9-11 loose change

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

This "treat rather than cure" argument is one of the most persistent pieces of BS floating around out there.

If that were COMPLETELY true, then why not publicly identify and educate the public on cancer causing items currently being added to our food and water supplies.

If true, then wouldn't Doctors be advocating removal of Sodium Nitrite from almost every packaged meat? Since it is known to cause cancer?

If true, wouldn't Doctors demand removal of aspartame from the 5000 foods it is currently in?

If true, wouldn't they advocate removal of the poision Mercury from the many different childhood vaccines it is currently included in? (there are direct relationships between autism and mecury in vaccines)

If true, would they prefer to drug the hyperactive child rather than encourage the parents to change their diet, among other things?

Wait! some Doctors are! look here!
http://www.wnho.org/
or here!
http://www.dorway.com/indexnew.htm
Strange that these doctors are ignored... isn't it to you? or are they just reverse conspiricy nuts...

Why is it that we are the most sick, diseased and over medicated nation in the world?

Why won't our leaders allow us to import less expensive drugs from Canada?

Because we live in this great country where you are innocent of swindling someone unless they can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) you did it. And while I certainly am not mocking the rights of the innocent, I do believe that the guilty will use this to their advantage, any chance they can, and is then able to hide behind their lies to cover their butts.

[SpeedRacer 1]

a) There is some dispute over whether many of those things significantly increase the risk of cancer over background ie, carcinogens that occur naturally.

And your argument does not in anyway support the hypothesis that scientists are holding back from finding cures. Of course, I am one of those scientists, so maybe you assume I'm in on the plot.

b) we are NOT the most diseased nation in the world. most of us are very healthy & live long lives, even those of us consuming the things you mentioned. In fact a MUCH more important risk factor for illness is lack of exercise, overeating, and smoking, ie, things the individual has control over. Those other additives you mentioned are miniscule health risks, comparatively speaking.



BTW I've noticed that many people approach health risks similar to the woman in that old joke: She walks into an ice cream parlor & orders a triple hot fudge sundae with marshmallow sauce and whipped cream. The waitress asks, "Do you want a cherry on top?" and the woman replies, "Oh no, I'm on a diet!"

So anyway why are those evil doctors & scientists always telling people to eat more vegetables, exercise more, and quit smoking? If people took that advice it would eat into their profits.

assuming we scientists & doctors want to actively keep people sick is kind of like assuming policemen lay awake at night worrying about how to increase crime so they won't be out of a job.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

>Well, that would depend on where the load occured versus the
>beam's support, and where that is located.

Nope. If a structural member is stressed to six times its yield strengh, it fails. Period. That's the definition of yield strength.

>If fires were to have caused the structural damage as they would
> have us believe, then perhaps I could see a couple of floors
> collapsing . . . .

We agree here.

>the force of the 1/2 mil tons being continually reduced with every
>floor it hits . . . .

This is where you make your error. The force is INCREASED every time it descends another 12 feet. We are talking tens of thousands of tons of force by the time we get to the lower floors. In explosives terms, the energy is akin to a nuclear weapon with a ~20 kiloton yield. The floors simply disintegrated.

>Thats only the first floor. The next floor will have less force due to
>laws of physics.

More; see above.

>Thanks for finding that, I was really refering to the checkout line at
> any convience or grocery store. I know we can FIND these items that
> are not deadly to us, but how difficult?

Ah! So your complaint is that corporations are not required to deduce what you like, make sure it is healthy by your standards, and then provide it to you in a convenient location?

>There you go again, lumping my arguement in with idiototic
> arguements to attempt to minimize mine ... I certainly do not
> advocate people suing for stupidity.

It sure did sound like you wanted to hold companies accountable for the use of their products, rather than the people who freely use them.

>If you see this as an attempt to be ir-responsible, please point that
> out eactly how you see that. I see it as exactly just the opposite, I
> am trying to get people to BE responsible and educate themselves
> rather than just buying into whatever the mass media spews.

That is a noble cause! The price of freedom is responsibility, and that responsibility falls upon the individual. It is wrong to shield a person from their own irresponsibility by (for example) outlawing alcohol. But it is certainly good to educate them on its dangers.

>So you endorse food manufacturers adding known carcinogens to
> their food?

Nope, but that's not what you're talking about. You cannot put U-235 in foods, nor any other substance that is poisonous or a known carcinogen. The FDA sees to that.

What you're talking about is _suspected_ carcinogens and toxins, ones that cause cancer (or other conditions) in lab rats when you feed them 30 pounds of the substance a week. There are many of those. Sugar can cause problems for diabetics. Alcohol can cause problems for alcoholics. Phenylalanine can cause problems for phenylketonurics. Mercury in certain kinds of fish can cause developmental problems for pregnant women. Red meat can cause colon cancer. Whole milk and eggs can cause heart disease.

I assume you are not in favor of banning fish, red meat, eggs, milk, sugar etc even though they can be dangerous. Same applies to pretty much any food additive. If it is as toxic as lead, then it should not be added to food (and it isn't.) But if it's as toxic as red meat? Then people, not the government, make that call.

>Your wife is a Dr. Do you or she disagree with the
> statement 'Aspartame is a harmful product?' If it is not harmful,
> then why do you say that?

It's about as harmful as fatty red meat. i.e. not a good idea, but won't kill you in a week (or even a year.)

>Has anyone heard of flouride? they add it to most municipal water
> supplies. It is highly toxic at higher levels. But they say it helps
> make stronger teeth and bones? Well, we should about have no
> cavities then (if you get city water) and no broken bones. hmm ,. . .

That's pretty silly. Vitamins make you healthier (on average.) Do you honestly believe that people who take vitamins should never, ever get sick? And if they do, the vitamins are worthless?

Flouridation improves dental health, a finding that's been proven dozens of times by epidemiological studies. Before we started testing water, people were drinking water with 14 ppm of flouride in it for their whole lives with no ill results. Nowadays flouridation is around 1ppm in water. In other words, we are today using 14 times less flouride than some people used to have in their NATURAL drinking water.

So you really want to go back to 'natural' water?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

So you really want to go back to 'natural' water?

at least non-fluoridated water won't turn you into a commie.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[skygeek 0]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

This article sems to agree with ya Bill ,and includes a diagram of the internal supports of the building.

My question for you is what happened to the 47 central beams? From the diagram it would appear that the central beams ran the entire height of the building some 1300ft into the air. If this is true we have 47 1300 ft I beams surrounded by the floors then the outside walls. If the floors started to collapse as you have described. Wouldnt some portion of those 47 1300ft colums remain standing?

I would have guessed that as the floors sheared off thier support that it would leave the core somewhat intact, Like a stack of records on a spindal.

What is your opion on this?

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[cumplidor 0]

I have been struggling to find time to properly respond to your statements, but I finally found the time...

Your arguements regarding the fires heating up the steel to a 'failure' temp is inaccurate. Here is another docuemnt from a company that has shown that a steel building will not collapse in a fire. http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Fire%20resistance%20of%20steel%20framed%20buildings.pdf
Check out section 15 and 16 regarding the fire tests this construction company performed, and the results.

Quote

This is where you make your error. The force is INCREASED every time it descends another 12 feet.

No Bill, this is where you made the error. The force would increase every 12 feet if it were unemcumbered 12 feet- nothing stopping it. BUT, they have all sorts of stuff between each floor, not to mention the 3' of steel reinforced concrete and support beams. This slows the process down, signifigantly. Unless of course, there are thermite cutting charges placed on each of the support beams to allow for each floor to fall to the next at near freefall speed. That would do it for sure.

*I would still like to debate you guys about the aspartame and flouride stuff, but will start a new thread*

[champu 1]

Quote

I have been struggling to find time to properly respond to your statements, but I finally found the time...

Your arguements regarding the fires heating up the steel to a 'failure' temp is inaccurate. Here is another docuemnt from a company that has shown that a steel building will not collapse in a fire. http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Fire%20resistance%20of%20steel%20framed%20buildings.pdf
Check out section 15 and 16 regarding the fire tests this construction company performed, and the results.

This is an unfortunate apples to oranges comparison that comes up far too often. If you gave me some time I could design you a building made of steel that would have survived the impacts of the planes, and any of the resulting fires. Its floor layout would look very different from the WTC. Its horizontal and vertical load distributions in each column and beam would be very different from the WTC. But you know what? who cares. The planes didn't hit this imaginary building I'm talking about. They hit the WTC.

If a 757 had flown into the Sears tower, there's a good chance it wouldn't have collapsed. The Sears tower doesn't rely nearly as heavily on it's outer-most columns for horizontal support, its vertical support is distributed much more evenly throughout the cross-section of each floor, and it is arranged in a square of nine sub-structures that would localize failures. But who cares? The planes didn't hit the Sears tower. They hit the WTC.

Quote

Quote

This is where you make your error. The force is INCREASED every time it descends another 12 feet.

No Bill, this is where you made the error. The force would increase every 12 feet if it were unemcumbered 12 feet- nothing stopping it. BUT, they have all sorts of stuff between each floor, not to mention the 3' of steel reinforced concrete and support beams. This slows the process down, signifigantly.

Once you understand that one floor can collapse, and destroy the supports for the floor below it, it's all over. The rest of the building doesn't stand a chance. Let's take a look...

The combined mass of the towers was about 1,000,000 tons, divide by two towers and by 110 floors, and you have about 4,500 tons per floor.

Say the top floor fails, you are dropping 4,500 tons from a height of 12ft on the floor below, which will cause it to fail, now you're dropping 9,000 tons on the floor below from a height of 12ft, it fails, now you're dropping 13,500 tons from a height of 12ft... do you see where this is going?

The first few floors would certainly not go quietly, but after that, the amount of energy dissipated in destroying the supports of the next floor is, as we say, "in the noise."

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"BUT, they have all sorts of stuff between each floor, not to mention the 3' of steel reinforced concrete and support beams."

Such as.....? SRC weighs around a tonne per cubic meter, I can't imagine 'all sorts of stuff' resisting that once it gets in motion.

"Here is another document from a company that has shown that a steel building will not collapse in a fire."

No its not, the Steel Construction Institute is a UK organisation, its is uncontrolled, unregulated, and known over here as a QUANGO, some of the stuff they produce is sensible, some of it is not. I've done a load of work with the SCI, mostly on fire and blast resistance of offshore platforms, I spent 18 months setting fire to, and blowing things up in Spadeadam in Cumbria. I see your 36 page document waxing technical on things like HP/A ratios, PFP, etc, its all pretty much established stuff all they are doing is bringing it all tigether in one place. However, I don't see anything within this document that says that steel constructed buildings will not fail during a fire. What I see is a pile of current (the doc is dated a couple of years after 9-11) best practices to extend life expectancy of structures under fire conditions. These guidelines were not available when the WTC was constructed.

It also uses the BS 476 standard fire test which should not be used in the instance where Avgas is the primary fuel, as was the case in the WTC.
This differs from the more pertinent 'hydrocarbon fire curves' in that the speed at which ultimate fire temperature is greatly increased.


Look once again at the fire curves on page 16, you will see that typical steel will reach a point where its strength is reduced by about 50% at or around 550 deg C, match the time for this temp on the graph next to it, its a remarkibly short time. Even using a more sensible 650 deg C for the lower flange of an RSJ, the time for cellulosic fire to reach this temperature is around 6 minutes. If you look at a hydrcarbon curve, this temperature is achieved in around 3 minutes.

Okay so we established that fires get hot really quickly, how would the structure respond?.....

Well if you remove a level of lateral stability, IE a floor, either by fire or an aircraft impact, you double the effective length of a support column, in effect you have decraesd the column's ability to support a load.

Take a pencil, you can bend it a bit till it snaps, now take one of the half pencils, and try to bend it till it snaps, it not as easy, is it? This is the same effect as doubling the effective length of an unrestrained column.

So, with a jet fuel fire, within 3 minutes steel will go beyond its normal design capacity, if you compound this by removing lateral retsraints, thereby halving its load bearing capacity, you are looking at exceeding design limits within 1-2 minutes of a fire.

The fact that the WTC stood for a over an hour during these conditions is a credit to its original designers, and the guys who put it together.

Surely if someone wanted to demolish the tower for some evil (but as yet unspecified) purpose, they would have detonated their thermite pretty soon after the plane impacted, not wait over an hour to bring it down, yes/no?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[cumplidor 0]

Okay, you guys have seemed to argue that the collapes were totally logical and probable, nothing at all out of the ordinary other than small handful of terror crazed arabs attacking us, which then completely and totally justifies unending war.

Nothing at all causes questions in your minds? The molten steel weeks later? The pristine Passport found conviently on top of the rubble when the whole plane went into the building and exploded?? The oddness that ALL of the security of the most powerful nation in the world all stood down at the same time? The odd calmness of our President while reading about goats? The odd behavior of our Admin to not initiate an investigation for a whole year? Suspention of civil rights to protect us (isn't this why the bill of rights were written by the forefathers? to prevent this EXACT situation?) Oddness that a majority of individuals (per CNN web poll who agree with Charlie Sheen) are wanting a more complete investigation, but it is getting very little media. You all skip some points I have asked about.

Come on, there are some incredibly intelligent people on this board that I know participate in critical free thinking much more than this. We need to bond together and demand answers from the administration, not bicker among ourselves about anything other than regaining control of our Govt from the corporations.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Don't get me wrong, the likes of Billvon and myself share your opinion of Mr Bush.
Check the history of these pages, many of us have been pretty vocal in our criticism of his performance over the last couple of years.

However to be taken seriously around here, you have to attack him in a credible way. Suggesting some sort of conspiracy by your govt is, in my mind, not really credible.

He may not have managed the aftermath particularly well, but I really don't think that he orchestrated this attrocity

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

He may not have managed the aftermath particularly well, but I really don't think that he orchestrated this attrocity

I am not attacking Bush, and I CERTAINLY don't think he orchastrated the attacks of 9-11 (nor the Iraq invasion, etc). W is simply a figurehead. There are many who pull his strings, and I do believe it is quite possible he had fore-knowledge. The level of corruption throughout our govt is unbelievable, and wherever corruption exists, there exists many people trying to cover it up. 9-11 served as a springboard to suspend the Bill of Rights, and usher in the new era of governing through fear.

This level of corruption is what I am attacking. Not a political party, as they are BOTH at fault, and just as crooked, and traitors to you and I if they vote for personal profit and power over the welfare of those who put them there. They are not protecting our freedoms, our jobs, or much of anything unless it is related to re-election or campaign donations...

***GOD BLESS the HONORABLE DR. RON PAUL of Tx - He is a TRUE Patriot and my hero***

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Okay, you guys have seemed to argue that the collapes were totally logical and probable, nothing at all out of the ordinary other than small handful of terror crazed arabs attacking us, which then completely and totally justifies unending war.

wrong.

The "official" story is ALSO a conspiracy theory. It is however a conspiracy theory that involves a conspiracy by a small bunch of Al Quaeda terrorists. And there is overwhelming evidence for it, and the perps have even admitting doing it. The same group has launched attacks in other cities all around the world.

The far-out spooky conspiracy theory floating around the internet about a secret government plot to deliberately blow up the WTC involves FAR more people to be involved in it. By the principle of Occams razor, the theory that involves a smaller number of entities is more likely to be true.

But not for tinfoil hat Conspiracy Theorists. They always go for the theory that involves the LARGEST number of conspirators. It makes life more interesting if there are huge government institutions involved. Especially if the conspiracy theory serves to re-affirm one's political dislike of a certain group, such as the current administration.

Most of us are pretty pissed off about the Bush administration & its useless war in Iraq, but we don't have to concoct fantastic conspiracy theories to support our beliefs.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Gravitymaster 0]

I would also add that as much as Bin Laden and AQ hate Bush, it seems logical that if the US Govt. were involved, that they would have presented some proof of that by now.

-

[billvon 3,132]

>Okay, you guys have seemed to argue that the collapes were
>totally logical and probable, nothing at all out of the ordinary . . .

What do you mean, nothing out of the ordinary? That's like saying that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was nothing out of the ordinary. It was certainly out of the ordinary - but what happened there was the result of nuclear physics, not a conspiracy of the Japanese government to kill hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and blame it on the US.

>Nothing at all causes questions in your minds?

If you search the world you will find a great many odd things happened that day. That's because the world is a big place, not because 9/11 was a big conspiracy.

You're an intelligent guy as well. Which of the following is the more probable:

1) The night before 9/11, thousands of people entered the WTC to plant hundreds of charges against the structural members, running 20 miles of wire through air conditioning ducts to coordinate the explosives. They then coordinated with Arab extremists (who suddenly started to trust US agents) to get them to hijack four airplanes. They infiltrated the military to shut down all US defenses (because the military loves to let people attack the US.)

Then on the morning of September 11th, they had those people fly the planes into the buildings. They told the president to just sit there (because just sitting there, reading to kids, after the US has been attacked is the best cover he could have.) They evacuated most of the building; no one saw any of the wires, detonators, charges etc. They waited a few hours to detonate the charges for some reason, then detonated them in such a way as to LOOK exactly like the building collapsed.

Since then, all the military people who let the attack happen, all the people who planted the charges, all the people who coordinated with Al Qaeda, all the people who triggered the charges, all the people who stopped inspecting the building - NONE have talked. Even though talking would instantly net them millions and unprecedented fame.

Or:

2) Al Qaeda, who threatened to strike the US using aircraft, struck the US using aircraft, and achieved some of their goals. We screwed up and gave them the opportunity to do it.

Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. It often sheds light on issues like this.

[SpeedRacer 1]

and don't forget how all the Jewish workers at the WTC phoned in sick that day.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[cumplidor 0]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. It is nice to have folks that will talk to me about it

Quote

nothing at all out of the ordinary . . .
What do you mean, nothing out of the ordinary?

regarding the steel building collapsing due to fire. Except you left out the other part about crazed arabs, enabling unending war.

Nuclear physics brought the towers down? Is that how the molten steel got there 4 weeks later?

Quote

Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. It often sheds light on issues like this.

Oversimplification often clouds issues such as this. Our Founding Fathers fought against the very type of government we have today. An empire. Throughout history various governments have lied to their population to lead their sheeple in the proper direction and avoid insurrection.

Now unless you believe that our Govt doesn't fall into that catagory, or you don't think that we have an Empire, or at least working towards it (with Britian and Isreal's help), I would imagine that we would CONSTANTLY question motives of politicians, thier lobbies and anyone else who is profiting from the taxpayer's hard work. And encourage it from each other...

Please Billvon (or anyone else) tell me how the official story explains the following:
1. the molten steel found in wreckage weeks after the collape
2. how can massive wings dicentigrate (pentagon) yet they can positively ID the bodies of almost all 65 passengers?
3. does it seem odd that a unscathed passport would survive and be found on top of the rubble, but how if the whole plane went into the building and exploded?
4. why won't they release the pictures from the highway dept or the hotel?
5. the 'security upgrades' that took place 2 weeks before the attacks, in which the buildings were evacuated and powered down. then the removal of bomb sniffing dogs and other security
6. Bush's brother being in charge of the security company in charge of the towers
7. Neo-conservitives calling for a 21st Century Pearl Habor?
8. Bush's brother being in charge of Florida.
(sorry disregard the last one...heh)

Thanks-

[billvon 3,132]

>1. the molten steel found in wreckage weeks after the collape

Fires burned for weeks after the collapse. Fires are sometimes hot.

>2. how can massive wings dicentigrate (pentagon) yet they can positively
> ID the bodies of almost all 65 passengers?

You can positively ID hamburger with DNA analysis.

>3. does it seem odd that a unscathed passport would survive and be found
>on top of the rubble, but how if the whole plane went into the building and
>exploded?

Nope. After tornados, intact straws and sheets of paper are found embedded two inches into treetrunks. How did a sheet of paper find its way from inside a house, not get ripped to pieces, then get embedded in a treetrunk? Random chance.

>4. why won't they release the pictures from the highway dept or the hotel?

Because:

a) they don't show anything and they are normally classified
b) they show half of a kid's face on the ground or something
c) there's no reason to.

>5. the 'security upgrades' that took place 2 weeks before the attacks,
>in which the buildings were evacuated and powered down. then the
>removal of bomb sniffing dogs and other security

My building had such an upgrade 2 years ago. No 757's yet.

>6. Bush's brother being in charge of the security company in charge
>of the towers

Bush's brother is now in charge of Florida. Coincidence, or evidence of a worldwide conspiracy?

>7. Neo-conservitives calling for a 21st Century Pearl Habor?

If you really were plotting a Pearl Harbor, telling everyone you wanted it to happen would be about the dumbest idea ever, no? Sorta like bank robbers walking around saying "we're gonna hit the National Bank real soon! Hear that, cops?"

[sundevil777 102]

So, now the govt is able to get a building to fall faster than it normally would when collapsing. That is a neat trick, if it actually had happened.

We should be able to turn that around and have anti gravity - no problem.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Oversimplification often clouds issues such as this. Our Founding Fathers fought against the very type of government we have today. An empire. Throughout history various governments have lied to their population to lead their sheeple in the proper direction and avoid insurrection.

Now unless you believe that our Govt doesn't fall into that catagory, or you don't think that we have an Empire, or at least working towards it (with Britian and Isreal's help), I would imagine that we would CONSTANTLY question motives of politicians, thier lobbies and anyone else who is profiting from the taxpayer's hard work. And encourage it from each other...

I agree with the basic idea of what you've said about our government's imperialistic attitudes.


But by your reasoning we're all acting like a bunch of sheeple unless we embrace the biggest, wildest & most-evil sounding conspiracy we can pull out of our asses.

You are still ignoring the fact that there are HUGE numbers of people on just this forum, for example, who vehemently diagree with & challenge the President's decisions. Concocting bloated, fantastic conspiracy theories is not necessary to question the government.


And your above two paragraphs indicate to me that this, like most conspiracy theories, is motivated by an attempt to re-affirm a political feeling, rather than a rational attempt to describe what actually happened.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[cumplidor 0]

UNCLE! UNCLE!!

[cumplidor 0]

Good call, thanks I'm done.