Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Clearly the beams were cut by thermite, when the beams were in fact designed to snap if they were placed under too much stress - like what might happen if the support structure above them failed and the loads weren't placed correctly anymore. The weak points were built in, just in case. No one ever would or ever will allow a 1,300 foot tall building to be built in a city unless it was designed to collapse straight down. Imagine the carnage if they fell over sideways in Manhattan. A quarter of a mile of building landing on people all over town.
Clearly the black smoke indicates a low oxygen fire, when the color of smoke is determined by what is burning, not how hot it's burning. Leave a pot of rice on your stove on a high heat for 45 minutes or so, and tell me what color the smoke is. Is your house a low oxygen environment?
Clearly the buildings should have withstood the impact when the chief architect himself said they were designed for the worst impact imaginable in 1965 (they broke ground in 1966 so that's the frame of reference they had to use) but not for what actually wound up happening.
Look, I don't buy everything the government has told us about that day. I don't believe the bullshit about what happened on the flight over Pennsylvania. I'm still wondering what happened to the plane that was inbound to Washington from over the Atlantic and was never mentioned again after they announced that fighters were going out to intercept it. I figure there had to be at least 25 attempted hijackings that day for 4 or 5 to succeed, but we only hear about 4. And no one ever mentioned the failed attempt at Miami International after 9/11 either, when that one was all over the news down here on the day it happened.
But no evidence has ever been offered that shows those buildings didn't collapse because airliners flew into them at a high rate of speed. They fell exactly the way they were designed to fall, lasting as long as the designer calculated they would almost to the minute. Did we know beforehand? Maybe. Are we being told everything? No way.
I am assuming you chose an excerpt from the most boring fact-free portion of your book. There is no way any other portion of your book could be as bad as this anecdote.
If you (Farhad) believe that steel was melted by burning aviation fuel, you're hardly qualified to write about technology. You've substituted belief for physics and facts.
I am a man of shallow belief. New evidence and better facts always sway me. That said, I still believed that malarkey (official story) for 5 years. I would not allow myself to believe that the administration could kill innocent Americans to affect a policy change. So much for the high road.
I now realize that the offical account cannot be true. Start your investigation with the physics - these laws cannot be broken.
Further, I predict you will be embarrassed (as I was) when you finally investigate.
The title should be 'polling for facts". Most people are convinced that there is a God, more who believe that there is a God conspiracy and some who believe that the unprovable does not exist. Perception reveals miracles, statues in tears, signs, omens, images on toasted cheese, and other out of mind expeiences.
It is time to stop giving credence to hallucinations or irrational unsupported statements promoted for the best of reasons, that the participant has found a community of deviants who accept the madness, and a group in which a very nice living can be made by making ridiculous statements in public.
This whole article seems sorely superficial in its attempt to debunk the value of images as evidence.
The analogy between Kennedy's assassination and 9/11 is a silly one if used to uphold the view that no matter how many cameras and viewpoints we have of an event, we shall never reach a consensus about its true significance. Zapruder filmed at relatively close range what happened in one car. The cameras around the WTC were in greater number but they filmed two airplanes and two buildings from a much greater distance in an event that involved an enormously larger set of variables. So, proportionately, both events did not have the same image coverage: there is a marked disadvantage to the latter.
Also, if the Hastorf-Cantril study had shown the Dartmouth and Princeton students a large number of closer, more detailed and revealing footage of that game, there would certainly have been a greater coincidence between the reports from the two camps, barring those made in bad faith. And let's not forget that there are more people in the world than Princeton and Dartmouth fans who're capable of assessing fair play.
Mr Manjoo's attempt to discredit interpretations based on images willfully ignores that the question is never whether images can prove a point but rather how many images and what level of detail would be sufficient to ascertain truth.
Well, Farhad, get a better pair of glasses.
I consider the whole "9/11 Truth" movement to be full of bunk. So I looked at the photos and footage with no preconceived notions. And I saw the flash every time and from every different angle. At some angles the flash was a bit more difficult to see, but it was there.
My theory? Considering the plane was traveling at nearly 500 miles-per-hour, I think there was some kind of brief oxygen burn from what must have been the almost unbelievable air compression between the nose of the plane and the glass and steel surface of the tower in those final seconds.
But then I'm no scientist either, so what the hell.
I think the flash (or not) before the plane hit the Tower
is just one small piece of the large puzzle.
I would like to know how all the concrete in the towers
pulverized? How did most of the steel become truck-
sized pieces? Why were the 3 towers the only sky-
scrapers in history, to fall due to fire? Why did no US
military aircraft respond in the nearly 2 hours of these
events? How did a 757 hit the Pentagon, creating only
a small hole--and why were there no aircraft parts?
Why did we not see any video from the cameras of
the Pentagon?
And on, and on, and on.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
