BTW. I just watched this, and although there’s still some rhetoric about it being an inside job, there are some valid questions and observations. Check it out if you like: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

In regards to whether I made formulas, no. The principles I was taught and dealt with were basic formulas and laws. We practiced things like cannon shots, bows and arrows, if you start at one part of a bank on a river and the stream current is traveling at such and such a rate, if you traveled straight at a certain speed how far down the bank would you end up. Basic stuff like that. Things I found out that surprised me was that if you jump off a cliff you will cease to curve outward because the velocity would become so great it would prevent it, it would only change if there were external forces like wind or a cliff-face. I had fun with those simulations on the computers. Good stuff.

The last question was how does a building get obliterated into nothing but rubble? Well there were some sections were entire sections of the side were still intact while some areas were pounded into dust. I simply chalk that up to weight and inertia. That was the collapse not the fire.

Glad to be civil, as to the other Brian (that’s my first name too) what in the world are you talking about. There were I think two people who said it was an inside job but Doug only said that the Bush Administration was not entirely truthful. That should be taken as a point of fact. Of course they would, there are parts of every government investigation where parts are hidden from the public, this happens in almost every one. The reasons can vary, even if you are not cynical of the Bush administration. If you don’t want someone to repeat that act then of course you are going to keep somethings from the public. To me that is just common sense, especially if you had intelligence and don’t want to reveal your methods. There were lots of signs there and I am sure that the government did not want us to know all of them because we think they are incompetent enough as it is, why make it even worse?

Wow for a post about an actresses comments this really went off on a tangent. I typically keep to myself, I have come here for months and posted once or twice. But I have done so more today than in the entire time I have been coming here. It’s fucking crazy how you can get sucked into this.

BrDanzig
I appreciate your rebuttal, and I will look into the fire side of things more diligently. However, a quick question: since the buildings were strong enough to hold the top 30 or so floors before the fire, how could the structural damage that occurred during the fire capsize straight down? I still fail to see how that could happen. Given that you took physics, I would expect that you took and practised different formula’s to draw specific conclusions. How can you formulate that when something is weak on its side, it falls in the middle? Also, if you could, please answer how a building gets obliterated to nothing but rubble from a fire. Thanks for being civil, btw. It nice to know there are still rational people to have discussions with.

Like I said before I am not an engineering expert and my attempts are admittedly half-assed summaries. Even though they were not hit on center they still would have collapsed as they did. Had they been hit low or underneath as Ramzi Yousef had intended in 1993 that would very likely have been the effect. But they were hit high enough that when the top started to come down it was of such weight and mass that the idea of it toppling without a greater external force to push it or sufficient resistance from the remaining tower itself to spill outward just wasn’t there and so it collapsed as it did.

Also the idea that if there was enough concrete, steel and other material to absorb the impact of the blast is not far fetched from my understanding. Also if people are outside of a window where heat is escaping and not being insulated or centered in certain locations then, yes they can survive in on the outside windows while a fire rages on inside. They very well might have gone to the windows to escape from the higher temperatures.

I will let that rest my case for now. Most of what I know is from what I read and a couple of physics classes I took 6 years ago where we actually talked about it in a couple of classes. I appreciate that you think my arguments are well thought out but I am not the best person to answer your questions. There are much smarter men out there than I.

Your thoughts are well written and put forth, however, there are a couple mistakes with your reasoning. In regards to the planes hitting the buildings, it is a known fact that the majority of the jet fuel was burned outside the buildings on impact, not inside. Sure there were fires inside, however, when the firefighters inside are claiming they can put the fires out, it makes one wonder how these fires were so intense that these men and women didn’t say “fuck it…we can’t stop it…everyone out”?

As for the physics side of the equation, the buildings came straight down and didn’t topple towards one side as they should have. I’m not saying the whole building, but at the very least the portion above where the planes hit. They did not hit the buildings centred, which would have caused them to come down in the manner they did. Now, having said that, there’s a panel of respected engineers and professors out there that rebuke the way these 3 buildings came down. Oddly, the Twins are a freak of nature (or physics) to the way they came down, but the even larger “unknown” has to be building 7. Just something to keep in mind.

The people I referred to were not 10 stories above where the planes hit. If the argument is to be made that these fires were raging and so intense that they caused the structural failure of these massive and well designed buildings, then the case cannot be argued on why the humans standing in the same window as the plane crashes wouldn’t have been burned, regardless of how it’s spun. To say that they were hiding behind a wall (”people who were in rooms who were behind enough material to survive the plane hit. Kinda like how people duck behind walls to shield themselves from explosions”) and believe that the materials were on fire doesn’t sit right in my mind. How can they be the cause of these steel structures failing yet stop the imploding fire ball and steel coming in?

Jagmir
Trying to insult me by calling me “dogfather”, really? I figure you could’ve at least been a little more original than that. To answer your questions, look into it deeper. By the admission of even the 911 Committee put together to “investigate” the WTC and plane crashes, they themselves admitted that the majority of the fuel from the planes was burned on impact, not inside the buildings. So, to answer your “super-heated” and “steel-mill” argument, I will say to you that in a controlled environment where temperatures are maintained to help shape steel, do you really believe that the combustible materials they are using to create those fires are paper, computer parts, drywall, and glass? Are you arguing that the heat generated by the fires in the attacks on the WTC buildings can be the same degree of heat that a blacksmith uses to bend and shape steel/iron 1/4-1/2″ thick? Now that’s a new one! Wow! All these steel factories using exponential (that means “A LOT”) amounts of energy to create heat sufficient enough to mold and shape steel (over 3″ thick) into structural buildings that can withstand hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds can be done by burning a few computers and carpets? Interesting… I think I’m gonna start a steel mill here! There’s a lot of old computers people are throwing out!

Don’t call me a conspiracy nut. I never stated the government was in on anything. I just like to ask questions that somehow seem to escape having a rational or logical answer.

Jack Burton
It’s pretty easy to assume that I am like an uneducated person, taking the words of some college kids over an engineer, basing opinion on “word of mouth” instead of truth and logic and experience. Calling me sheep is easy, but you having a simpleton mindset allows me to call you on your immaturity and reluctance to look into facts staring you in the face. A simple google search produces lovely videos by some well respected, knowledgeable, experienced, and quite informative group of people, that raise some very interesting questions. Please, boy, if you want to call me sheep, have the decency to look into where I gathered my information before coming off like as ass and ASSuming something that has little to do with what I stated.

I’m not saying the government attacked or destroyed the WTC and has a secret agenda to rule the world, or blah blah blah… However, there are WAY too many unresolved questions and irrational hypothesis’ to just take what “they tell you” as truth.

Whether or not they are too dim or just missinformed is another matter, but there are only a small number.

As to the actress, I think her views on the moonlanding pretty much closes the deal on her sanity.

Of course the Oscars is always a great avenue for some good old fashioned Bush Bashing. Never fails to surround the event like flies on, how did you say, “shit.”

I am unsure why you would look down on Charlie Sheen for his sexual habits. That is his business, why would you care?

I keep it real every day.