Perdue engineers debunk 9/11 conspiracy

[MF Perm]

I don't know if this is either ofn or how many conspiracy theorists we have here regarding 9/11, but these engineers basically debunk the bomb theory. Interesting stuff imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg


edit: woops lol

[Shuemue]

link?

[MF Perm]

link?

sorry, added it in edit

[Shuemue]

That's damn impressive modelling.

[Devek]

This doesn't really "debunk" anything.

People that believe in a "conspiracy" are going to believe in it no matter what and the problem has nothing to do with facts. The problem is their lack of education.

You think Rosie O'donnel is going to see this shit and be like, "Oh my bad!"?

[finale23]

how bout building 7, which didn't get hit by a plane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_7

[Metah]

how bout building 7, which didn't get hit by a plane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_7

Weather Balloon

[Devek]

It was hit by massive amounts of falling debris and than sat on fire for a few hours.

If it seems puzzling to you why that building fell, you're stupid as hell.

[Killgannon]

its Purdue with a U not an e... but anyway conspiracy morons will still beleive it no matter if you take em back in time and show them to their face exactly how it happened, they're just that stupid

[BRP]

This doesn't(at least this video, if there is more, I didn't look far into it) debunk much of the conspiracy, unfortunately(or fortunately).

Also, I'd like to point out computer simulations are not exactly fail proof. I mean, computer simulations have been shown to fail to completely copy a scenario in which the creators know all the details. They don't know all the details of the crash, because no one was around to see it first hand and live to tell about it.

I don't think this does much for either side of the argument really. If people wanted to really debunk the conspiracy, they would release more information/videos that is held secret, along with more reasonable research on why exactly the tower fell. You wouldn't be able to kill the conspiracy entirely, but conspiracy breeds when there is a lack of information. They are theories to fill the holes that people see in the more accept theory of why it/what happened.

[finale23]

there is a conspiracy and no doubt about it, just look at building 7.



heh, our government couldn't even cover a blowjob, how are they capable of orchestrating a conspiracy of this magnitude?

[crazyrabbit]

I like conspiracy theories because they are fun sometimes >.>; (and i actually believe in some)
But some ppl take it realy too far... a friend showed me a book few days ago which says the ppl jumping out of the towers were fake and pictures of it photoshop'd...
They showed the pictures in different zooms and colors and talked about lolpixels and how some jumps looked like made from real artists and not normal ppl. I could only shake my head and laugh about it.

[Devek]

but conspiracy breeds when there is a lack of education.

fixed

I can not for the life of me understand why people find it hard to believe that a building smashed into by a plane would fall yet we had no problem taking as fact that Iraq was behind it!

It wasn't until after we lynched ourselves a nigger did people begin to question that.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2...gingvidph8.jpg

[Septimus]

I can not for the life of me understand why people find it hard to believe that a building smashed into by a plane would fall yet we had no problem taking as fact that Iraq was behind it!

Simple. George H. W. Bush's administration was allies with Saddam, so obviously his son would be an ally as well. George W Bush obviously planed the attack in conjunction with Saddam and covered it up!

Anyone who believes this is really dumb.

The only conspiracy involving 9-11 is the conspiracy of high schools who gave diplomas to people stupid enough to think that the government could cover up involvement in 9-11.

[Enkidu]

ofn: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

[guartz]

I don't know if this is either ofn or how many conspiracy theorists we have here regarding 9/11, but these engineers basically debunk the bomb theory. Interesting stuff imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg


edit: woops lol

Hey they didn't really debunk anything, at least not from the video. All it showed was how a plane hit the tower, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point.

[MF Perm]

I don't know if this is either ofn or how many conspiracy theorists we have here regarding 9/11, but these engineers basically debunk the bomb theory. Interesting stuff imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg


edit: woops lol

Hey they didn't really debunk anything, at least not from the video. All it showed was how a plane hit the tower, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point.

They're basically from what I understand explaining how such a hot fire and explosion started to make the towers collapse, which is against the theory that it took a timed explosion for the collapse to happen. On the right panel it links to a few others in a series I believe.

[Ivve]

I don't know if this is either ofn or how many conspiracy theorists we have here regarding 9/11, but these engineers basically debunk the bomb theory. Interesting stuff imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg


edit: woops lol

Hey they didn't really debunk anything, at least not from the video. All it showed was how a plane hit the tower, and I don't think anybody is arguing that point.

It also showed how the plane damaged some of the key components that were designed to keep the tower from falling even after sustaining significant damage. A lot of people who have conspiracy theories like to say that the tower could not have possibly collapsed by being hit by a plane alone. The video shows how a single plane could have been solely responsible for compromising the integrity of the structure enough for it to fall without the help of additional explosions.

Why are people so keen on believing that a commercial airliner could not have toppled a building? It would seem illogical to me if the buildings had remained standing after a plane landed in someone's office.

[guartz]

Exactly. A single plane could have brought down the tower.

But that doesn't automatically dismiss there were additional bombs in the buildings.

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.

[Rigor]

ofn: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

I was going to post that