Can anyone deal with another snarkless thread here?

[Bonobo]

I just want some nice conversation about the following. Let's see if we can keep it real, but keep it nice.

1.) When those planes hit the towers, I sure would have expected them to fall after first buckling to one side where the majority of the structural damage and jet fuel fires were. Wouldn't that be the weakest point and wouldn't that be where a failure would occur -leading to a less "CD-esque" fall (LOL -just kidding)? Wouldn't that be the most "intuitive" prediction?

2.) Doesn't the lack of more clear photos of a plane and bodies and wreckage SOMETIMES frustrate you and make you wish there were more, so that us "truthers" would shut up about it?

3.) Do you EVER think it odd that everyone was so certain about Bin Laden that very day? Admittedly he was on the watch list, but even so, surely there are many who hate America enough to do such a thing. Also, it wasn't as if it required a hugely complex plot. Organizationally, a football team in a high school would seemingly have all the capabilities of doing the same thing -if you will accept the absurdity of that statement to make a point.

4.) Do you ever wish you could find more photos or video or even written accounts of steel girder high rise building falling down due to fire weakening the structural elements? Are there such cases? Can you link me to them?

5.) Is it possible, in your minds, that the "Let's Roll" story of the Pennsylvania flight was made up in the same way that the Jessica Lynch story was? To manipulate public opinion?

I would really like to hear your answers everyone, minus snark if at all possible. Thank you. Remember, we are all friends and Americans and we were all affected that terrible day.

[BeachBaby]

1. I'll give this a try:

*Let me preface this by saying that I have NEVER believed the official story (meaning, that OBL and his team did this alone from the outside)*

1. To be honest, total collapses of those buildings never entered my mind; and from everyone I had talked to, that had been there that day working in the financial district, none of them had been warned of such a possible outcome. The only thing they had been warned about was falling debris - and so they were told to move quickly away so as not to get hit in the head.

2. Ayup. One of my biggest complaints throughout all of my reading/research, is the overwhelming supply of blurry, smoky photos.

3. Not necessarily. He has been FBI's Most Wanted for a long time, for other attacks on US interests. As a matter of fact, Howard Stern was on his radio show that day, and he actually said something like "I know who did this - it was Bin Laden". To add to that, remember that the Bush Administration had received a memo in early August - just a little over a month prior - warning them of such an attack.

4. I believe that what happened to those buildings on 9/11 were unprecedented results, and also have not happened since then - but I could be wrong.

5. I suppose. But I can't say that I've really cared all that much about Todd's comment. :)

Yes. We were all affected that day. It left a permanent scar on our psyches. It woke us up to our vulnerabilities. Even almost 8 years later, it still crosses my mind, at some point, every day.

[Make7]

2. That's funny. ( n/t )

[Bonobo]

3. Buh-bye. There was NO reason to make any response, so next time just stay zipped, ok? nt

[Ohio Joe]

4. Sure

1.) When those planes hit the towers, I sure would have expected them to fall after first buckling to one side where the majority of the structural damage and jet fuel fires were. Wouldn't that be the weakest point and wouldn't that be where a failure would occur -leading to a less "CD-esque" fall (LOL -just kidding)? Wouldn't that be the most "intuitive" prediction?

You may have to wait on this because I am having issues with movies right now. I do seem to recall though that the towers did in fact start twist and lean into the damaged sections first (above the impact point). I'll look for the video I have in mind when I can do that again... a few weeks :(

2.) Doesn't the lack of more clear photos of a plane and bodies and wreckage SOMETIMES frustrate you and make you wish there were more, so that us "truthers" would shut up about it?

I always find this a bit odd. Honestly, how much do you expect to see... These were not accidents where the pilots were trying not to crash, they were full speed collisions with buildings (or nose first into the ground for PA). I am actually surprised at how much there is considering the impacts.

3.) Do you EVER think it odd that everyone was so certain about Bin Laden that very day? Admittedly he was on the watch list, but even so, surely there are many who hate America enough to do such a thing. Also, it wasn't as if it required a hugely complex plot. Organizationally, a football team in a high school would seemingly have all the capabilities of doing the same thing -if you will accept the absurdity of that statement to make a point.

It is true that there are other groups that hate America but how many of them use suicide tactics? I think him being the most likely suspect to be reasonable.

4.) Do you ever wish you could find more photos or video or even written accounts of steel girder high rise building falling down due to fire weakening the structural elements? Are there such cases? Can you link me to them?

No, not at all. They did not fall because of fire alone, they fell because of a combination of have a passenger plane slam into them at full speed, explode and then the fires. Can you show me any such case where this has happened before? I don't know of any. I know planes have hit buildings but I am unaware of any that have done so at such speed and exploded on impact. The damage must have been massive from that alone.

5.) Is it possible, in your minds, that the "Let's Roll" story of the Pennsylvania flight was made up in the same way that the Jessica Lynch story was? To manipulate public opinion?

True... As far as I know there is only the word of Lisa Jefferson that it is true. I believe it did in fact happen as related here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1360088/The-extraordinary-last-calls-of-Flight-UA93.html

"It was now about 9.50am, and Todd Beamer, still, on the line to Lisa Jefferson had come to the conclusion that he was likely to die and that he ought to do something to prevent the plane reaching its intended target. Yet he was reluctant to break his call to the sympathetic stranger on the other end of the line. "He wanted me to recite the Lord's Prayer with him. And he did. He recited the Lord's Prayer from start to finish," said Mrs Jefferson, who spoke the words with him for comfort.

"From that point, he said, he's going to have to go out on faith because `they're talking about jumping the guy with the bomb'."

Mr Beamer then sighed long and loud down the line. He was still holding the telephone, but he had turned to speak to other passengers. Then he said: `You ready? OK. Let's roll.""

Now... Was this played up in a huge way? Yes, it was but honestly, I think it really was a heroic moment for them. I think they knew they were about to die and gave it all they had to try and stop what was happening. I also think the cockpit recorder back up that the passengers did in fact try to stop them. Did they breach the cockpit or not seems to be in dispute but regardless, I think it forced them to crash the plane in PA and not reach whatever their target may have been.

[Bonobo]

5. Beautiful response and 100% snark free.

Thank you.

-Reclaiming the dungeon from the snark monsters, one step at a time!

[Ohio Joe]

40. No problem

I would be interested in your response to what I've put forth. I am a little fuzzy on if you hold to the positions in the OP or if you were simply posing the questions from a "CT" side of things.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. on point 1, I think all agree that the tops tilted

IIRC, there's dramatic visual imagery for WTC 2 -- subtler for 1.

Then it gets tricky, because I don't understand Bonobo's apparent intuition that the buildings therefore would collapse differently than they did. It has always seemed to me that once the tops start to fall, they will fall down (i.e., gravity will dominate) -- not over and off, if that is the alternative.

[tenseconds]

7. 20 degree tilt

Shouldn't have the south tower fallen at a 20 degree angle corresponding to it's 20 degree axis tilt according to the law of angular momentum?

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. I don't think the top part fully stopped tipping.

I think the debris footprint would attest to that. It was the tipping that resulted in the floors beneath it collpasing straight down.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. walk through that in more detail

I'm not even sure what these words mean. If the top of the tower tilts to 20 degrees, how would that force the rest of the tower to fall "at a 20 degree angle"? What would that look like? For instance, would the whole tower tilt 20 degrees, and then fall straight down from wherever it had tilted to?

Angular momentum suggests that the top will continue to tilt until and unless something stops it. I'm not sure what, if anything, it suggests about the rest of the tower.

[tenseconds]

14. less than clear

I apologize for being less than clear.

The top severed section of the building would fall at the angle that the that section has achieved upon the initiation of the fall.

As it appears to me the lower floors of the top section of building 2 are being demolished at the onset of the collapse.This nullifies the collapse with angularity as half or so of the top section has exploded in mid air before those floors can begin to descend.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. it's hard to do this in English

and I can't draw worth a damn ;) So, we'll both have to accept that we won't always be clear, at least the first time around.

When you write, "This nullifies the collapse with angularity," I think you're somewhat agreeing with me that the tilt of the top would in no way cause the rest of the tower to fall at an angle. But your earlier post seemed to say the opposite. So, I'm confused.

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. snarkless

1. I didn't know what to expect. I was shocked when the buildings collapsed. But when I actually did some research I came to realize there was never any other way for them to fall.

The top part buildings had no structural strength once it tipped passed vertical.

2. Sure.

3. No. OBL tried the same thing in 1993. Glad you don't subscribe to the "a bunch of cavemen couldn't have pulled this off".

4. No. The fire didn't bring the building down. The damage from the planecrash didn't bring the building down. They both did. One with out the other and they would not have fallen.

5. No. Too many earwitnesses, and as stated the CVR/FDR corroborates the story.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Please make clear that snark isn't the failing of one side here.

1.) When those planes hit the towers, I sure would have expected them to fall after first buckling to one side where the majority of the structural damage and jet fuel fires were. Wouldn't that be the weakest point and wouldn't that be where a failure would occur -leading to a less "CD-esque" fall (LOL -just kidding)? Wouldn't that be the most "intuitive" prediction?

The South Tower did tilt down toward the direction of most damage. It tilted to the southeast, right toward the initial damage and the damage caused when the perimeter columns along the south finally buckled.

The North Tower was hit square on in the north face, but the fires burned around to the south side of the building. That's where the perimeter columns bucked to start the global collapse, and there was a tilt toward the south. It caused the illusion from the north that the antenna falls first before the rest of the building. Actually, the south side is falling first, the middle after, and the north right after.

2.) Doesn't the lack of more clear photos of a plane and bodies and wreckage SOMETIMES frustrate you and make you wish there were more, so that us "truthers" would shut up about it?

I suspect that there are and they have not been released due to concerns for the family. I've long ago reconciled to myself that this will be used by 9/11 Truth advocates. However, I've seen more than enough pictures of bodies and wreckage to satisfy myself. That's the only person I can control.

3.) Do you EVER think it odd that everyone was so certain about Bin Laden that very day? Admittedly he was on the watch list, but even so, surely there are many who hate America enough to do such a thing. Also, it wasn't as if it required a hugely complex plot. Organizationally, a football team in a high school would seemingly have all the capabilities of doing the same thing -if you will accept the absurdity of that statement to make a point.

The FBI and CIA got the passenger manifests within an hour or so of the attack and immediately began recognizing names on the list. And I reject that "everyone was so certain about Bin Laden that very day." We'd just gone through the Oklahoma City bombing a few years before, and there was open and pervasive speculation on foreign Muslim terrorists doing this until Timothy McVeigh was captured. After that experience, I paid careful attention during the attack and for the next few days to see who would be blamed. (And at the time I worked in a bar with a television set and then went home and watched TV and surfed the net.) It was two or three days before people started definitely saying that it was bin Laden, and until that point, no one was confirming much and the news channels weren't pushing him exclusively.

4.) Do you ever wish you could find more photos or video or even written accounts of steel girder high rise building falling down due to fire weakening the structural elements? Are there such cases? Can you link me to them?

No, I do not, because that would mean property damage and perhaps injury and death on an unimaginable scale. To paraphrase Jesus, "If 9/11 Truth advocates will not believe with the scientific evidence already available, they will not believe more evidence if and when it becomes available."

I've written about this at my website, but the short version is that buildings don't fall down because there is a multi-layered safety net to keep them in the air. It consists of modern design methods, rigorous construction codes, careful attention to the construction process, safety features throughout the building, and a fire department ready to jump in and tackle any fire that arises. On 9/11, all of these factors were negated for those three buildings. All three collapses had massive damage and unfought fires. No matter how careful and safe the design and construction is, the building can't work right if it sustains massive damage and fires. You don't see 47 story buildings built where a professional fire department can't get to it or where they aren't subject to a stringent building code. Well, unless you're building a pyramid, and then it's hard for fire to cause stones stacked on top of stones to fall over.

5.) Is it possible, in your minds, that the "Let's Roll" story of the Pennsylvania flight was made up in the same way that the Jessica Lynch story was? To manipulate public opinion?

It was hyped, and even Lisa Beamer has said that, I believe. It was more an offhand remark that Todd would just say.

[Bonobo]

13. There is plenty of snark on both sides, Bolo!

I just want to play a role in stopping it. It is a serious impediment to comunication, don't you think?

I have not yet read your above post. I will do so carefully when I have the time.

Thanks.

[CLANG]

11. My completely snark-less reply

controlled demolition. eom

[Ohio Joe]

16. It would be appreciated if you would address the questions

Some certainly, I myself answered in the form of an opinion but if you have actual facts to back up your thoughts, they would be nice.

[CLANG]

17. I am full of facts. You can start at the link below.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[SDuderstadt]

18. How do you know your "source" is actually factual?

For example, they grossly underestimate the time it took WTC7 to fall.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

21. I don't listen to Rush or Glen either one...

simply asked you how you know what you cite is factual and you smear me by implying I'm a RWer. stupid response...are you going to deal with facts or smear people?

[CLANG]

23. I don't debate people that refuse to face the truth - bye

[SDuderstadt]

27. You also have provided not one verifiable fact...

yet you claim I refuse to "face the truth"?

[CLANG]

29. I gave you a link. Also google is your friend

[SDuderstadt]

31. If you make a claim, it's YOUR burden of proof...

not mine.

[CLANG]

34. I don't do burden, sorry.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Oh, yeah, you do...

or you forfeit the debate.

You're being asked for proof of YOUR claims. Telling ME to look it up doesn't cut it, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Your link is to an error-riddled website. You can find reasons and evidence why at the link below.

http://ae911truth.info

[CLANG]

22. Oh, I should get my info from YOUR PERSONAL SITE OF FACTS?

What a joke! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

24. Properly sourced facts....

are you going to deal with facts or continue to smear people...which happens to be snark?

[CLANG]

25. Please stop!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

26. Stop what?

Asking you for facts?

[CLANG]

28. I provided a link to you - that should keep you quite busy

if your aim is REALLY to find the truth

[SDuderstadt]

30. I've been through their site from start to finish....

are you interested in debating their numerous errors?

[CLANG]

32. I won't nitpick small errors

What they prove is that controlled demolition took down 3 buildings.

[SDuderstadt]

33. They aren't "small errors", dude....

and they proved nothing of the sort.

[CLANG]

35. Well, you keep believing your neocon fairytale!

[SDuderstadt]

37. I'm going to ask you politely one time...

to cease insinuating or implying I'm a RWer, dude. Your character smears are despicable.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Perhaps you could produce something from my site that's incorrect. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

39. OK, I've looked at your website

Collapsedppears to address one of the questions:

4.) Do you ever wish you could find more photos or video or even written accounts of steel girder high rise building falling down due to fire weakening the structural elements? Are there such cases? Can you link me to them?

It does so with this:

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

These items may be true, they sound reasonable so I will not debate them in and of themselves. I would ask though, why are several other facts regarding the collapses completely ignored? There is no mention of the fact that the towers were hit at full speed by large passenger planes that exploded on impact, certainly causing massive damage. To try and pass of the collapses as the result of fire alone is simply not honest. In addition, item number 2 listed above is simply not true in its context, remove the word "intact" and the statement is what happened (though the site claims it did not) but the idea that the upper portion should remain "intact" as its support is crumbling and being crushed underneath it makes no sense.

How do you address these issues? Also, do you plan on addressing any of the other questions put forth by the OP?