PBS presents "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" [video]

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
It's great having an expert on the board. I don't have to look anything up anymore. What kind of fuel was in the truck? What is its burning temperature? What kind of steel was in the bridge? Why did the truck burn for many hours? What material connected the steel pins? What is its burning temperature?

Crandc wants to know how to stream HD without a cable TV connection. When you're done tell me, because there are many things I've always wondered.
 
jlprk said:
It's great having an expert on the board. I don't have to look anything up anymore. What kind of fuel was in the truck? What is its burning temperature? What kind of steel was in the bridge? Why did the truck burn for many hours? What material connected the steel pins? What is its burning temperature?

Crandc wants to know how to stream HD without a cable TV connection. When you're done tell me, because there are many things I've always wondered.
Click to expand...

A diesel truck carrying gasoline. It's in the link I provided. The one I said Kooks wouldn't read.
 
Bush still has apologists?

Must be trying to save face for the Repubs.
 
What's the burning temperature of the type of diesel fuel that was in the truck? What's the name of that type? Did you attend the New Mexico School of Mines? Roswell campus or Truth or Consequences?
 
wheres all the mods? can we call people kooks now? :MARIS61:

:lol:
 
i wonder if there were any conspiracy theorists with kooky ideas about the reichstag fire
 
Nothing wrong with saying I'm kooky. Did he? I didn't notice. Who cares. Anyway, many many experts say there's something fishy going on. Me, I don't know, but I respect them.
 
I was going to watch a few minutes, then write something snarky to all the tinfoil hats. Watched 90+ minutes of it. Very compelling stuff due to the hard science they provide from scores of experts.

With all the evidence it's very hard for me to believe it could be anything other than a controlled demolition that brought those buildings down, and was subsequently covered up. Who or why, no idea.


If you're a doubter, watch the video and tell me why each argument is wrong, I'm very open to that possibility as well. Just provide sound science against the main issues, as opposed to doing what Papag is doing, which is arguing against a movie he to this point hasn't even watched. And that's obvious due to the way he's arguing.
 
PapaG said:
Do you kooks know how many people would have to be in on a conspiracy that involves blowing up buildings?
Click to expand...

Probably a couple dozen.

The thought scares you to death, that much is clear.
 
HAAK72 said:
...forensic evidence, scientific methods, and irrefutable proof that the official 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST explanations are complete bullshit. I encourage everyone, even BrianfromWA, to take 80 minutes of their time to view this powerful documentary and demand a real independent investigation into the most tragic crime in American history.



--> PBS VIDEO LINK

Full Length Version:
[video=youtube;nBCu_pvhnzQ]
Click to expand...


I won't have time until the weekend, but I'll try very hard to check it out. Maybe in the time before the boring-as-hell early ACC/SEC games they play here in FL at noon and before Navy crushes Penn State at 3:30.

I'll preface my comments then, however, by saying that in my graduate work in Metallurgical and Welding Engineering we looked a lot at the basic premises that (I presume, based on the comments above) are going to be talked about vis-a-vis steel properties at temperature, etc. I'd also encourage anyone interested to head to the library (or drop a few dollars on Amazon) and check out Dr. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents. It details with a good mix of hard science and plain talk one smart guy's analysis of the events.
 
Who would have set all of the explosives? How could they have done it without anyone noticing? Why would they do it? How did they recruit Saudi terrorists and Osama bin Laden to conspire with them and take the rap? How did they plan it for the day the planes were hijacked?

It makes no logical sense at all - that's why it is impossible to take seriously.

I don't have to waste 2 hours to know its ridiculous, though I did watch for 10 minutes and the first "expert" was some flunky with a "bachelors in architecture" who worked for a big firm that built two buildings. Their FIRST expert on the video. Puhleaasse.
 
MARIS61 said:
Probably a couple dozen.
Click to expand...

'Probably' or 'possibly' seems to be the firmest evidence given in that film. Real life shows that steel gets compromised at much less temperatures, and without a working sprinkler system, it can collapse. That film is almost 2 years old, and now it's big news?

The thought scares you to death, that much is clear.
Click to expand...

No, the thought makes me laugh at kooks who buy this rubbish, and lo and behold, for the most part it's the same kooks here who I didn't take seriously before watching that idiocy.
 
Last edited:
It feels very very strange to have the same opinion as PapaG on something, but here we are.

I haven't watched this one, but a few years back I watched a whole bunch of these (and discussed them here/BBB.net). At that time, they were all complete crap. Now maybe there is something new, but frankly I think you conspiracy theorists are in the same position as the boy who cried wolf.

Maybe there is a real wolf, but I'll wait until it dresses up in grandma's clothes and shows me its teeth.

barfo
 
PapaG said:
That film is almost 2 years old, and now it's big news?
Click to expand...

For the victims and all Real Americans, 9/11 will always be big news.

It's 9/11, and while you all claim to feel bad and sorry for the victims and all "cause it's the stylish and hip thing to do, if you really gave a damn you'd have a genuine interest in getting to the bottom of why they died and who orchestrated it and why after 11 years no serious investigation has been allowed to take place.

If you really think a couple dozen borderline retarded Saudi Arabian malcontents accomplished this on their own you're every bit as ignorant as your posts make you appear to be.
 
Stevenson said:
Who would have set all of the explosives? How could they have done it without anyone noticing? Why would they do it? How did they recruit Saudi terrorists and Osama bin Laden to conspire with them and take the rap? How did they plan it for the day the planes were hijacked?

It makes no logical sense at all - that's why it is impossible to take seriously.

I don't have to waste 2 hours to know its ridiculous, though I did watch for 10 minutes and the first "expert" was some flunky with a "bachelors in architecture" who worked for a big firm that built two buildings. Their FIRST expert on the video. Puhleaasse.
Click to expand...

This.

I didn't know anyone who died in the WTC, but I did have close friends who were United Airlines pilot and stewardess who went to a lot of funerals in a 2 week period. It was a miserable experience for them.

Occam's Razor. The supports on the floors where the plane crashed into the building eventually gave way due to being damaged and the subsequent fire. The kinetic energy produced by the weight of all the floors above falling 10 ft onto the next floor below was enough to make those supports collapse. Now you have the weight of all those floors plus one falling to the next floor below. And as gravity accelerated the fall of the whole thing, the kinetic energy produced vastly increased.

Ke = 1/2 mass * velocity squared. Both mass and velocity increased each floor that collapsed.
 
Don't you guys know anything? The 9/11 attacks were filmed in the same studio as the moon landing.
 
Denny Crane said:
Ke = 1/2 mass * velocity squared. Both mass and velocity increased each floor that collapsed.
Click to expand...
We were not creating mass, it was always present. What was holding up the mass changed.
 
PapaG said:
According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." Even the lowest end of the temperatures inside the fire were way hotter than the hottest temperatures at which the steel trusses could have maintained integrity.

But let's listen to a biologist talk about forensics.
Click to expand...

Just curious, but were there any hard facts about the temperatures in the building or just simulations? For the record, I think your argument seems quite valid here.
 
westnob said:
We were not creating mass, it was always present. What was holding up the mass changed.
Click to expand...

Weight of 20 floors hitting the floor below.

Weight of 21 floors hitting the floor below that.

Etc.
 
Heh. As always.

But seriously, consider the formula for kinetic energy.

Ke = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared

When the floors aren't moving, velocity = 0, so there's 0 kinetic energy.

When the floors are moving, even at .1 meters/sec, there's significant Ke because of the mass of the 20 (or whatever floors).

Clearly at some point, the floors below did little to slow the speed of the rest of the building falling from above. Gravity.
 
Denny Crane said:
Heh. As always.

But seriously, consider the formula for kinetic energy.

Ke = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared

When the floors aren't moving, velocity = 0, so there's 0 kinetic energy.

When the floors are moving, even at .1 meters/sec, there's significant Ke because of the mass of the 20 (or whatever floors).

Clearly at some point, the floors below did little to slow the speed of the rest of the building falling from above. Gravity.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. I disliked your original wording.
 
westnob said:
I understand your point. I disliked your original wording.
Click to expand...

Would you have preferred if he had said "Both velocity and the portion of the building's mass which was falling (to which the Ke formula is relevant) increased"? A little wordy, but slightly more precise.
 
Buildings that are purposely demolished through controlled explosions basically implode and flatten straight to the ground, in order to prevent damage to their surroundings.

Pretty much all buildings that fall due to any other cause such as gas explosion, earthquake, wind, poor design, substandard building products, being struck by large object... topple to one or more sides and cause peripheral damage to their surroundings.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Would you have preferred if he had said "Both velocity and the portion of the building's mass which was falling (to which the Ke formula is relevant) increased"? A little wordy, but slightly more precise.
Click to expand...

Yes! exactly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top