Re Deleted 911 Thread

And there is plenty of evidence that the Towers were able to come down exactly as they did just by the jetliner collisions

They did test the dust for traces of explosives, and found nothing conclusive.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

Rudder, steel doesn't burn. Not without an agent to make it do so.

With your abundant construction knowledge, what made the steel in the WTC buildings "burn?"

Is that we need a New 911 Investigation.

FWIW there is a large organization of engineers and Architects that dispute the official story on 9-11 based on their scientific analysis

http://ae911truth.org/

over 1700 engineers and Architects (plus bunches of other supporters) are calling for a new investigation of 9-11. Their petition includes their license numbers or degrees

Are these the same as the Global Warming scientists?

I just knew GC couldn't resist posting. I couldn't either.

Love it when basic science demonstrations blow away the twoofers.

And I'll try to control myself. No more posting on this dumbass thread.

hey, i don't blame anyone for not wanting to believe any of this. it really does disturb most livable notions about the world we have to live in.

mag wheels. magnesium. remember magnesium ribbon? or did you doctor that photo up with white metal from your model airplanes?

The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." In practice, the application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

No large buildings outside of the two turquoise zones in the map to the right suffered more than superficial damage

Any inteligent person that studies the Pentagon incident will realize no airliner hit the Penatgon

I'd like to ask that if people are going to post large images, particularly unrelated to the discussion, that they resize them so they don't hose the text on the page, forcing us to scroll back and forth to read what people are writing

To take the time to merely disrupt what other people are discussing is presumptuous and obnoxious. Personally, that's the sort of thing I'd ban somebody for, rather than the stuff fatty got canned for. Just go somewhere else if you don't like it

Peace

Karl

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle

Nov 30, 2012 - 02:55pm PT
Why is it that the people on the other side of the debate always act like they are in high school? Ot rather Grammar School or Kindergarten?

It is all absurd and is a story for morons.

Why is it that the people on the other side of the debate always act like they are in high school? Ot rather Grammar School or Kindergarten?

It is all absurd and is a story for morons.

I reviewed your comments and struggle to see pictures of hamsters and lovely naked gals as "the high road" with respect to this topic.

How could the buildings fall so quickly? It’s been explained very well in the technical literature by Northwestern’s Zdenek Bazant, PhD, and others (see, for example, Bazant 2008). I’ve developed a simpler physics model of the progressive collapses that agrees quite well with the main points of Bazant’s more rigorous results (Thomas 2010b). Here are some of my findings:

Each floor of the towers contained over two million kilograms of mass. The gravitational potential energy of a standing tower with twelve-foot floors extending upward 110 stories can be calculated straightforwardly; it comes to over 420 billion joules of energy, or the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT per tower. This energy, which was released completely during the collapses, is more than the energy of some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-48 (72 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006). This is where the energy required to break columns, pulverize concrete, and expel debris through windows came from. (Truthers often compare such expulsions of air and debris, visible several floors below the collapse fronts, to “squibs,” explosive devices often used in demolitions. However, they are readily explained by pressure changes as the towers, acting like a gigantic bicycle pump being compressed, collapsed.)

The Twin Towers used a “tube within a tube” architectural design, which provided considerable open office space in the interiors of the Towers. Much of the structural support was provided by a dense grouping of thick central core columns in the interior and the perimeter walls on the outside. When the towers began to collapse, large parts of the inner cores (called “the Spires” in 9/11 Truth circles) were actually left standing, briefly, before they, too, toppled over. The perimeter walls were largely forced to peel outward in large sections, producing the iconic images of Ground Zero with which we’re all familiar. Between the outer perimeter and the inner core, the weight of the upper sections plowed through one floor after another, breaking the floor connection brackets and support columns, pulverizing concrete decks, and gaining momentum and mass with each additional floor failure. Had the buildings been constructed differently (the Port Authority was allowed to circumvent some existing New York buildings requirements for the Towers), the collapses might not have even happened (Young 2007).

Even the 9/11 Truth movement’s most eminent physicists are confused about the basic principle of the difference between static and dynamic forces. A piece of paper, taped across a jar’s opening, will support a heavy coin such as a quarter indefinitely (static load). However, if the coin is dropped from just a few inches up, it will tear right through the paper (dynamic load). Given the information at hand—for example, the mass of the upper section of the north tower (fifty-eight million kilograms), the distance it fell (3.8 meters, about twelve feet), and the stiffness/rigidity of the lower structure itself, the dynamic force imparted on the lower section can be estimated as some thirty times the upper portion’s weight. This is many times the lower structure’s safety margin, which explains why it was quickly overwhelmed.

Once progressive collapse began, there were decreasing time intervals of free fall (between floors), punctuated by very brief, incredibly violent collisions—decelerations—of the upper mass, for each floor in turn. There was resistance at every step of the collapse, as the upper section collided with and incorporated each floor below. Conservation of momentum shows that the reductions in falling speed were slight as each floor was impacted, going as the ratio of floors before to floors after (e.g. 14/15, or about 94 percent, for the first impact). Accordingly, the upper section fell from rest to about 19 mph, was slowed down to 18 mph by the first impact, continued to fall until a speed of 26 mph was reached, was then slowed down to 24 mph by another impact, and so on. While the first plunge lasted about nine-tenths of a second, the upper section took only four-tenths of a second to fall through the next floor, three-tenths of a second for the next one, and so on until the bottom floors, which were crushed at a rate of just seven-hundredths of a second each, at speeds of over 100 mph. Yes, there was resistance at every step, as many tons of structural steel was demolished; yet the entire process, like an avalanche, lasted only fifteen to twenty seconds, about 50 to 100 percent longer than true “free fall” would have lasted.

Why aren't there answers?

Hamster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hamsters are rodents belonging to the subfamily Cricetinae. The subfamily contains about 25 species, classified in six or seven genera.[1]
Hamsters are crepuscular animals which burrow underground in the daylight to avoid being caught by predators. Their diets include a variety of foods, including dried food, berries, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables. In the wild, they feed primarily on seeds, fruits and greens, and will occasionally eat burrowing insects.[2] They have an elongated pouch on each side of their heads that extends to their shoulders, which they stuff full of food to be stored, brought back to the colony or to be eaten later.
Hamster behavior varies depending on their environment, genetics, and interaction with people. Because they are easy to breed in captivity, hamsters are often used as laboratory animals in more economically developed countries. Hamsters have also become established as popular small house pets,[3] and are sometimes accepted even in areas where other rodents are disliked, and their typically solitary nature can reduce the risk of excessive litters developing in households.

Although the Syrian hamster or golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) was first described scientifically in 1839, researchers were not able to successfully breed and domesticate hamsters until 1939.[3] The entire laboratory and pet populations of Syrian hamsters appear to be descendants of a single brother-sister pairing. These littermates were captured and imported in 1930 from Aleppo [Syria] by Israel Aharoni, a zoologist of the University of Jerusalem.[4] In Jerusalem, the hamsters bred very successfully. Years later, animals of this original breeding colony were exported to the USA, where Syrian hamsters became one of the most popular pets and laboratory animals. Comparative studies of domestic and wild Syrian hamsters have shown reduced genetic variability in the domestic strain. However, the differences in behavioral, chronobiological, morphometrical, hematological and biochemical parameters are relatively small and fall into the expected range of interstrain variations in other laboratory animals.[5]
Early literature
In 1774, Friedrich Gabriel Sulzer, a companion of Johann-Wolfgang von Goethe, devoted a whole academic monography in the domain of social sciences and natural history to hamsters, entitled "An approach to a natural history of the hamster" ("Versuch einer Naturgeschichte des Hamsters"). In several instances, he used the hamster to document the equal rights of all beings, including Homo sapiens.[6]
Etymology

The name "hamster" is a loanword from the German, which itself derives from earlier Old High German hamustro. It is possibly related to Old Russian choměstrǔ, which is either a blend of the root of Russian khomiak "hamster" and a Baltic word (cf. Lithuanian staras "hamster")[7] or of Persian origin (cf. Av hamaēstar "oppressor").[8]
Description



Roborovski hamster
Hamsters are typically stout-bodied, with tails shorter than body length, and have small, furry ears, short, stocky legs, and wide feet. They have thick, silky fur, which can be long or short, colored black, grey, honey, white, brown, yellow, red, or a mix, depending on the species. Two species of hamster belonging to the genus Phodopus, Campbell's dwarf hamster (Phodopus campbelli) and the Djungarian hamster (Phodopus sungorus), and two of the genus Cricetulus, the Chinese striped hamster (Cricetulus barabensis) and the Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus) have a dark stripe down their heads to their tails. The species of genus Phodopus are the smallest, with bodies 5.5 to 10.5 cm (2.2 to 4.1 in) long; the largest is the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), measuring up to 34 cm (13.4 in) long, not including a short tail of up to 6 cm (2.4 in). The Angora hamster, also known as the long-haired or teddy bear hamster, which is a type of the golden hamster is the second-largest hamster breed, measuring up to 18 cm (7.1 in) long.[3]


Yawning white Syrian hamster showing large incisors
The hamster tail can be difficult to see, as it is usually not very long (about 1/6 the length of the body), with the exception of the Chinese dwarf hamster, which has a tail the same length as the body. One rodent characteristic that can be highly visible in hamsters is their sharp incisors; they have an upper pair and lower pair which grow continuously throughout life, so must be regularly worn down. Hamsters are very flexible, but their bones are somewhat fragile. They are extremely susceptible to rapid temperature changes and drafts, as well as extreme heat or cold.
Senses
Hamsters have poor eyesight; they are nearsighted and colorblind.[citation needed] To compensate for their poor sight when in unfamiliar territory, hamsters have scent glands on their flanks (and abdomens in Chinese and dwarf hamsters). A hamster rubs these areas of its body against various objects, and leaves a trail of smells to follow to return to its home den.[citation needed] Hamsters also use their sense of smell to identify pheromones and gender, and locate food. They are also particularly sensitive to high-pitched noises and can hear and communicate in the ultrasonic range.[4]
Diet
Hamsters are omnivores. Although they can survive on a diet of exclusively commercial hamster food, other items, such as vegetables, fruits, seeds, and nuts, can be given, but these should be removed before they become rotten. Hamsters in the Middle East have been known to hunt in packs to find insects for food.[9] Hamsters are hindgut fermenters and must eat their own feces (coprophagy) to recover nutrients digested in the hindgut, but not absorbed.[1]
Behavior

A behavioral characteristic of hamsters is food hoarding. They carry food in their spacious cheek pouches to their underground storage chambers. When full, the cheeks can make their heads double, or even triple in size.[1]
Social behavior


Hamsters fighting
Most hamsters are strictly solitary. If housed together, acute and chronic stress may occur,[5] and they may fight fiercely, sometimes fatally. Some dwarf hamster species may tolerate conspecifics. Russian hamsters form close, monogamous bonds with their mates, and if separated, they may become very depressed. This happens especially in males. Males will become inactive, eat more, and even show some behavioral changes similar to some types of depression in humans.[citation needed] This can even cause obesity in the hamster.
Chronobiology
Evidence conflicts as to whether hamsters are crepuscular or nocturnal. Khunen writes, "Hamsters are nocturnal rodents who [sic] are active during the night...",[5] but others have written that because hamsters live underground during most of the day, only leaving their burrows about an hour before sundown and then returning when it gets dark, their behavior is primarily crepuscular.[citation needed] Fritzsche indicated although some species have been observed to show more nocturnal activity than others, they are all primarily crepuscular.[4]
Wild Syrian hamsters are true hibernators and allow their body temperature to fall close to ambient temperature (but not below 20°C). This kind of thermoregulation diminishes the metabolic rate to about 5% and helps the animal to considerably reduce the need for food during the winter.[5] Hamsters may not hibernate per se, but instead reduce the rate of a number of physiological systems, such as breathing and heart rate, for short periods of time. These periods of torpor (defined as "a state of mental or physical inactivity or insensibility"[10]) can last up 10 days.[citation needed]
Burrowing behavior
All hamsters are excellent diggers, constructing burrows with one or more entrances, with galleries connected to chambers for nesting, food storage, and other activities.[1] They use their fore- and hindlegs, as well as their snouts and teeth, for digging. In the wild, the burrow buffers extreme ambient temperatures, offers relatively stable climatic conditions, and protects against predators. Syrian hamsters dig their burrows generally at a depth of 0.7 m.[11] A burrow includes a steep entrance pipe (4–5 cm in diameter), a nesting and a hoarding chamber and a blind-ending branch for urination. Laboratory hamsters have not lost their ability to dig burrows; in fact, they will do this with great vigor and skill if they are provided with the appropriate substrate.[5]
Wild hamsters will also appropriate tunnels made by other mammals; the Djungarian hamster, for instance, uses paths and burrows of the pika.

All hamsters are excellent diggers, constructing burrows with one or more entrances, with galleries connected to chambers for nesting, food storage, and other activities.[1] They use their fore- and hindlegs, as well as their snouts and teeth, for digging. In the wild, the burrow buffers extreme ambient temperatures, offers relatively stable climatic conditions, and protects against predators. Syrian hamsters dig their burrows generally at a depth of 0.7 m.[11] A burrow includes a steep entrance pipe (4–5 cm in diameter), a nesting and a hoarding chamber and a blind-ending branch for urination. Laboratory hamsters have not lost their ability to dig burrows; in fact, they will do this with great vigor and skill if they are provided with the appropriate substrate.[5]
Wild hamsters will also appropriate tunnels made by other mammals; the Djungarian hamster, for instance, uses paths and burrows of the pika.

Claim Three:
“Tower 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed neatly into its own footprint.”

The enigma of WTC 7 is becoming increasingly popular in Truther circles. We’re told that it wasn’t hit by a plane and was subjected to just a few “small office fires.” Yet it collapsed anyway, late in the afternoon of September 11, “falling neatly into its own footprint at freefall acceleration, just like a normal controlled demolition.” In particular, Truthers point to a brief period of freefall (2.25 seconds) that was confirmed by NIST in its WTC 7 final report (Sunder 2008; NIST 2010) as proving that the building was purposely imploded. However, WTC 7, too, fails to prove 9/11 was an “inside job”:

What is often conveniently left out of the story are actual reports from NYFD firefighters at the scene, which describe huge, raging, unfought fires on many floors at once and visible deformations and creaking of the building prior to its collapse (Roberts 2008). Tower 7 was not hit by an airplane; however, it was struck by a 110-story flaming skyscraper, the North Tower. The fires raged for hours, and they eventually caused a critical column (#79) to fail because of thermal expansion; NIST determined that this column was crucial to the building and could even be considered a design flaw. Its failure would have collapsed the building even without the other structural damage from WTC 1’s collapse and the fires.

WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).

The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.

How does a fire burn underground like that without an oxygen source?

Some unbelievable crack flying went into hitting the Pentagon

Picking and choosing what you want to believe is not what truth is about.

[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.


—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

Certainty isn't truth. But what is likely true for anyone on either side of this, is that what today is for you a known known is actually an unknown unknown, and if you're lucky someday you'll recognize it as a known unknown.

Truthers don't believe all conspiracy theories; some must look at people espousing the belief that aliens left a massive ark on the moon as being real whack-jobs--and it must be irksome to have others treat you like that guy when you are so certain of what you "know".

And what irks me about most truthers is the tone, and often outright statements which say, "if you don't agree then you are blind, a sheeple, an idiot, a moron, in on the conspiracy, a dupe, a fool, naive, etc.," just because I can tolerate having a few more known unknowns than them.

Are you into counter-intelligence? You just twisted the most bizarre pretzel I've seen since...WTF is your f*#king point?

You can not lay down your point in a more coherent fashion? You must be psy-ops or counter-intel. WTF? Or just f*#king crazy.....

That wasn't meant for you to read blue; sorry, I should have put a disclaimer up, such as, "do not read this if your IQ is less than 80--your head may explode.

What was your point? One sentence, genius.

To this I can add: A f*#king hamster is smarter than you are.

What was your point? One sentence, genius.

Hey, as#@&%e! My IQ is around 130 and I wasn't f*#king talking to you . . .


. . . Uh, I think you just demonstrated that you have the IQ of a 6th-grader....and I'm so hurt by that comment. Hamster?

When you focus too much on the buildings you'll get sucked into the rabbit hole. . .

The conspiracy theorists don't have any compelling facts, only questions, and the idea that the Bush administration was competent enough to do what they are supposed to have done and not have any leaks makes about as much sense as the hamster theory.