More 9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

[Alcibiades223]

So I just finished interviewing the former Clemson professor who wrote this:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

What are the thoughts and opinions and those more versed in engineering and physics than me.

[Jeff The Great]

Provides no proof that explosives were placed in the WTC towers. Showing how one theory "can't happen" doesn't prove the alternative did happen.

/easy

EDIT:
Don't be fooled by the math, the big words or the pseudo scientific language. You can still make a series of correct, logically accurate statements, but the overall premise and conclusion is still wrong.

On a personal note, Judy Wood was arguably the dumbest person I've ever met, and by far the most incompetant instructor Clemson has ever hired. My friends in her Statics class learned nothing. She was a terrible lecturer, had no grasp of the concepts involved, was disorganized, unpleasent both inside and outside of class and completely failed to produce any meaningful research while at Clemson.

[AvatarAang]

I thought she was the best teacher I ever had

[ZeroNine7]

Some interesting questions were raised and then answered with astoundingly bad logic/engineering. A better model would have been energy-based instead of a bunch of fucking billiard balls.

Cumulative energy of each falling floor minus the energy required to buckle the columns on the floor below could pretty easily come up with a "back of the envelope" calculation as to how much time would be needed for the collapse to occur.

edit:

Originally Posted by article

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

from

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

[Vash]

Originally Posted by Alcibiades223

So I just finished interviewing the former Clemson professor who wrote this:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

What are the thoughts and opinions and those more versed in engineering and physics than me.

I prolly don't know more engineering than you--maybe a little more physics, dunno, but I have to say that even I (who does believe that the Bush administration is CAPABLE of sending thousands of people to their deaths for political advantage) haven't seen anything I'd consider anywhere NEAR definitive proof that there were explosives on the inside of these buildings. I'm really surprised that there hasn't been more attention paid to what I think has been much better established--that the Bushies purposefully neglected terrorism partially because their goals were elsewhere and partially because they knew if something DID happen, it would help, not hurt, their plans to consolidate power in the executive branch. THAT is something you can make a much better case for. (Not that you want to. I'm just sayin you COULD.)

[king]

Originally Posted by Vash

I'm really surprised that there hasn't been more attention paid to what I think has been much better established--that the Bushies purposefully neglected terrorism...

And Clinton's reign wasn't guilty of the same ignorance?

I would argue it was, and to a greater degree. Having Osama's head on a plate and being too pussy (in several ways) to pull the trigger...THAT's terrorism.

[disco stu]

That woman was a crazy bitch. She would bring her cats to review sessions...

She was also in a coma for like 10 years.

[Vash]

Originally Posted by king

And Clinton's reign wasn't guilty of the same ignorance?

I would argue it was, and to a greater degree. Having Osama's head on a plate and being too pussy (in several ways) to pull the trigger...THAT's terrorism.

Are you watching Face the Nation right now? They're talking about George Tenet (CIA Director) going to Condi Rice in JULY and TELLING her that about Al Queida's plans to attack, and being basically told to GTFO. Reality check: Clinton WASN'T president when 9/11 happened, was he? No. That was W. Here's another one: Bush was warned about Al Queida and didn't want to be bothered. 9/11 happened on HIS watch, dude. There is no amount of revisionist history that can make that not true. And if you have evidence that Clinton could have gotten Osama's "head on a plate" I'd really like to see it. Seriously.

[ThatGuy]

Originally Posted by Jeff The Great

On a personal note, Judy Wood was arguably the dumbest person I've ever met, and by far the most incompetant instructor Clemson has ever hired. My friends in her Statics class learned nothing. She was a terrible lecturer, had no grasp of the concepts involved, was disorganized, unpleasent both inside and outside of class and completely failed to produce any meaningful research while at Clemson.

QFT.

[ZeroNine7]

Originally Posted by disco stu

That woman was a crazy bitch. She would bring her cats to review sessions...

She was also in a coma for like 10 years.

she did have some shitty luck in life, if I recall. I believe she was a really good cyclist until she got hit by a car. That could mess anyone up, having your life turned around like that.

[P3R3]

I am putting on my tinfoil hat atm

[king]

Originally Posted by Vash

Are you watching Face the Nation right now? They're talking about George Tenet (CIA Director) going to Condi Rice in JULY and TELLING her that about Al Queida's plans to attack, and being basically told to GTFO. Reality check: Clinton WASN'T president when 9/11 happened, was he? No. That was W.

I am aware who was President. Thank you for today's "Obvious Fucking History Lesson of the Day"...
That has nothing to do with the fact that Osama could have been DEAD during the Clinton presidency...and that is what I'm trying to point out.

Originally Posted by vash

Here's another one: Bush was warned about Al Queida and didn't want to be bothered. 9/11 happened on HIS watch, dude. There is no amount of revisionist history that can make that not true. And if you have evidence that Clinton could have gotten Osama's "head on a plate" I'd really like to see it. Seriously.

Hey dude, check this out!: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34942

The fact that Clinton had the chance to eradicate Bin Laden is very very well documented. Sadly, he was too busy being a pussy, and licking fat girls' pussies. I guess he was preoccupied with his own agenda, all the while making the world a more dangerous place.

Learn to spell Al Queda correctly and then we can continue this conversation.

[StevenZ]

Originally Posted by king

I am aware who was President. Thank you for today's "Obvious Fucking History Lesson of the Day"...
...

Learn to spell Al Queda correctly and then we can continue this conversation.

Lets tone down the aggression and ad-homs, here...

[boblamonta]

Originally Posted by king

Hey dude, check this out!: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34942

The fact that Clinton had the chance to eradicate Bin Laden is very very well documented. Sadly, he was too busy being a pussy, and licking fat girls' pussies. I guess he was preoccupied with his own agenda, all the while making the world a more dangerous place.

Learn to spell Al Queda correctly and then we can continue this conversation.

If it's very, very well documented why did you provide a 3 year old, inconsistent article quoting an anonymous "senior Pentagon official familiar with covert counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan at the time" instead of something actually substantial?

"There was actionable intelligence provided by that gear, by the optics," he said. "But once it went up the chain of command, it got into stuff like, 'How sure are you guys about that 6-5 guy in the middle of that group? It kind of looks like him, but how sure are you?'"

Really, is that what it was like at the top when people were all like discussing whether or not a 6-5 guy in the middle of a group of people was bin Laden or not? That article read like a facebook profile.

PS There is no "correct" way to spell Al Qaeda because it comes from a non-latin based alphabet, therefore there are multiple phonetic interpretations based on approximations of pronunciation when it's transliterated.

[levine]

Originally Posted by king

Hey dude, check this out!: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34942
The fact that Clinton had the chance to eradicate Bin Laden is very very well documented.

Every point in that article (edit: about Clinton's supposed "opportunity") has been pretty thoroughly debunked, as far as I am aware. There is a myth floating around that Clinton had "Osama in his sights" that's achieved some revitalization thanks to that ABC drama, but it remains firmly in the realm of fantasy. World Net Daily is one big Op Ed journal, BTW.

Originally Posted by king

Learn to spell Al Queda correctly and then we can continue this conversation.

There are two ironies here: one, that Al Qaeda has many alternative and, AFAIK, equally acceptable spellings, and B, that "Al Queda" isn't one of them.