What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
310 Comments
- OLiberty, on 11/09/2007, -10/+113I love this quote... "The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon."
- dukeeeey, on 11/02/2007, -5/+82I find it interesting that Bush senior met with Osama Bin Laden's brother on 911. I'm sure it was just a simple coicidence.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11 ...
Last paragraph. - critthinker, on 11/01/2007, -7/+68FINALLY!
As critthinker has been telling paid shills like "herkmeister" all along, the "official lie" is IMPOSSIBLE according the LAWS OF SCIENCE!
So "herkmeister" what does that leave by process of elimination the reason that the concrete in the WTC towers turned to 50 micron sized powders in less than 15 seconds?
Hint: It rhymes with "erosion'!
Next question, why is this not front page news and who did the thing that rhymes with "erosion"? - Samwizen, on 11/02/2007, -6/+51Even NIST's attempt to explain/describe the "initiation of collapse" is weak, torturous, & pathetic.
And Still Zero explanation for WTC7's 6.6 second symmetric, catastrophic collapse. (i.e, NIST continues to repeatedly delay any explanation for WTC7)
And check the FBI's own official website for Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted Terrorist poster....any ref to 9/11 after 6+ years? -nope
What does it take for Americans to become truly Patriotic & ask a few questions about perhaps the most vital issue (leveraged to start 2 wars, torture, privacy invasions, Constitution-shredding, etc) of our time? - kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -6/+51I find it interesting that they never addressed the thermodynamics. All you get is "jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees and steel loses 80% of it's strength at 1800 degrees" as if one leads to the other.
What they miss out on is jet fuel might burn at 1800 degrees; inside a jet engine. Jet engines feed compressed air at high volume and feed in an atomized spray of fuel at a specific engineered ratio.
Open air kerosene gets no where near that temp and even if it did the BTU liberation form the combustion is only a fraction of what would be needed to heat the steel. Heat transfer also required mass flow, ie: air flow to heat up the target. The the target material requires a "specific" amount of heat to raise it's temperature conveniently referred to as "specific heat".
The optimum ratio for combustion is similar to what your car fuel injection does, mixed a measure mass of air with a measured mass of fuel. These conditions do not occur in an open air fire. You need a massive source of fresh O2 which the WTC towers clearly did not have
When you factor in the heat LOSS from the damage to the building, the connected mass of steel conducting the heat away, the absorption of heat by the moisture in the air you have a set of circumstances that make it impossible to heat the steel above 500 or so degrees. Even that is doubtful, as heating takes time.
When you factor in the cross sectional area of the steel and the likely combustion temps - this can be easily calculated with open source data - then factor the heat radiation and conduction away from the steel, add in the specific heat of the air, moisture and concrete, add the BTU's from the office contents, but take away from the available O2 to the jet fuel by burning carpet.
Then to make matters more interesting, you take away the btu content of the fuel burned up in the fireball ( some uninformed people calling it an explosion - it was NOT an explosion, look up the definition and requirements for an "explosion").
Then just for fun calculate how much fuel ran down the elevator shafts to destroy the main ground floor lobby that the idiots claim. That doesn't leave much in the way of available heat for the steel.
It is amazing to me how some people not just revel in but actually BRAG about their ignorance. You all know who I am talking about. - inactive, on 11/09/2007, -1/+40Total coincidence, just like the fact that the building in it's 31 year long excistence changed ownership only once: 7 weeks before the attacks, when Larry Silverstein's bid was accepted. And just like all the Norad drills around 9/11, and Willie Brown being told not to fly to NYC and the numerous put options. Bush having plans for a full blown war against Al-Qaeda 2 days before the attacks was coincidence as well. http://prisonplanet.com/US_planned_for_attack_on_a ...
- reeder, on 11/01/2007, -6/+36No one ever talks about the molten metal pools, nor the presence of thermite, thermate, and cross-cut steel columns, all of which can only be present in a controlled demolition. I use to be a doubter too, until I looked at all the facts.
We are being conditioned. - sept11insidejob, on 11/01/2007, -6/+34Hey...NIST, psst, psst...maybe you outta include that "explosives planted in the building theory"---it might help explain why they fell the way they fell?
Ya think? - ErikSw, on 11/01/2007, -4/+31I'm going to make copies of this article and pass it out with 911 dvd's. This article is important because it shows the official story is not possible and that leads to many questions and hopefully research by those who have those questions.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -3/+30But will this shut Herhimey56 up?
- speedystriper, on 10/30/2007, -4/+29Good point. Why did they not even consider the possibility that terrorists planted explosives in the buildings? Well I'll tell you why: because terrorists did plant explosives in the buildings, only the terrorists were not from the middle east, but from the bowels of the military industrial complex/national security apparatus. We don't know their exact names, but we know that it was somebody from inside that world that pulled this off. How they ever thought no one would figure this out is stupefying. I truly believe that someone is going to fry for this within the next six years or so. It's sickening, abominable and unacceptable. Whoever was involved should be very frightened right about now. We're coming for you.
- kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -4/+28No, herk enjoys his ignorance way too much.
I used to get amused when his answer to everything was a link to the NIST web site and the claim that all the "science" is there.
I followed one his links one day and got nothing but meeting minutes, the NIST cafeteria menu and one unreferenced and undocumanted FAQ page.
Another tried to show pictures of the WTC showing floor warping, I had to laugh at that one since it showed it warping the wrong direction for the floor joints, which is still silly since the floors were poured concrete which does not warp as shown.
herkimer is a never ending source of amusement. I personally hope he never goes away. As long as the official story has people like that pulling for it more and more observers will ask real questions. - tehowe, on 10/30/2007, -5/+29So this is what being gamed looks like. It's been called externalization of the hierarchy - the fraud of 9/11 will go mainstream and once we're all hopping mad, we'll be looking for blood. If I were a betting man, I'd say it goes down like this: convinced that we've been betrayed and that American democracy and free markets have failed us, in the ensuing domestic chaos we eagerly accept the solution of UN control and integration into the global hierarchy. And then America is just another feudal satellite state of the financiers. Vive le revolution! And the Fabians see check and mate.
- dukeeeey, on 11/01/2007, -3/+26not to mention the towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of jetliners smashing into them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scQPx539c7M - tinyfunkmaster, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25Okay, okay, okay... Let's clear the smoke a bit and hopefully shed some light. Basically this is an argument about the definition of truth. One side says A, the Twin Towers were brought down by the force of the collision of the planes into the buildings and the resultant fire, side B says this is not physically possible and that a more plausible explanation; namely explosives, were used to bring down the buildings. Let's briefly explore "truth." To be true means to "be the case" or that a statement corresponds to our external world. There can be many truths for one object and since we are limited beings (we can only be in one place at one time and our vision is restricted to a certain field and we be distracted) we rely on the perceptions of others to corroborate what we see. In this sense, truth is come to through the process of dialogue. This is why universities and the printing press are such great things. To help disseminate ideas that we can dialogue with. Okay, now it is not possibly to have many "truths." The fundamental nature of the truth is that it is one. If I say that this character is an "A" and display an "A," then this would be a true statement. An A cannot be a B or any other letter of the alphabet. It can only be an A. There is an objectively valid truth that holds no matter what. Such is the nature of the laws of physics which, while not perfect, hold for the large percent of phenomena we observe. To claim that a fact is not valid because it is a) completely, 100% unassailable or b) has not been stated by a "professional" are both illogical critiques. Just because the WTC towers were larger and had more mass, the same laws of physics apply. Either steel softens at 1259 F or it doesn't. Either falling objects seek the path of least resistance or they don't. Either the support columns were blown into sections or they weren't. It can't be both ways. In conclusion, I have yet to see the "professionals" give a cogent rebuttal of the work that Steven Jones and other professionals in the Truth movement have done and have continued to do. They have denied open requests to debate the fine points. They have refused because they cannot let this turn into a rational debate or this smokescreen will be blown away. They will not because the truth does not change, minds change.
- StopTheLie, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25While we're pointing out the obvious, how about an obvious yet unasked question: Why weren't explosives the first thing considered as the cause for the WTC buildings' collapse? Terrorists regularly use bombs to attack their targets, countless reputable eyewitnesses reported bombs going off, buildings have never collapsed in the manner witnessed on 9/11 without the help of explosives, and in 1993 explosives were successfully placed (by terrorists) and detonated in one of the same buildings that fell on 9/11! To have the government bend itself into an intellectual pretzel to make their "fire initiated collapse" theory stick (without spending any time looking into the more plausible theory) makes no sense whatsoever.
(The above taken from "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against") http://www.joeplummer.com/fire_initiated_collapse. ... - speedystriper, on 11/01/2007, -4/+26Doesn't really matter what they say. We know how they fell, and it's not because of the planes and fires. The towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of planes almost identical to the 767's that hit them. They did not collapse at the moment of impact, because they were specifically designed not to. The explanation that the resulting fires caused the collapses does not cut it. Not by a long shot. You are on the losing side of history. Have fun.
- Beck911, on 11/01/2007, -7/+28http://www.justin.tv/trutube
http://www.justin.tv/wearechange
http://www.justin.tv/sctruth
http://www.justin.tv/beck911truth
www.turtube.tv - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -8/+29Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Twin Towers – the case for explosive demolition
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDca ...
How The Towers Fell -- Richard Gage, AIA, Architect gives a technical analysis of the World Trade Center controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
Full presentation: http://blip.tv/file/306082
Intro & WTC 7: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-176550002 ...
Twin Towers: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3673080104 ... - inactive, on 11/02/2007, -1/+22Let's not forget it was Osama's brother who invested in one of Bush's first companies, Arbusto Energy. If only Osama bin Laden was the black sheep of the family, but he's not, when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan he was still the CIA's friend.
- kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -5/+24They there no evidence of controlled demolition or they have no evidence?
They themselves admit that they have little material to work with so it cannot be ruled out - kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -3/+22My favorite part of the NIST letter is the comment about having such a small sample size with which to do observations with. I seem to recall the shill troop yapping some such nonsense about the great "investigation" that was done on the steel and other debris.
The vast majority of the steel was IMMEDIATELY shipped off to China under guard not giving any investigators the opportunity to examine it. NIST even admits it.
So how the hell can anyone have done a thorough investigation?
The shill troops always post the same nonsense about believing the investigation and the loony herkimer talks as if he was personally trodding about ground zero with a test tube and spectrum analyzer.
I have to say there herk that of you have so much evidence you better get your ass to NIST HQ and help out pronto.
I hear the cafeteria is pretty good too, ( thanks to one your posted links) - dracostimpy, on 10/30/2007, -1/+20Kinda like how Neil Bush had dinner plans with Hinckley's brother the day after Reagan was shot?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38432f49307d.ht ... - kayaker712, on 10/30/2007, -2/+20I love the put options thing.
The Kean report acknowledged that the option sales suggested prior knowledge. Then they go on to say that the purchasers had "no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda". Okay, then that sure suggests to me that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it right? Thats pretty hefty evidence of someone else being the culprits. - caulfieldrye, on 11/01/2007, -3/+21So the "experts" that are the basis of the official story now admit they were wrong! This should be #1 on Digg.
This is the biggest story of the year. Hillary being a criminal is old news. Can we please get this article to the four corners as I'm kinda tired of people telling me we truthers have no experts on our side and that these are the experts we SHOULD be listening to? - ZenFountain, on 11/01/2007, -4/+22Grab your bull horns and start parading down the streets chanting "9/11 was an inside job!"
- metapop, on 10/30/2007, -8/+26i just saw loose change last night... and i'm still in shock.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -2/+19They get their ass handed to them 9 out of 10 times they try to debate us on the facts of 9/11, so they just resort to argumenting by link.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -3/+19i appreciate your attempt, but these idiots aren't going to look into anything if they haven't already.
Anyone who doesn't know 9/11 is an inside job by now is totally out of it or totally in denial.
Good post, though! - kayaker712, on 11/02/2007, -3/+19i think it was coincidence. Bush and bin Laden meet all the time. They have several overlapping business relationships.
- digitalhair, on 10/18/2007, -2/+17Yes! Your perception is right on! People need to start looking at the past 8 years as if they were some sort of freak accident or the result of some sort of miscalculation. The truth will only be revealed after more people in the mainstream start framing so called "failures" under the context of not "how could they have failed so miserably that this could have happened" but instead that they knew this would happen, were possibly the perpetrators or at least facilitated the event, put on a show as if they did everything possible to stop the event, but in the end attribute the problem to some sort of unavoidable failure or pin blame on one person, two people, or a small group of people to satisfy our sense of justice so that the actual conspirators are never held fully accountable and their initial plan moves forward. Start asking yourselves how, statistically speaking, so many random but collective errors could have naturally compounded into these huge governmental sovereignty-threatening mistakes and you will realize that they are not mistakes at all, but in truth are trending toward a goal that is not clear but certainly does not favor the safety or well-being of the citizens of our great country, the USA.
- kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -1/+16Windy is one thing, air compression and fuel air mixing in quite another.
Do the math yourself. Calculate the mass airflow rate that would be required for jet fuel combustion that would yield the required heat. These are not complex equations. The data is available open source all over the web. - spartacus409, on 11/01/2007, -0/+15Watch the smoke it will show you how much wind there was.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17I can't believe people can still be so ignorant on Science, Life, Politics, America, American history (you know the real dirty stuff like killing foreign presidents, bombing cities, people, citizens outside wartime, etc)
Go back to school you heathens! - Look4Truth, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17Gee, what a surprise. Anyone else waking up yet?
- kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -2/+17Oh yes, even NIST admits that there building were stable after the crash, In effect the crash damage was minimal. Aluminum airplanes tend to shred into confetti when they hit things as was thoughtfully shown by Popular Mechanics. So how Mr. Meigs, if planes shred into tiny little pieces like at the Pentagon how could one have done the damage to did to the WTC? By trying to explain how a plane could do so little damage to the Pentagon they destroyed their own argument about the WTC towers. - oh yeah, I forgot the window glass we reinforced, thats why the engines from 77 didn't break them. Wow I want windows like that in my house. Being able to stand up to jet engines crashing into them at 500 mph and not break. Very impressive indeed.
The whole thing would be hilarious it wasnt so tragic. - kayaker712, on 10/21/2007, -3/+18Yeah nonsense links that say nothing. Herkimer one time linked the NIST cafeteria menu. They had chili that day for lunch. Maybe mass flatulence brought the towers down.
- spartacus409, on 10/30/2007, -2/+16Wrong, impossible.not enough heat regardless of any "flame temperature" to weaken the steel.
You forgot the static inertia of the remaining floors. Factor that in and there is not enough energy for a collapse.
They use the scientific ignorance of the general public to float this nonsense. - tinyfunkmaster, on 10/30/2007, -4/+18The beginning of the end? I hope so...
- kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -3/+16When have actual facts ever stopped the shill patrol?
- commernie, on 11/01/2007, -4/+17Your creationist analogy doesn't apply. We know how buildings fall via controlled demolition, and we observed that the twin towers fell that way. It is very reasonable to assume that this is the explanation.
In the other case, we've never shown that Genesis is responsible for squat, and we've never observed that it is true, so it is, as you suggested, very irrational to assume this explanation. - glideforlife, on 10/18/2007, -2/+15Let Freedom Ring!!!!!!
- kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -3/+16No the floor might sag and droop. Watch the videos, onset of collapse occurs i a fraction of a second. steel does not progress from strength to failure that fast. The curve of strength versus temperature shows this. Again you can look it up yourself. As the steel weakened it would bend in what is called the "plastic region". The it would come down over the area that was weakened. Look at the south tower shots. They speak for themselves if you have any scientific or engineering knowledge at all.
- moogman5, on 11/01/2007, -3/+16Kind of like all those bombs that were going off that morning huh? Unexplainable?...Unexplainable to an idiot who doesn't know just how easy it is to demolish huge structures with strategically placed explosives!!
- tinyfunkmaster, on 11/01/2007, -4/+17Okay, okay, okay... Let's clear the smoke a bit and hopefully shed some light. Basically this is an argument about the definition of truth. One side says A, the Twin Towers were brought down by the force of the collision of the planes into the buildings and the resultant fire, side B says this is not physically possible and that a more plausible explanation; namely explosives, were used to bring down the buildings. Let's briefly explore "truth." To be true means to "be the case" or that a statement corresponds to our external world. There can be many truths for one object and since we are limited beings (we can only be in one place at one time and our vision is restricted to a certain field and we can be distracted) we rely on the perceptions of others to corroborate what we see. In this sense, truth is come to through the process of dialogue. This is why the university and the printing press are such great things. To help disseminate ideas that we can dialogue with. Okay, now it is not possibly to have many "truths." The fundamental nature of the truth is that it is one. If I say that this character is an "A" and display an "A," then this would be a true statement. An A cannot be a B or any other letter of the alphabet. It can only be an A. There is an objectively valid truth that holds no matter what. Such is the nature of the laws of physics which, while our understanding of them is not perfect, hold for the phenomena we observe. If they don't, we change the model to reflect this. To claim that a fact is not valid because it is a) completely, 100% unassailable or b) has not been stated by a "professional" are both illogical critiques. Just because the WTC towers were larger and had more mass, the same laws of physics apply. Either steel softens at 1259 F or it doesn't. Either it reached no hotter than 500F which was stated by the NIST report, or it didn't. Either falling objects seek the path of least resistance or they don't. Either the support columns were blown into sections or they weren't. It can't be both ways. In conclusion, I have yet to see the "professionals" give a cogent rebuttal of the work that Steven Jones and other professionals in the Truth movement have done and have continued to do. They have denied open requests to debate the fine points because they cannot let this turn into a rational debate or this smokescreen will be blown away. They will continue to refuse to accept these invitations because the truth does not change, minds must change.
- artemus, on 11/01/2007, -2/+15Not as long as he works here, he doesn't.
- sw33tsarin, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14I urge all you "debunkers" to comb through the NFPA 921 standard for fire/explosion investigation. You will see that the removal of evidence (i.e. steel) from ground zero is consistent with a coverup and was truly illegal. Why dispose of all that precious evidence the 9/11 commission and the NIST could have used to conduct their experiments and test their hypotheses in a highly inconsistent and illegal manner?
- card51short, on 10/18/2007, -3/+15xero, here are 600+ professionals, including architects, engineers and scientists. Of course, they're all with Al Queda right?
www.PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM
WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG
Research for yourself. At the very least there deserves to be a debate. - kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -1/+13Again you focus on the wrong thing. Temperature is not the same thing as HEAT. Heat is energy. You cannot get more out of a system than you put into it. You cannot put more btu's into steel from a fire than the available energy of the fuel.. There are no perpetual motion machines.
I can take a hand torch that burns at 3000 degrees. I can put the flame on a steel beam but have no chance of softening it not matter what the flame temperature is.
Tomorrow morning make yourself some fried eggs on a gas range in an aluminum pan. Tell mw what happens to the pan. Aluminum melts at 1100 degree. Propane burns much higher. -
Show 51 - 100 of 315 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 