9/11

[_Brackite]

Greetings Man in Black,

I don't believe in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories.

You should check out and see this web link:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/dubunked.htm

[_Bret Ripley]

... the key term here being 'destroy'. What causes those big billowing dust clouds from buildings that are demo'd? Right... explosives. Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

[_lulu]

Believe what you want - I'm just trying to awaken and inform others as to the truth about this issue. And using the term f*** on an LDS discussion forum? Nice.

Just want to extend a damned big ass welcome to you here on this damned Mormon Discussion Board and damned hope you damned like it.

If you damned find you don't damned like it here, well, you can just damned “F” off.

[_SteelHead]

Methinks, we have an eacapee from the bizarro world of the LDS freedom forum.

If not an eacapee, man in black go Google it. You will fit in much better there. Most of the fine luntatic fringe conspiracy nuts over think think the moon landing a hoax, as one of the prophets (Joseph Fieldin Smith?) said man would never reach the moon.

Eta:
Found the thread. http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8201

Welcome to twidumb zone.

[_subgenius]

No, because multiple people subscribing to a delusion doesn't make the delusion real.

and conversely
multiple people denying the truth does not make it false
jus sayin

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...So that's it... 9/11 in a nutshell.

i do enjoy this sort of stuff...but i believe you left out a few key points:
1. The tower fire that obliterated 7th-9th but did no harm to superstructure is what caused the addtion of asbestos...asbestos was not original construction. And the damage, or lack of, damage caused by the fire was surprising at the time.
2. That what were described as being novice and not even mediocre pilots were able to fly into the pentagon at such a low altitude after making seemingly a deliberate and precise turn around the building from the direction that they initially approached...avoiding high value personnel and colliding with the area mostly under renovation at the time.
3. The Bush family's interest in the security company that was responsible for the Towers and the mystery vacant floors.
4. "H" Bush's meeting companions and location during the attack.
6. Osama's attendance to Bush family BBQs
etc...etc...

those who don't believe that the grassy knoll is possible might also be as easily convinced that the circumstances surrpunding the Guiteau 'killing' of Garfiled was just coincidence.

oh and...
Isaiah 8:12

[_Sethbag]

Oh sweet Jesus Lawd Almighty, Subgenius you're in on this crap too?

By the way, Man in Black, I'm an ex-Mormon, and yes I say “F” and crap and damn, and I take the imaginary Lord's name in vain, etc. It's not that I'm evil, it's that I find the exclamations useful, and I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with a word as compared to some other word, because an Invisible Man simply doesn't like certain words.


Gravity isn't explosive. But performing work against gravity results in potential energy. All that steel, concrete, and everything else that made up the towers was lifted up against gravity and put in place. The potential energy of all that material suspended a thousand feet above the ground is immense. Releasing it, by converting (resting) potential energy into (moving) kinetic energy by it moving back down under gravity resulted in the release of absolutely enormous amounts of energy.

How many floors were above the impact sites? All of that mass starting to move downwards creates immense momentum. When that mass impacts the floors below (still intact) the g-forces involved in trying to stop all that mass exceeded the ability of the supporting beams and whatnot to resist. The shock of that impact wasn't confined just to the floors that were first hit, either. The shock would have been transmitted all the way down to the base of the tower through the solid beams.

I don't know if it happened this way or not, but it's possible that the shock of the upper floors hitting the floors below caused the supporting beams to buckle and collapse all the way down at the base of the towers (since the weight of the entire buildings at that point would have been moving downward in the shockwave) leading the rest of the building to essentially free-fall from that point.

And why did the buildings fall straight down? Hmm, because they were under gravity, and the force of gravity was in the direction of straight down? Is this really so mysterious?

But whatever, you've married the idea of a conspiracy, and until you divorce it, you'll be useless as a conversation partner. So I'm out.

Good luck with your quest. I hope it's all you ever hoped it would be.

[_The Man in Black]

Greetings Man in Black,

I don't believe in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories.

You should check out and see this web link:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/dubunked.htm

Hi Brackite. That's fine, you don't have to believe anything - I'm just delivering the truth about that fateful day whether you want to accept it or not and the only conspiracy theory is the government's official version. The truth about 9/11 is now a conspiracy fact and you cannot debunk scientific evidence, broken laws of physics, facts and eyewitness accounts no matter how hard you try or how bad you want to and those attempting to do so have a vested interest in keeping the truth covered up (career, financial, retirement, benefits, their own life, etc.).

[_The Man in Black]

Believe what you want - I'm just trying to awaken and inform others as to the truth about this issue. And using the term f*** on an LDS discussion forum? Nice.

Just want to extend a f*****g big ass welcome to you here on this f*****g Mormon Discussion Board and f*****g hope you f*****g like it.

If you f*****g find you don't f*****g like it here, well, you can just f*****g f*** off.

Wow.

[_subgenius]

Oh sweet Jesus Lawd Almighty, Subgenius you're in on this s*** too?

to be fair, i'm in on it just for sport

By the way, Man in Black, I'm an ex-Mormon, and yes I say f*** and s*** and damn, and I take the imaginary Lord's name in vain, etc. It's not that I'm evil, it's that I find the exclamations useful, and I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with a word as compared to some other word, because an Invisible Man simply doesn't like certain words.

i believe most fin those phrases objectionable not for their grammar but rather for the intent behind them...thus making almost any euphemism or phrase potentially profane or offensive to the Lord. I would even speculate that the reason you derive pleasure from these exclamations, or rather find them "useful, is because their value is derived by them being taboo to others....if they were not you may have a difficult argument distinguishing between saying Holy s**t! and Holy pencil!

Gravity isn't explosive. But performing work against gravity results in potential energy. All that steel, concrete, and everything else that made up the towers was lifted up against gravity and put in place. The potential energy of all that material suspended a thousand feet above the ground is immense. Releasing it, by converting (resting) potential energy into (moving) kinetic energy by it moving back down under gravity resulted in the release of absolutely enormous amounts of energy.

I believe the controversy is not in the amount of mass that "pancaked" downwards but what may have caused the structural failure. As noted before, there was significant fire in one of the Towers that decimated the contents but not the structure...and this was before fire protecting asbestos was added. I believe the speculation has been that the fire may/may not have been sufficient to incinerate the superstructure of the building given the quality and quantity of fuel for the resulting fire..considering the floor area and structure involved it was a modest amount of jet fuel and typical office furnishings. Considering that buildings are incredibly over-designed for loading and fire resistance it is an interesting circumstance.

How many floors were above the impact sites? All of that mass starting to move downwards creates immense momentum. When that mass impacts the floors below (still intact) the g-forces involved in trying to stop all that mass exceeded the ability of the supporting beams and whatnot to resist. The shock of that impact wasn't confined just to the floors that were first hit, either. The shock would have been transmitted all the way down to the base of the tower through the solid beams.

as you may well know a tall building has "stronger" structure as it gets closer to the ground. It is an interesting structural circumstance, but again i believe the cause of the initial failure is what is in question. The concepts you are discussing here are basic to controlled demolition work as well.

I don't know if it happened this way or not, but it's possible that the shock of the upper floors hitting the floors below caused the supporting beams to buckle and collapse all the way down at the base of the towers (since the weight of the entire buildings at that point would have been moving downward in the shockwave) leading the rest of the building to essentially free-fall from that point.

i think the "shockwave" theory is interesting but unlikely. The real interesting aspect is to disregard the "cause" and look at other unrelated factors that contributed to the building's failure. For example NY is a rather unique city because the steel union controlled so much of the building market that we rarely see any buildings that incorporate steel and concrete superstructures. Primarily NY had constructed all steel structure buildings, not taking advantage of the concrete core seen in almost every construction outside of NY. Typically this would be manifest with a concrete "center" or core and a steel surround. The steel surround allows for better light penetration, etc..but steel is stronger in tension while concrete in compression...they make a great structural couple. nevertheless, this unique construction circumstance is a vulnerability in hindsight...good for Unions, but a compromise for effective safety.

And why did the buildings fall straight down? Hmm, because they were under gravity, and the force of gravity was in the direction of straight down? Is this really so mysterious?

i think the assumption that the failure was simultaneous around the perimeter is the concern. It is odd to consider that a equi-perimeter failure would occur under the circumstances. It would seem, especially given the nature of steel and how it structurally behaves when it fails, would have buckled and caused a "lopsided" failure...kinda like chopping down a tree..sure it falls down, but it really falls over.

But whatever, you've married the idea of a conspiracy, and until you divorce it, you'll be useless as a conversation partner. So I'm out.

Good luck with your quest. I hope it's all you ever hoped it would be.

Life is either a great adventure or nothing - Helen Keller