Perdue engineers debunk 9/11 conspiracy

[Correction]

copy&paste from my previous post for those too lazy to read it.

"A lot of people heard explosions, there is visual/audio proof of the secondary explosions. There were about a dozen or so before the collapse, throughout the building. This fact is as solid as the fact that planes flew into the buildings.

So if there was/is an entity in the government that wanted those buildings to collapse, it would only be logical that they wouldn't rely on the plane alone to do the job. I'm just using common sense here.

the popular mechanics nor the 9/11 commission report accounted for those secondary explosions. That's the beef a lot of the so called "conspiracy theorists" have.'

so 'heard an explosion' undeniably means 'plastic charges for a controlled demolition?'

Are you actually capable of THINKING and make the same fucking conclusion?

Since you're too fucking lazy to read the link I gave YOU, have at thee. From :

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?

And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?

Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that. More than that, I'd like to HEAR what you have to say on the matter.

And if you can't come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you?

We're waiting...

[guartz]

copy&paste from my previous post for those too lazy to read it.

"A lot of people heard explosions, there is visual/audio proof of the secondary explosions. There were about a dozen or so before the collapse, throughout the building. This fact is as solid as the fact that planes flew into the buildings.

So if there was/is an entity in the government that wanted those buildings to collapse, it would only be logical that they wouldn't rely on the plane alone to do the job. I'm just using common sense here.

the popular mechanics nor the 9/11 commission report accounted for those secondary explosions. That's the beef a lot of the so called "conspiracy theorists" have.'

so 'heard an explosion' undeniably means 'plastic charges for a controlled demolition?'

Are you actually capable of THINKING and make the same fucking conclusion?

Since you're too fucking lazy to read the link I gave YOU, have at thee. From :

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?

And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?

Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that. More than that, I'd like to HEAR what you have to say on the matter.

And if you can't come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you?

We're waiting...

I read that site about a year ago. It didn't convince me then, and it sure as hell wouldn't convince me now. Why? Because it just doesn't add up. What popular mechanics and the 911 commission report said, is that the building "pancaked" upon itself. That means, IT STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROM THE TOP DOWN. How does that justify the explosions at the base?

[Correction]

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

If you're not convinced by thousands of man-hours worth of structural analysis then you're not ever going to be convinced. I give up.

You probably still believe in the Easter Bunny because you're sure the government doesn't want you believing in him.

[Ivve]

I read that site about a year ago. It didn't convince me then, and it sure as hell wouldn't convince me now. Why? Because it just doesn't add up. What popular mechanics and the 911 commission report said, is that the building "pancaked" upon itself. That means, IT STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROM THE TOP DOWN. How does that justify the explosions at the base?

Could that have been the fucking burning elevators full of people falling from who-knows-how-many stories? Certainly not! Certainly elevators are not heavy enough to sounds like an explosion when they fall down an elevator shaft and slam into the ground! Could that have been the fire that was in the elevators spreading to whatever was in the basement, which is more likely than not flammable agents like cleaning supplies and air conditioner coolant coupled with fuel for a fire, like reams of copy paper, paper towels, toilet tissue, and whatever else may have been down there? Certainly not!

I'm sorry, but if you believe that the government intentionally covered up explosions, then you have to believe that they were behind 9-11 entirely, or your assertions make no sense. Why would the cover up additional explosive devices planted by a terrorist group? That doesn't add up.

[guartz]

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

If you're not convinced by thousands of man-hours worth of structural analysis then you're not ever going to be convinced. I give up.

You probably still believe in the Easter Bunny because you're sure the government doesn't want you believing in him.

heh, you are reading what I'm typing? I never disagreed with the fine work of the structural analysis this group or that may have contributed. For all I know, the planes did cause the collapse. My point is that the fire chief, citizens, and police present there all said that they heard "Secondary explosions" that were "uncharacteristic" of the situation. I'll reiterate; just because engineers say that the building's structure was destroyed during the impact, causing the collapse, does not mean there were no bombs present. Neither the engineers nor 911 commission report dismiss or accept that there WERE bombs present. All they say is that the plane was the reason for the collapse. The only people who deny any presence of "Secondary explosions" are people like you.

[guartz]

I read that site about a year ago. It didn't convince me then, and it sure as hell wouldn't convince me now. Why? Because it just doesn't add up. What popular mechanics and the 911 commission report said, is that the building "pancaked" upon itself. That means, IT STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROM THE TOP DOWN. How does that justify the explosions at the base?

Could that have been the fucking burning elevators full of people falling from who-knows-how-many stories? Certainly not! Certainly elevators are not heavy enough to sounds like an explosion when they fall down an elevator shaft and slam into the ground! Could that have been the fire that was in the elevators spreading to whatever was in the basement, which is more likely than not flammable agents like cleaning supplies and air conditioner coolant coupled with fuel for a fire, like reams of copy paper, paper towels, toilet tissue, and whatever else may have been down there? Certainly not!

I'm sorry, but if you believe that the government intentionally covered up explosions, then you have to believe that they were behind 9-11 entirely, or your assertions make no sense. Why would the cover up additional explosive devices planted by a terrorist group? That doesn't add up.

I think the Bush administration allowed it to happen. That's why there is so much cover-up.
Remember that document, titled:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...409041pdb1.gif

So nobody can't argue that they DIDN'T know about the attacks...read the last paragraph..

[Correction]

Last time, really.

Just listen to yourself

My point is that the fire chief, citizens, and police present there all said that they heard "Secondary explosions" that were "uncharacteristic" of the situation.

None of whom can give a realistic scenario of what would be 'characteristic' of a building of the WTC's size collapsing because a 767 flew into it and burned it to the ground.

I'll reiterate; just because engineers say that the building's structure was destroyed during the impact, causing the collapse, does not mean there were no bombs present.

So we haven't recovered all the bodies from the WTC's collapse. Does that mean they were never in the building? You're relying too much on 'just because they say X doesn't mean completely unrelated Y isn't true.' Did you ever study Logic in high school? Have you even graduated yet?

The only people who deny any presence of "Secondary explosions" are people like you.

Show me one word out of my posts that denies 'secondary explosions.' I'm saying the idea that bombs were planted in the WTC are fucking hogwash. "Explosions heard at ground level! Holy shit conspiracy! Bombs! Because the people hovering 300 feet in the air heard no such explosions!"

/facepalm

[Ivve]

I read that site about a year ago. It didn't convince me then, and it sure as hell wouldn't convince me now. Why? Because it just doesn't add up. What popular mechanics and the 911 commission report said, is that the building "pancaked" upon itself. That means, IT STARTED TO COLLAPSE FROM THE TOP DOWN. How does that justify the explosions at the base?

Could that have been the fucking burning elevators full of people falling from who-knows-how-many stories? Certainly not! Certainly elevators are not heavy enough to sounds like an explosion when they fall down an elevator shaft and slam into the ground! Could that have been the fire that was in the elevators spreading to whatever was in the basement, which is more likely than not flammable agents like cleaning supplies and air conditioner coolant coupled with fuel for a fire, like reams of copy paper, paper towels, toilet tissue, and whatever else may have been down there? Certainly not!

I'm sorry, but if you believe that the government intentionally covered up explosions, then you have to believe that they were behind 9-11 entirely, or your assertions make no sense. Why would the cover up additional explosive devices planted by a terrorist group? That doesn't add up.

I think the Bush administration allowed it to happen. That's why there is so much cover-up.
Remember that document, titled:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...409041pdb1.gif

So nobody can't argue that they DIDN'T know about the attacks...read the last paragraph..

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting," which means that they had no evidence to support the claims that Bin Laden may have wanted to hijack planes 6 year prior. I see nothing in that paragraph, or anywhere else in that document, that leads me to either believe that they were aware an attack was actually underway as opposed to just discussed, or that they had any idea of where or when.

You know, people are funny. You wanted him to act on uncorroborated and incomplete evidence in this instance, but doing that very same thing -- acting on incomplete evidence of WMDs in Iraq -- has drawn huge criticism.

[guartz]

So we haven't recovered all the bodies from the WTC's collapse. Does that mean they were never in the building? You're relying too much on 'just because they say X doesn't mean completely unrelated Y isn't true.' Did you ever study Logic in high school? Have you even graduated yet?

Actually it fits quite perfectly into the problem of induction.

heh, go ahead.. look it up.

[guartz]

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting," which means that they had no evidence to support the claims that Bin Laden may have wanted to hijack planes 6 year prior. I see nothing in that paragraph, or anywhere else in that document, that leads me to either believe that they were aware an attack was actually underway as opposed to just discussed, or that they had any idea of where or when.

You know, people are funny. You wanted him to act on uncorroborated and incomplete evidence in this instance, but doing that very same thing -- acting on incomplete evidence of WMDs in Iraq -- has drawn huge criticism.

actually, I'm sorry... if you notice it says "continued"... I didn't mean the last paragraph of this page. The last paragraph of the report actually says something along the lines of "this threat is eminent" ... I just don't have the jpg of it. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[BRP]

If conspirators are the dumb ones, why is their opposition shouting "YOU ARE STUPID, LOUD VOICES"?

And saying something like "Are you going to disbelieve all those scientists?!" without considering some scientists have theories that disagree with each other is dumb. No one on this forum has all the facts, no one is the world does. All we can do deal with the information and reasoning we got. Saying we shouldn't think about it because some person we don't know reasoned it themselves is sheep mentality. Either side could be right, dismissing it Doesn't really help anyone.

And again, the government with holds a lot of information they have no reason to, is there any reason why there wouldn't be speculation?

[Ivve]

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting," which means that they had no evidence to support the claims that Bin Laden may have wanted to hijack planes 6 year prior. I see nothing in that paragraph, or anywhere else in that document, that leads me to either believe that they were aware an attack was actually underway as opposed to just discussed, or that they had any idea of where or when.

You know, people are funny. You wanted him to act on uncorroborated and incomplete evidence in this instance, but doing that very same thing -- acting on incomplete evidence of WMDs in Iraq -- has drawn huge criticism.

actually, I'm sorry... if you notice it says "continued"... I didn't mean the last paragraph of this page. The last paragraph of the report actually says something along the lines of "this threat is eminent" ... I just don't have the jpg of it. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So you posted one page of the document that doesn't actually contain the paragraph that you were referring to. I'm not even going to ask why you bothered to do that, but okay. This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread, because some of the shit you're saying is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a response.

"Imminent threat" is a long, long shot from "knew this was going to happen before it did." Vague warning and awareness that someone wants to attack the country != we know exactly when, where, and how an attack is going to take place and yet we are voluntarily choosing to do nothing about it.

[Correction]

Actually it fits quite perfectly into the problem of induction.

heh, go ahead.. look it up.

So now you're arguing all the people whose remains were never found were not actually in the WTC when it was destroyed?

Nice deflection of just how silly I just made you sound.

[Correction]

If conspirators are the dumb ones, why is their opposition shouting "YOU ARE STUPID, LOUD VOICES"

Because when you're arguing with children sometimes they make you angry.

[guartz]

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting," which means that they had no evidence to support the claims that Bin Laden may have wanted to hijack planes 6 year prior. I see nothing in that paragraph, or anywhere else in that document, that leads me to either believe that they were aware an attack was actually underway as opposed to just discussed, or that they had any idea of where or when.

You know, people are funny. You wanted him to act on uncorroborated and incomplete evidence in this instance, but doing that very same thing -- acting on incomplete evidence of WMDs in Iraq -- has drawn huge criticism.

actually, I'm sorry... if you notice it says "continued"... I didn't mean the last paragraph of this page. The last paragraph of the report actually says something along the lines of "this threat is eminent" ... I just don't have the jpg of it. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So you posted one page of the document that doesn't actually contain the paragraph that you were referring to. I'm not even going to ask why you bothered to do that, but okay. This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread, because some of the shit you're saying is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a response.

"Imminent threat" is a long, long shot from "knew this was going to happen before it did." Vague warning and awareness that someone wants to attack the country != we know exactly when, where, and how an attack is going to take place and yet we are voluntarily choosing to do nothing about it.

I posted it because if I was a president and I got a report that was titled similarly I wouldn't have taken a vacation, no matter how much of a dumbass I was. Obviously, there was something else in the working.

[guartz]

If conspirators are the dumb ones, why is their opposition shouting "YOU ARE STUPID, LOUD VOICES"

Because when you're arguing with children sometimes they make you angry.

I should be the one angry. I know very little, yet I admit it. You know even less, but act as if you know everything.

[Khamsin]

If conspirators are the dumb ones, why is their opposition shouting "YOU ARE STUPID, LOUD VOICES"?

Isn't that kinda like asking "If they're dumb, why are they being called dumb?" The answer is obviously "Because they're dumb."

[guartz]

If conspirators are the dumb ones, why is their opposition shouting "YOU ARE STUPID, LOUD VOICES"?

Isn't that kinda like asking "If they're dumb, why are they being called dumb?" The answer is obviously "Because they're dumb."

it's nothing like that. I appreciate the humor though.

It's like noam chomsky said, people who don't know the historical context of this government won't understand the significance of the current times and events. You know that little proverb, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? Once you know understand the history, it's not a far fetched story that our government would allow the massacre of it's own citizens for gain. There are numerous books on this subject, and the subject is the amnesia of the American public. It's true, if I never read about the events of 1953 in Iran, or read about Sayid Kotb, Leo Strauss, or studied in detail Hitler's rise to power, or read rise and fall of the roman empire, or studied israel, or studied the need for secret societies 300 years ago, I would have never fathomed that such a thing as possible. Most people who yell at me and say i'm just a stupid conspiracy theorists don't even know that America is not a democracy, or how money is created, or even picked up to read the federalist papers. Not all of them, but most.

My point is, when pondering the question of 9/11, one should ask himself, "is it even possible for our government to do such a thing?"... and the answer, according to your historical knowledge (not the textbook history) should be YES. DAMN YES.

[Enkidu]

What you don't seem to understand is that we're not saying blindly that there's no way a government could do something like this, we're saying all of your proof is bogus. Nothing you've posted or have heard is proof that anything other then the planes caused the buildings to fall - NOTHING. Your statement that "many of the explosions that occurred couldn't have been possibly in any shape or form connected to the burning jet fuels." is so ignorant that it makes it hard to even take you seriously. The question is how the hell would you know?

For example, the "device" the police found in that video you posted above. Did they just forget about it a week later? Did the MiB come over and erase their memory? It was probably a fucking backpack in the end. The news says whatever the hell they want, then they fix their story later. At first the VTech shooter was a Chinese Nationalist on a student visa for gods sake.

The facts are simple. It's been proven that every building that fell on 9/11 could have fallen from the effects of the two planes that flew into the buildings. If you want to make up fairytales on what might have happened, go for it. I'll stick with Ockham on this one.

[lionsheart]

1 thing that's really bothering me...


It's PURDUE university, not Perdue, so hopefully OP can fix that. =) thanks