OT: What's Wrong With This Picture?

Page 3 of 3  

George wrote:

As an aside, The North Tower stood for one hundred and two minutes after being struck. The South Tower only fifty-six minutes, about half as long.
The difference can be ascribed, partly, to the insulation used on the structural steel beams. In the North Tower, asbestos was the insulating material, in the South Tower, concrete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/2/2010 15:47, HeyBub wrote:

All of the asbestos fireproofing in WTC 1 had been removed during remediation projects prior to 9/11. WTC 2 had partial asbestos insulation remaining that was being replaced in stages. Encasing steel elements in concrete is a good but very heavy way to protect them from fire effects but not commonly used in the WTC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Not true. Some asbestos fireproofing material was removed, but not that used on the structural steel. This is in keeping with standard abatement procedures that dictate non-removal when there is no danger from airborne particulates.
No asbestos was used in the construction of WTC2.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I still have doubt about JFK. The pristine bullet. Oswald being able to fire off that many rounds that fast and hit his target with a rifle one was lucky if they could hit the ground with. The hustling of the body out of town back to Bethesda. Conflicting/missing autopsy reports. The back of his skull being blown out instead of the front.
I doubt all that will ever see the light of day.
We're all too stupid to comprehend this stuff. All we're good for is to provide the funds for private jets, $25 caviar wedgies, and a lifestyle for the rich and notorious.
Time tells all. I believe I have a pretty good idea what happened. Good enough to satisfy my own answers. No need for me to be a crusader and tell the world. There will be a few brave souls who do that, but then, maybe not, as there is still a lump under the carpet re: JFK, MM, etc.
It's like living in a mob city. Just shut up. Didn't see anything. Don't know anything.
And all that falderal and rumor that there were fat old men sitting in back rooms somewhere drinking brandy and smoking cigars and setting policy for all the world's energy and money. Pure poppycock, I say.
But that's because I want to keep my head, My Lord.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/3/2010 22:09, Steve B wrote:

No offense but speak for yourself. Lots of folks are capable of analyzing a situation and validating it based on their education and experience.
I have no issues with how an airliner that weighed ~350,000 pounds and nearly fully loaded with fuel traveling at 650 MPH at impact would be capable of inflicting the damage it did with the resulting structural failure considering the technique used to support each floor deck and the properties of the materials.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That eliminates 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the general public. Does that constitute "most"?

We agree on something, then.
I just think there is more to it than we will ever be told.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/3/2010 20:08, HeyBub wrote:

But that isn't true. Asbestos was the contemporary fireproofing material when the buildings were constructed. Even though it wasn't friable and actually very robust the "asbestos is like radiation" folks made enough noise to have it remediated. One of the interesting hypothetical arguments is that the very robust asbestos fireproofing material that was removed might have remained intact during the collision.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Asbestos was used as fireproofing material on floors 1-40 of WTC1 and not at all on WTC2. The ban on asbestos went into effect before construction started on WTC2.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly who are these "legitimate investigators" that are working to refute the official story? And if they are legitimate, unbiased and actually seek the truth, why is it that they are "working to refute the official story?"
From everything I've seen, the people still "investigating" are out to do exactly what you stated above. That is to disprove the official conclusions, because they made up their minds long ago that the original investigation was wrong and there is a big conspiracy. In fact, the overwhelming number of alternate theories would REQUIRE not only a government conspiracy, but the most massive and successful conspiracy in history.
In almost every case, these "investigators" are investigating areas clearly outside their qualifications. The longest running "investigators" and source of much misinformation were high school students at the "Loose Change" website. And as soon as one stupid claim is dismissed, eg "cell phones can't work from airplanes", "steel doesn't melt at 1500F so the buildings couldn't have come down from fire, etc, they move on to even more absurd accusations. Some of these guys actually make a business off of this nonsense, selling videos, T shirts, soliciting contributions, etc.
At the end of the day, there will always be some unanswered questions, some pieces of data that don't fit in. These so called investigators just grab on to anything, they can, then seek the scenario that's inconsistent with the official explanation, while ignoring any alternate scenarios. If every single thing had to be perfectly consistent, we'd never get a conviction in a criminal trial. There is always some measure of conflicting evidence or inconsistency. Yet, juries do what the 911 theorists refuse to do. They weigh ALL the information in a fair way and come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. And for most of us, in the case of 911, that occurred long ago.
reply: I agree with you except the "reasonable doubt" part. My mind has doubts, and I am a reasonable and prudent person. Other than that, it's a circus. A paid circus at that.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just for the record, being a reasonable person and having some doubts remaining is different than the legal definition of "being certain beyond a reasonable doubt." There can still be some doubt due to some unanswered question. If you insist on resolving EVERY last question or issue, then you wind up with guys like OJ getting away with murder.
We've heard from Smitty on his doubts. I'd be happy to hear what reasonble doubts you have left about the official 911 investigation and explanation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just for the record, being a reasonable person and having some doubts remaining is different than the legal definition of "being certain beyond a reasonable doubt." There can still be some doubt due to some unanswered question. If you insist on resolving EVERY last question or issue, then you wind up with guys like OJ getting away with murder.
We've heard from Smitty on his doubts. I'd be happy to hear what reasonble doubts you have left about the official 911 investigation and explanation.
reply: That eye witnesses who saw and heard things were not interviewed or in the report. That the scientist from BYU who said he found explosive or thermite residue was not in the report, and essentially soon afterward fired. That the debris was hustled off so fast. That the official position is that the black boxes were never found when there are witnesses who saw them, and bits of human flesh as small as 1/8" were found. That there is still evidence locked away that the public does not have access to. That the attitude is "the question is answered, and there are no more facts to be learned, and we don't want to hear what anyone has to say". That a witness has stated he heard the black box recordings, and the hijackers were in the cockpit before the plane took off. That there were no military planes scrambled.
I could go on and on and on. I can only list these, but not explain them because as a mere citizen, I'm not allowed access to the evidence. Security and all that. All of these things need protecting. From whom? People with cotton swabs?
I think a public appeal should be made by an independent group for people to bring in anything they have that might have residue on it, and for people to bring in all "souvenirs" they picked up that day. I should think that there would even be some dust laying around in gutters and building mortar cracks that could be collected by motivated scientists.
Unless, of course, it's something that we DON'T want to know..........
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Here's an interesting question: Suppose it was discovered that the "government" WAS responsible? How would that change anything?
We're pretty much convinced, today, that the Battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor because of a coal dust explosion, and not by Spanish saboteurs. Should we give the Philippines back to Spain? What if we could prove that Roosevelt knew about an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Should we dig him up an put him on trial? What if DNA could prove the dude selling Slurpies at a Stop-N-Rob in Duluth really IS Elvis? Could we force him to go on tour?
If one plays the "what if?" game, one should also play the "what then?" portion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's just like Usenet. Give it two weeks, everyone forgets about it, and they're off to the next thing. We already know that Washington is just a bunch of stealing lying thugs anyway.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.