done your biased research and proved to yourself that no one died on 9/11 and the towers were empty. A lot of Truthers aren't even Truthers though. They're literally average people who don't have any time to think about it or don't want too because they're too busy and were just unfortunate enough to stumble on a Truther video somewhere on YouTube or Facebook. Because let's be honest. The average person has no idea how hot steel needs to be to melt. So they see a video with a bunch of lies or disinformation and since they don't know any better they think "Oh.. That's weird why did they collapse if steel can't melt?" Or "Why did the Windows blow out under the collapse? They might really be demo charges like the video said" and they usually don't dig any further. They'll just parrot the information that "steel can't melt from jet fuel so how did they collapse" when that's not even the theory put out by the official investigations whom contend, and I think accurately, that the steel just needed to weaken under the weight and that steel doesn't need to actually melt to structurally compromise a building. Also Truthers all have the character trait of never being able to say "I don't know" if they see a picture they don't understand or have an explaination for they don't say "I don't know why that is" they ALWAYS theorize it's involved in the conspiracy and this is their newest smoking gun.

[QUOTE=The Vman;51051655]Something that I'm sick of hearing is the whole "The buildings fell neatly into their own footprint" argument when it's completely untrue. If you watch any video of the collapse you can see the debris flying outward in every direction for hundreds of feet, pulverizing the surrounding buildings.[/QUOTE] I've seen many 9/11 "debunking" videos but conveniently none of them featured this footage, or the footage of the back side of WTC7 that was linked much earlier in this thread. How odd.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51050814]I am incredulous that you guys are still arguing over this. A strange thread... the only winning move is not to post.[/QUOTE] Congratulations on your loss. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51050748]The below video is really strange, it shows the core columns of WTC1 still standing right after most of the building has disintegrated, and something... happens to them. I'll let you form your own opinion on this one. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NKgMHJNlA[/url][/QUOTE] Er... Did you stop watching at 0:16 or something? Cause you know what I saw? The supports came crashing down and started to settle for a few seconds before very clearly completely giving way.

Another thing truther's look over was the inward bowing of the floors where the fires were as the supports started to weaken: [img]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/WTC2_IB_8_53.JPG[/img] The floors began to bow inward even just 18 minutes after the plane crashed into the building.

Completely unrelated to current discussions but Are buildings nowadays built to withstand fires like this? Has 9/11 changed something that would save lives, instead of just causing the TSA to exist? [QUOTE=The Vman;51051794]Another thing truther's look over was the inward bowing of the floors where the fires were as the supports started to weaken: [img]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/WTC2_IB_8_53.JPG[/img] The floors began to bow inward even just 18 minutes after the plane crashed into the building.[/QUOTE] Camera lenses don't shoot in orthographic mode, straight lines are pointless to try and draw especially on an image that zoomed in. Not saying that it was a conspiracy, but it's worth noting.

[QUOTE=phygon;51052012]Camera lenses don't shoot in orthographic mode, straight lines are pointless to try and draw especially on an image that zoomed in. Not saying that it was a conspiracy, but it's worth noting.[/QUOTE] Straight lines are straight lines, regardless of the angle that you view them at. Perspective may cause them to converge to a point but they will still remain straight. In that picture, you can very clearly see what should be straight lines bending away from their origin. That's no trick of perspective or camera distortion, especially considering there are multiple angles that all show the building's face bowing inward.

I know it'd be 'censoring free speech lol lol' but honestly 9/11 Truthers should be banned on site. They're among the most insensitive, awful people you can find on the internet. They harass the victim's families, they refuse to admit they're completely and utterly wrong, and some of them make money from telling down right, complete and utter fabrications. They're scum, and this discussion proves you can't get through to them. I think it'd honestly save a lot of hassle.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51052074]I know it'd be 'censoring free speech lol lol' but honestly 9/11 Truthers should be banned on site. They're among the most insensitive, awful people you can find on the internet. They harass the victim's families, they refuse to admit they're completely and utterly wrong, and some of them make money from telling down right, complete and utter fabrications. They're scum, and this discussion proves you can't get through to them. I think it'd honestly save a lot of hassle.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't do any good. They're allowed to say or think what they want and infact that tactic would strengthen their resolve. After all what more proof do they need they're into a major conspiracy when he cannot discuss it in public without being silenced?

[QUOTE=phygon;51052012]Completely unrelated to current discussions but Are buildings nowadays built to withstand fires like this? Has 9/11 changed something that would save lives, instead of just causing the TSA to exist?[/QUOTE] They were built to withstand fires in the first place. They weren't built to have a commercial passenger jet ram into them. It's difficult to plan for such an unprecedented disaster. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center#Safety_and_security"]1WTC is actually built to withstand a variety of terrorist attacks[/URL], but generally speaking, there have been no major changes in building codes. I'm not sure if 1WTC would withstand a plane crash - we will hopefully never find out, but it seems like the building is a [i]lot[/i] more robustly built.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51052074]I know it'd be 'censoring free speech lol lol' but honestly 9/11 Truthers should be banned on site. They're among the most insensitive, awful people you can find on the internet. They harass the victim's families, they refuse to admit they're completely and utterly wrong, and some of them make money from telling down right, complete and utter fabrications. They're scum, and this discussion proves you can't get through to them. I think it'd honestly save a lot of hassle.[/QUOTE] I do miss the days of perma-bans for being an insufferably dumb cunt. We had a lot less conspiracy theorist lunatics running around.

[QUOTE=The Vman;51052063]Straight lines are straight lines, regardless of the angle that you view them at. Perspective may cause them to converge to a point but they will still remain straight. In that picture, you can very clearly see what should be straight lines bending away from their origin. That's no trick of perspective or camera distortion, especially considering there are multiple angles that all show the building's face bowing inward.[/QUOTE] Not that I think the images are fake, but perspective isn't the issue. In your average camera, straight lines aren't perfectly straight because most have a slight fisheye effect that's made worse by zoom.

[QUOTE=laserpanda;51052284]Not that I think the images are fake, but perspective isn't the issue. In your average camera, straight lines aren't perfectly straight because most have a slight fisheye effect that's made worse by zoom.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the pictures show straight lines on the facade immediately next to the distorted ones. It seems more likely that those bits of the walls were deformed than that the camera lens happened to have a distorted spot right there.

[QUOTE=laserpanda;51052284]Not that I think the images are fake, but perspective isn't the issue. In your average camera, straight lines aren't perfectly straight because most have a slight fisheye effect that's made worse by zoom.[/QUOTE] None of that is true. First of all, that's not how fisheye works. Fisheye would distort the entire image, not just a select part. Zooming does not distort an image, it only flattens perspective. Again, there were multiple views of the floors bowing. [img]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/nt_bowed1.jpg[/img] It's particularly visible on the 316 line, you can see how much the side of the building bows away from the line where the markers say 21, 36, 55, 37. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] In fact, zooming in would [I]reduce[/I] any kind of fish eye effect, because the view is becoming more orthographic as the perspective becomes shallower.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;51051712]I spent a lot of time on the Truther Forums, I think the one I was on the most was the "Let's Roll" forum which let me tell you is home to some of the most rabidly disrespectful, disgraceful and delusional people I've ever met. I was always lurking, not really participating. I never saw anything that I read or looked at that made me buy into the conspiracy stuff. If anything spending an extended period of time on Truther forums are a good way of cementing yourself in the 'two planes crashed into the towers and they collapsed' camp. Like, I saw some of the most ridiculous things in those threads. I was there to save video and images that I thought were historically relevant, ironically 9/11 Truthers are very good at digging up every last bit of 9/11 video/image they can find. The issue is they over analyze and draw wild conclusions on everything they find. So they did a lot of work for me but Christ. I remember one thread was about the Jumpers, the 200 or more people who fell to their deaths on 9/11 and they spend literally 30 pages speculating about what kind of crash test dummies they had used, what sort of crane/jig they had created to throw Jumpers out of the Windows, what sort of food coloring/Hollywood blood they had filled them with. They made elaborate sketches of these 'jigs' until they had convinced themselves a professional prop department had created like "30" dummy bodies and had them mechanically thrown out the windows while professional camera man filmed them for impact. They contended that because no Jumper bodies on the ground were photographed (which isn't true they're just hard to find because no one really wants you to see them) that this was one of the many smoking guns behind the conspiracy. But than someone posted some bodies and in natural fashion they do their usual routine of ditching the theory and adopting a new one that was more convenient but most of them just began over analyzing the pictures of bodies. Imagine, someone who sits at their computer all day in their leisure time who spends hours zooming in, cropping out dead bodies, blood, bone and human remain fragments, circling things in paint and making form posts declaring "Look at how fake this blood is" "Uh-huh you expect me to believe that bones shatter LIKE THIS. Nice try Bush." Because that's literally what they did. They had convinced themselves so thoroughly that there were no victims on 9/11 or something that they were able to completely remove any level of empathy. I saw threads where they made it a personal crusade to dig up the contact information of survivor families, call them and interrogate them. Using such subtle methods as calling them and saying "Your son isn't dead. Where is he? What base did the planes land at?" And "You're a liar and a Government pawn etc. etc." Like, Truthers are fucking nuts. Some of them are more level-headed, I'm sure. But I think a lot of them use the Truther thing to cling to like some sort of talisman. It makes them different. It makes everyone else a sheep. They're superior and enlightened and everyone else is ignorant of the truth, but not you because you spent twelve hours making gifs of Jumpers with names like "loldontjump.gif" because you've done your biased research and proved to yourself that no one died on 9/11 and the towers were empty. A lot of Truthers aren't even Truthers though. They're literally average people who don't have any time to think about it or don't want too because they're too busy and were just unfortunate enough to stumble on a Truther video somewhere on YouTube or Facebook. Because let's be honest. The average person has no idea how hot steel needs to be to melt. So they see a video with a bunch of lies or disinformation and since they don't know any better they think "Oh.. That's weird why did they collapse if steel can't melt?" Or "Why did the Windows blow out under the collapse? They might really be demo charges like the video said" and they usually don't dig any further. They'll just parrot the information that "steel can't melt from jet fuel so how did they collapse" when that's not even the theory put out by the official investigations whom contend, and I think accurately, that the steel just needed to weaken under the weight and that steel doesn't need to actually melt to structurally compromise a building. Also Truthers all have the character trait of never being able to say "I don't know" if they see a picture they don't understand or have an explaination for they don't say "I don't know why that is" they ALWAYS theorize it's involved in the conspiracy and this is their newest smoking gun.[/QUOTE] This doesn't even touch on the part where they will say certain videos or evidence which debunk their theories are "doctored". Its impossible to prove it wasn't a government conspiracy for these people.

[QUOTE=The Vman;51052494]None of that is true. First of all, that's not how fisheye works. Fisheye would distort the entire image, not just a select part. Zooming does not distort an image, it only flattens perspective. Again, there were multiple views of the floors bowing. [img]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/nt_bowed1.jpg[/img] It's particularly visible on the 316 line, you can see how much the side of the building bows away from the line where the markers say 21, 36, 55, 37. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] In fact, zooming in would [I]reduce[/I] any kind of fish eye effect, because the view is becoming more orthographic as the perspective becomes shallower.[/QUOTE] Not to mention it's unmistakably visible in the video of the collapse (1:15): [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug[/media] Corroborates all previous evidence given throughout this thread about aluminum dripping, floors falling, and trusses bending inward. It all makes sense. It all works together. There's no hitch or smoking gun that invalidates any part. You have to be looking for outlandish alternatives that don't hold up. That's not how science works. You construct a hypothesis, then through experimentation and observation find a likely conclusion. The burden of proof lies on the people questioning the hypothesis. If you cant' support the alternative to whats generally thought to be the "right" conclusion, then it must be scrapped. Conspiracy theory works backwards. No the consensus is obviously wrong, these thinly supported claims are whats going on. All your evidence is either wrong, doctored, or faked. 9/11, the moon landings, climate change, flat earth, whatever. Show me your proof and I'll show you why you're wrong. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;51052520]This doesn't even touch on the part where they will say certain videos or evidence which debunk their theories are "doctored". Its impossible to prove it wasn't a government conspiracy for these people.[/QUOTE] Then use the same exact videos to show that there's super secret puffs of explosions which are [I]obviously[/I] demo charges. Or that this building fell too fast for it to [I]not[/I] be a controlled demo. The videos are only as accurate as my conspiracy allows them to be.

[QUOTE=The Vman;51052063][I][B]Straight lines are straight lines, regardless of the angle that you view them at[/B][/I]. Perspective may cause them to converge to a point but they will still remain straight. In that picture, you can very clearly see what should be straight lines bending away from their origin. That's no trick of perspective or camera distortion, especially considering there are multiple angles that all show the building's face bowing inward.[/QUOTE] But that's not right, cameras do apply distortion due to the fact that they have a field of view- at least, that's what I've learned. Straight lines may be straight lines, but because cameras have FoVs things get bendy at the edges [IMG]http://gilsmethod.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/how-to-correct-lense-distortion-with-photoshop-header.png[/IMG] Again, [B][I]NOT[/I][/B] supporting the conspiracy theorists because quite frankly I don't care one way or the other (as I don't consider myself educated enough on the matter to have a strong opinion one way or the other - all I know is what other people have said) but digitally zoomed photos can have really bad distortion especially if you're zoomed in on an edge. It looks like you're right in the end after seeing the other angles that were posted, but my point still stands.

[QUOTE=phygon;51052623]But that's not right, cameras do apply distortion due to the fact that they have a field of view- at least, that's what I've learned. Straight lines may be straight lines, but because cameras have FoVs things get bendy at the edges [IMG]http://gilsmethod.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/how-to-correct-lense-distortion-with-photoshop-header.png[/IMG] Again, [B][I]NOT[/I][/B] supporting the conspiracy theorists because quite frankly I don't care one way or the other (as I don't consider myself educated enough on the matter to have a strong opinion one way or the other other than what people have told me) but digitally zoomed photos can have really bad distortion especially if you're zoomed in on an edge.[/QUOTE] What is that photo supposed to show? Are those supposed to be two different lenses or is it edited? You only get noticable distortion from super wide angle lenses, but it's a uniform distortion around the whole picture that causes it to look like it's bulging. You wouldn't have a straight line that abruptly leads into a bent line. Wide angle (lines are straighter the closer to the center of the photo, but straight lines are straight, and bent lines are bent. A straight line does not become a bent line arbitrarily) [t]https://sherrlock.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/from-griffin-bldg-31.jpg[/t] [t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3c/25/ac/3c25acb099d86f0cbc81146b4339b19e.jpg[/t] Telephoto (has essentially no warping. Straight lines are straight) [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Nybldgs.jpg[/t] Those photos of the towers are obviously [I]not[/I] super wide angle. They are clearly telephoto. Provide an example of zoom distorting an image.

I'm dropping in out of nowhere. Can we talk about how fucking shitty all the video we have is for a second? And lets not even get too far into the years of compression and re-compression basically jpeg-ing them to death even further. It was 2001, anything but professional equipment took laughable quality video (at least in comparison to today), and a lot of was interlaced making freeze frames look even worse. Digital cameras were shit, and most people didn't have thousands for the good shit, they had old video cameras that recorded to VHS or other tape mediums. The news crews with the good shit were all on the street amidst the chaos, there were a few helicopters but [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization#Optical_image_stabilization"]OIS[/URL] was nothing like it is today. And I don't think they had the same model cameras on the ground as they did streaming from the choppers. Lets talk about the internet too, and the fact that some of the video was live streamed from those shaky copters, captured from SD TV news, then uploaded on that internet where a lot of people saved some of the clips we have today. T1 was the bees knees, but it was insanely expensive and about 5% of internet users had it. Affordable internet was dial-up, DSL and Cable were not cheap yet. Internet video had to fit in that envelope. About 49% of Americans had internet at all at the time, compared to over 80% today including people who only have a 'smart' device for web access.

Imagine how much footage we'd have if it happened now. We'd probably have detailed videos from inside retrieved from recovered phones. Or even saved Snapchat pictures and clips, or videos texted to loved ones, or Periscope/Facebook Live. It would be incredible and heart wrenching.

[QUOTE=OvB;51053175]Imagine how much footage we'd have if it happened now. We'd probably have detailed videos from inside retrieved from recovered phones. Or even saved Snapchat pictures and clips, or videos texted to loved ones, or Periscope/Facebook Live. It would be incredible and heart wrenching.[/QUOTE] just look at things like the recent unrest in turkey, multiple livestreams, twitter accounts from citizens, facebook posts, etc. it was absolutely surreal. we were able to watch it live from the other side of the world

For me I feel people can believe in what ever crazy shit they want. It's their loss to believe in the whatever crazy shit they believe in, just as long as they don't try to push that bullshit on anyone else. You can believe the world is flat all you want, but if you go into a tirade about it to me in real life I'm gonna fucking kick your ass cause I don't wanna hear that shit. Believe in what you want, don't shove it in the face of others. There's also the question of what do Truthers gain by believing in this? That they're right that the government is full of shit heads who want to use the people of the U.S to do their own dirty deeds? Or for that gratification that they are holier than thou and understand the world better and they know the truth better than the public? I'd love to know the answer: What do truthers gain by believing in this, what are they hoping to achieve by telling the people that Bush did 9/11? Weaken the faith in the government? Most people are already in sour terms with the government for things not even relating to 9/11. [I]What is their purpose?[/I]

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51047961]It also led to billions of dollars of debt and the complete loss of public trust in the government. Holy shit, no he didn't. The tower ultimately cost him billions of dollars, even more for the city. He isn't some insane mogule gathering money from the death of thousands, and no corporation is powerful enough to take town the most important landmark in NYC. Silverstein was losing money up until Freedom Tower was created and is a credit to the New York community.[/QUOTE] Most twofers like to pick on Larry Silverstein and imply he told the Police or fire department to pull down the buildings even though it actually means evacuate them. Most people assume the pull it down implies a controlled demolition. Basically most conspiracy theorists are anti Semitic simply because he is Jewish. Most of them also believe in the Elders of Zion and that Jews control all the banks and everything in the world which is complete bullshit Bascially the same shit that Nazis believe.

[QUOTE=Hey I'm Grump;51053272]For me [B]I feel people can believe in what ever crazy shit they want.[/B] It's their loss to believe in the whatever crazy shit they believe in, just as long as they don't try to push that bullshit on anyone else. You can believe the world is flat all you want, but if you go into a tirade about it to me in real life I'm gonna fucking kick your ass cause I don't wanna hear that shit. Believe in what you want, don't shove it in the face of others. There's also the question of what do Truthers gain by believing in this? That they're right that the government is full of shit heads who want to use the people of the U.S to do their own dirty deeds? Or for that gratification that they are holier than thou and understand the world better and they know the truth better than the public? I'd love to know the answer: What do truthers gain by believing in this, what are they hoping to achieve by telling the people that Bush did 9/11? Weaken the faith in the government? Most people are already in sour terms with the government for things not even relating to 9/11. [I]What is their purpose?[/I][/QUOTE] These people get to vote in elections. It is imperative we dissuade as many as possible.