End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow
[Q] Originally posted by Ted Striker
No, once again the building was designed to withstand the estimated forces of initial impact and the assumed structural damage. To model the behavior of the structure under those forces was quite beyond the best computers of the day.

This site is claiming there was indeed a model. They do say the 767 had much more kinetic energy when it hit. On the other hand, any info endorsed by FEMA carries less weight in my book

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations.[25] The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. (The Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first 747s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the 747 were apparently not modeled in designing the towers).

Then this is the claimed quote of Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Course, maybe he was just engaging in CYA.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought I had made my opinion crystal clear. You're either a mental deficient or a loon who's "concerns" (if they can reasonably be called such)aren't worth the dignity and effort Straybow and others are putting into posts you ignore. It's the literal equivilant of banging one's head against a wall. Is that clear enough?

Your post is pretty much exactly the description I gave of you above.

1) No opinion
2) Calling people names
3) Duck and cover (coward)

Nice

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

People most certianly care

Who? Apart from random theater professors and other loons?

You don't care so much you've posted several posts in here with your blood boiling.

Idiocy in others pains me.

Feel free to keep posting your passionate responses son, and show me how much you don't care ROFL

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow
No, they don't. You kinda hafta take the whole or write them off.

Or you could look at them and say, "there's enough here to take a second look and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle." ?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Or you could look at them and say, "there's enough here to take a second look and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle." ?

Can you describe any hypothetical scenarios for collapse of the wtc towers in which somehow "the truth is somewhere in the middle." ?

Maybe you could suppose the government wanted to demolish the buildings but first the terrorists did it half arsed and then the government did it half arsed too and then *together* they accomplished their mutual goals?

[Ted Striker]

I have no idea

I have never argued any motive and have stated that about 4 pages ago

[Lorizael]

The problem is that without a middle ground for you to espouse, you're only giving credence to the really wild conspiracy theorists who think that Dubbaya and bin Laden are gay alien lovers engaged in an extraterrestrial mating ritual that involves conquering a backwater planet. Or something.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Darius871


All you'd need to do to prevent this is:

A) Be careful enough to recruit people sincerely committed to your cause
B) Adequately brainwash them so they wouldn't be capable of leaking
C) Threaten them with months of the most gruesome torture imaginable if they talk, and implant neurotoxin capsules in them that can be activated at the push of a button just in case they can't be apprehended in time
D) Just in case they end up being unafraid of torture & death, also threaten their families & friends with the same
E) Force them to engage in humiliating sexual acts on tape so you have blackmail leverage against them to prevent a leak and/or can damage their credibility after the fact
F) Surveil participants thoroughly enough to pick up any warning signs that they might blow the whistle and off them first
G) Give such pawns simple tasks with only need-to-know information, so that if they do indeed defect only a miniscule branch of your operation is revealed
H) Adequately brainwash the population through corporate media conglomerates so they naturally write off such supposed whistleblowers as crazed conspiracy theorists
I) Use a "muddy the water" technique where conspirators deliberately disseminate particularly ridiculous theories in the online conspiracy theorist community, which when debunked tend to discredit said theorists as an entire group and make average people even more averse to whistleblowers

That's just a few ideas off the top of my head. For all we know, "they" have acquired mind control devices of extraterrestrial origin that make whistleblowers quite literally impossible.

It's really very simple.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I have no idea

I have never argued any motive and have stated that about 4 pages ago

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Or you could look at them and say, "there's enough here to take a second look and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle." ?

How could the truth lie in the middle?

Suppose someone accuses you of murdering your neighbor who gives evidence that he is not dead but the accuser ignores that and focuses on perceived holes in your alibi.

In that case is there is any way for the truth to lie somewhere in the middle?

There isn't always a middle ground ted.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
There isn't always a middle ground

"Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

"Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara

[Arrian]

I am taking a very unpopular stand.

That takes courage.

[Ted Striker]

What I do find interesting is the dogmatic, almost with a religious fervor, way that nobody can even discuss it without going ape ****.

Though I do enjoy these hypothetical middle ground "bad examples" that have nothing to do with anything.

[Kontiki]

I hate to jump into this mess, but they have a point, Ted. Once it can be shown that the attacks and subsequent collapses could cause the failures, what precisely could the middle ground be?

[Arrian]

Dude, re-read the thread. On the one hand, there is a group of people basically holding to occum's razor.

Then there is a group posting a disjointed mess of half-baked conspiracy theories with little to no evidentiary basis.

It's a lot like "Intelligent Design." One group has a theory that works reasonably well and is supported by evidence. Another spends their time trying to poke holes in that theory without advancing a theory of their own, except, when pressed, "God did it."

-Arrian