hey guess what

[big brother]

This is a pretty solid explanatory article.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

This more or less covers the little details of the conspiracy theory that "Loose Change" suggests.

IMO, the premise of the conspiracy doesn't make sense. If the government was trying to fake a terrorist attack, they would have imitated earlier attacks, not something as coordinated as this was. One plane would have sufficed. Anything more would have required lots of grunt work by more people and the possibility of more going wrong.

I guess it shows the city regulators a thing or two about the necessity of asbestos insulation along the support shafts.

[omgpreston]

This is a pretty solid explanatory article.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

This more or less covers the little details of the conspiracy theory that "Loose Change" suggests.

the editor and chief of that article is Michael Chertoff's cousin. I don;t know about you but I think that's a conflict of interest.

[omgpreston]

but anyway this movie is to make you question what happened, because the official report is bullshit and distorted. just tell me how a high rise building collapsed from a two story fire.

The heat of the fire(s) melted/weakened the support structures of the building to the point that the load bearing members were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building above them.

yeah you have good googleing skills, but can you explain how the third building collapsed?

[Becky]

I thought the WTC only had two towers, not three.

Edit: Oops, my bad, I realise you were talking about a different building.

[Alun]

yeah you have good googleing skills, but can you explain how the third building collapsed?

Already thoroughly explained in the article bigbrother linked to.

If you don't believe the explanation, that's one thing, but then try to debunk it; don't just act like nobody's explained it.

[EDIT: Also, "the editor and chief of that article is Michael Chertoff's cousin" is not a debunking.  That's an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to address the substance of the article.]

[omgpreston]

www.total911.info

[Alun]

(Sigh.)  I don't have time to go through everything on that page, but I'll tackle the first link, about the collapse time.  Whoever wrote that article doesn't know her physics at all.  (I use the feminine pronoun because of the "janedoe" in the page name.)  Yes, the main page claims she's a "professor of mechanical engineering" and a "PhD"; I wonder where they got that idea, since on her own page she chooses to remain anonymous.  In any case, even if she does have a PhD in mechanical engineering, she's apparently forgotten everything she learned in basic physics.

For instance, her assumption that each floor will start effectively from free fall when the floor above hits makes no sense.  This would be valid only if gravity were the only force acting on it.  But it's not; the impact force from the floor above makes a huge difference!  So the "free fall time" of each floor isn't relevant.

Another example: the bit about "momentum" shows a complete lack of understanding of elasticity of collisions.  The balls-on-wires momentum demonstration that she cites represents an idealized example of a perfectly elastic collision, where (nearly) all the momentum is transferred from one ball to another in a collision.  Most real collisions aren't that way; the collisions aren't perfectly elastic, and the colliding object retains a significant part of its momentum and doesn't come to a stop.  Claiming that each floor would stop when it hits the floor below is completely ludicrous; the writer of that article has no idea what she's talking about.

Fer cryin' out loud, just posting random links to pages that make bad arguments about 9-11 isn't helping your case.  That "Billiard Balls" page is complete and utter nonsense.  As for me, personally, I'm more likely to believe forensics experts, working structural engineers, and professors of engineering than anonymous loonies who write incoherent webpages.

I don't like the Bush administration.  I think 9/11 was handled very badly, not to mention Katrina and many other issues.  But I haven't seen any credible reasons to believe that the Bush administration actually engineered the 9/11 disaster.  And the links you've posted have done nothing to change that.

[bspeers]

Um bspeers... are you addressing me?

I was going to link to that "you're so vain" song*1, but then, you might take that seriously as well.

Instead, just "no"

You don't even have paws.


Oh, and just to keep things on topic--cat with nunchaku?  Pretty durn close, but it's still just a costume.  Still, maybe I can sleep easily at night now that this national nightmare is over, or at least weakened in immensity.

*1 - The line about "you probably think this is about you," not the vain bit, that would've been rude

[MrColossal]

Was THAT post about me?!

[Alun]

Every post in the entire AGS Forums has been, in some way, about you.

Except one!

Now...you must find that one post!

Well, okay, maybe two...

[MrColossal]

Who are you talking too?!

[Alun]

THIS POST IS ABOUT YOU!

(Where "you"=whoever reads it.  Or doesn't read it.  That's right, this post is about everybody in the world!  Hooray!)

[Las Naranjas]

So...I'm Mr Colossal now?




shit...

[skyfire2]

i watched all of that hour-and-a-half documentary and i have to tell you that it was quite interesting. i don't believe that everything in the video is true though it's a strong possibility that the government could be behind the thousands of deaths at 9/11 if you consider that bush is still forcing our troops to their doom.

also, i think that the part about faking people's voices was directly ripped off from 24. 

[Helm]

btw guys that's not a guitar in his avatar, it's a mic stand