Bono's Comments on Terrorism - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-20-2007, 10:09 PM   #91
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The NIST draft report regarding the cause of WTC 7's collapse isn't complete yet.
Yes, that is because NIST could not explain it without considering controlled demolition.

It defies simple laws of physics.



You seem to be in denial of the obvious, try watching this:

__________________

__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:15 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors


Yes, that is because NIST could not explain it without considering controlled demolition.

It defies simple laws of physics.



You seem to be in denial of the obvious, try watching this:

__________________

__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:28 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:40 PM
I'm have a Bsc. and have done a bit of structural geology and physics.

What would be the momentum of those upper stories after a short collapse through the weakened floors? Steel, concrete and glass are pretty heavy, would it simply stop? If it was a controlled demolition or a fire weakening (but not melting) the steel it wouldn't make a difference to the effect. Those floors collapse and the top ones go down with all that mass towards ground. The floors beneath have resistance from the earth so they have nowhere to go.

Why would a skyskcraper fall to the side as the path of least resistance for a downward collapse?

Isn't a controlled demolition supposed to make a building implode on itself by making the structure fail internally? Not unlike (but quicker than) crashing a plane into a building doing initial damage and then having all the remaining fuel as well as internal materials burn away.

Jet fuel and office debris are not a good mix with fire
Quote:
Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?
Right, a relatively few number of cameras in set positions versus how many focused on the towers on September 11? Why is it that photographic evidence for controlled demolitions and missiles is mutually exclusive to other pictures that show things like debris?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 10:29 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Sorry, none of the buildings you reference disintegrate to the ground like the WTC buildings did. In fact, that only happens to steel buildings during controlled demolition.
Those buildings were only mentioned as examples of the existence of "progressive collapse" as a phenomenon. As I stated before, the WTC towers were such a fundamentally different paradigm in architecture that you cannot compare these towers to any conventional steel structure. In fact, the WTC towers upset some prominent modernists so much that they literally killed themselves over it.

The WTC towers were designed quite differently by having the structures supported by the exterior, rather than the interior. For this reason alone, this is why a plane crashing into a conventionally-built skyscraper like the Empire State Building would, at most, have only led to the potential collapse of the floors above the impact zone.

This conventional theory of collapse is what bin Laden counted on:

Quote:
"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."
His "experience in this field" is a likely reference to the fact that the bin Laden family is known as being a highly successful construction company in Saudi Arabia.

It is this fundamental difference between conventional skyscraper architecture and the postmodern departure of the WTC that likely drives this conspiracy. Yet, for reasons that I have explained, such a collapse is to be expected in the WTC towers, due to the unconvential sacrifice of form over function.

Quote:
No, the WTC twin towers were over-engineered to with stand anything including airplane impacts. There was no "architectural flaw", we know this because NIST makes no mention of it in its 10,000 page report on the "collapses".
Yes, the WTC towers would have been engineered to withstand airplane impacts...according to early 1970s standards.

Quote:
Like all modern skyscrapers, WTC towers were designed to survive major fires, but not necessarily those that involved aviation fuel.

After the 2001 attacks, Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land. According to Robertson, the modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing. As FEMA pointed out in its report, this implies a slower and smaller plane than those involved in the actual impacts of 9/11. Robertson also said that they lacked a good understanding of the effects of such large fires on the structures.
Quote:
Wow, that is a new one for me.

If video evidence is inerrantly unreliable, why do banks have cameras?
Do take note of one word there: "inerrantly." A study of documentary films reveals heavy controversy in the nature of what constitutes "bias," even inadvertent. Choosing to edit your video, you are making a "bias" as to what's important--and, more importantly, as to what's not important. Can that bias be trusted?

Take your animated GIF there for a moment, and let's look at it like a filmmaker. A documentary filmmaker would see the "bias" in the fact that that shot was framed in a way that 3/4 of the building is covered, and, as such, is unreliable, because of what it does not show--the bottom 3/4 of the building. It would also "not show" the events like described by the firefighter interview. You are basically demanding that we make a judgment in your favor on the basis of approximately five seconds, whereas you willfully disregard the substantial evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?
No. There's your logical fallacy right there. This kind of argument would state that you cannot defend science, because one is not a scientist.

But here's what I'm telling you. The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up." That is, intelligent design is not on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, just because it "says" it has value. Likewise, these conspiracy theories cannot demand equal footing, without surviving substantial scientific review. Lumping together a bunch of ideologically convenient statements with a bunch of fringe scientists or academics is exactly what "intelligent design" is, and that's exactly what kind of crap you're spouting here.

Again, with your scientific doctoral credentials, it should be no problem to author a vigorously researched scientific paper for peer review, if "all the evidence is in your favor" like you believe.

So I'm telling you right now:

Put up or shut up.

Until then, science demands that we stick with the current body of scientists and academics, who believe that the WTC towers were destroyed, due to terrorist attacks. I do not have to be a scientist to uphold science. The burden is on you to construct the kind of evidence that will survive scientific and logical scrutiny. Lucky for you, your doctorate gives you that such power. You'll either turn out to be a hero or a laughing stock.

So what will it be?
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 11:24 PM   #95
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Watch "How the Towers Fell" by Architect Richard Gage:


This is obviously a controlled demoltion, if you can not see that please give me a fair chance to explain it you.
I've seen it before: it doesn't give me anything nearly as credible as what Melon has been saying.

Refute what Melon says with legitimate arguments, and then we'll see. He's pretty much nailed it so far.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 11:33 PM   #96
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Please note that 214 architects & engineers have endorsed "How the Towers Fell" here: ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Well I'd like to see the list. Here's the thing, architects(in most states) require 4 semesters of structures, enough for them to understand but by no means experts, they hand the structural design over to experts. The only experts I would take are structural engineers and even then, this is an active load that most don't study for...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-20-2007, 11:37 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:40 AM
I was wondering about the credentials of the 214.

And I wonder how they define "endorse." Is it honestly 214 people in that profession who blatantly stated "This makes more sense than the terrorism explanation" or was it 214 guys who said, "Your theory could have some merit." Considering how nuts most of these guys, I'd guess the latter.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 04:57 AM   #98
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:40 AM
To get back on topic.....


What I find disturbing about all this is that Bono now feels he needs to toe some sort of White House line about what is and isn't acceptable to say to Bush about his policies. And it isn't even with regards to protesting, or even criticizing...just, maybe, a simple asking of questions and expecting some sort of serious answer. And we all know that Bono is not Chavez...he would be as polite as he could about it, but forceful in his own way as well. But apparently, asking questions isn't acceptable in this White House. Asking questions that raise serious issues gets you permanently thrown out--"denied access." This has happened not only with American journalists and news organizations, but with foreign ones as well. IN recall an incident in Dublin in 2002 where an Irish journalist persisted in asking questions to Bush during an interview and Bush (clearly unaccunstomed to such radical treatment) squirmed in his seat and said, "No, no, you musn't ask--" etc ,etc, clearly looking for a White House minder to bail him out of the situation, and it didn't happen. Next day, that reporter's magazine found itself permenently banned from Bush interviews.

What disturbs me is that this is not cases of reporters being rude or abusive or "going out of bounds". This is just reporters asking questions in general, any questions at all, other than "fluff" questions or ones that frame White House polices in a good light. And if we had not been used to 200+ yrs of a climate where people could ask questions to those in power, then no foreign or domestic journalist would even try. But we tell ourselves (like that Dublin journalist did) that we live in more democratic time and our leaders are not autocratic kings, who are distant figures unassailable behind their fortresses--and just as uninfluenceable.American news organizations have learned at what little press conferences there are, not to ask hard-hitting or even serious questions or risk losing White House access, without which their organizations would profoundly suffer or even be put out of business (for how can one survive if you can't report on government?) A climate of inquiry is thus discouraged, and one of passive acquiesance is encouraged instead--until everyone "gets it" and whne they begin exhibiting the desired behavior, they are finally re-admitted, and ona selective basis, like trained Pavlov dogs. Thus, even a question that is for a good purpose, not necessarily anti-policy, becomes inherently hostile (how many American lives were saved by that courageous soldier who had the nerve to actually ask a serious question at a news conference, to wit, why body armor issued to troops in the field in Iraq was so shoddy. Within hours he was reviled as a traitor by the MSM, people accused him of being a liberal plant, etc. But he wasn't criticizing the war. In fact, just the opposite. He was in a sense "supporting" the war and being a bigger patriot by wanting the troops to be better protected. But in the current climate of hostilty to outside opinion, it was the act of asking the question in public that was the real crime more than what he said. The "law" had been laid down, and he broke it.

This is what troubles me--when the Fourth Estate has surrendered its role as the guardian of democracy, in a sense the media are the biggest in this role. And instead sit down at the communal table and feast with the oppressors. And this should not be a poltical thing. By this token, this same attitude of passive submissievness should continue on, whoever is the next President. We shall see.


Bono may indeed be willing to follow his self-professed policy of "having lunch with the Devil" to get what he wants but I would be disturbed to find out if he has become as genuinely afraid and cautious as everyone else. I can see it now: instead of boycotting Arizona for not celebrating MLK"s birthday, he'd send a letter to Governor Meacham requesting a meeting to discuss the situation, and no doubt Meacham would have accepted eagerly, grateful for the photo-op. And Bono would have politely asked him why MLK was such a problem, and the Gov would have palmed some twaddle off his lower lip, and Bono would have declined to argue with him out of fear that he would lose some conservative Arizona votes for the One campaign, when he wants to get to a membership total of 2 million or whatever it is. And after the media heat was off the Gov, say, after a month, he'd go on as before. I don't think in the end AZ ever got MLK's birthday on the books. But the fact that serious heat was raised over the issue, that is what counted. Heat that wouldn't have been raised if there was photo-op. Now, if 250,000 letters had poured into the Gov's office, maybe he would have changed his mind. Maybe not. Sometimes, with an issue that really hits an emotional nerve--like the percieved racial issue--250,000 angry polite "Pretty please" letters would not make any more of a positive difference than a million polite letters to Governor Wallace from the SCLC would have in 1961. MLK"s birthday is small fry. It's not the issue at hand or the topicality ofit; it's the fact that the more you adhere to this mindset, the more it becomes THE mind-set for good--the more it becomes your personal policy and worldview, whatever the situation....But I'm just opening the old can of worms

Fine. But small, harmless issues like this have a way of growing. A politician would find more serious ways of exploiting this situation, and where would Bono draw the line? No sweat if you're talking about a harmless issue like MLK, but things grow. Of course this kind of thing could never happen to Bono, concievably, b/c he has picked a "safe" issue. But substitute a journalist with an issue that isn't so safe, and throw in a climate of passive subjugation. Even in an non-American context. I feel sorry, for example, for Chinese activists trying to draw attention to the shoddy quality of some Chinese goods and foodstuffs sold to Chinese, in their own country.

And that is what really matters. It astounds me at how quickly the American public has come to accept this as normal--"Shhh, don't ask questions or you will lose White House access, for ever and ever" has NOT been the policy of even the White House,let alone news organizations, for most if not all of this country's history. Not even during World Wars. In the past, you could tick off a Presdient and there would eventually be some way they'd punish you, get your reporter fired or whatever. But the climate of virtually unquestioned power and authority, to the point where we now think WE are the wrongdoers for asking questions and we are shocked when one of us does so, is something utterly new. It's what happens in countries ruled by dictators. In the past, Presidents had to just put up with it-they could choose how to respond to it, ignore it, whatever. But they couldn't prevent the climate of watchfulness and inquiry from prevailing. It is what has made crimes and abuses of power eventually come to light in this country, even decades later. But the way things are now, I don't think any abuser of pwer of any party will ever be stopped.

It is a question of the people having any role at all in the outcome of their society, and if we have to operate in a country of "free speech zones" and where leaders do not even like to be within bullhorn speaking distance of their people, what hope do we have?
In this instance, trusting that someday things will get better and someday we'll have access to our leaders again and thus regain say in their decisions they take with our lives, is a foolish belief. In fact, it is dangerous. The longer we encourage and tolerate this behavior, the more dangerous it is.

I say this for domestic situations. But I hope that at least Bono is aware of the dicotomy.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:21 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:40 AM
^
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 06:16 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Sorry if I have some doubts that George W. Bush can create a conspiracy.
But, you know, that was all part of the plan. Let's act Bush as being totally stupid for thirty years of his life, and introduce Cheney and Rumsfeld as two other nuts in order to make the public believe these people can't keep anything secret for long.

Everything is part of the plan, even that we write about it here. Everything.



__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 04:32 PM   #101
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:40 AM
For the content of the post or attempting to steer this back on-topic? Thanks, Bono's Saint

As to 9/11 conspiracies....talk about a can of worms. I'm not going ANYWHERE near this one...I was a history minor in college you know, specializing in American and ME history (the ME part appealing to me b/c I wanted to find out more about the Ottoman Empire, as per my half-Armenian ethnicity.)

All I can do is quote the Immortal Micheal Corleone, from The Godfather: "Who's being foolish now, Kay?"

Really, you guys, why don't you open a seperate thread about the "WTC Conspiracy"? I'm munching the popcorn.

Speaking of popcorn (and food), to all the Yanks on here, Happy Thanksgiving!
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 04:51 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Content primarily. Steering secondary.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:05 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon




No. There's your logical fallacy right there. This kind of argument would state that you cannot defend science, because one is not a scientist.

But here's what I'm telling you. The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up." That is, intelligent design is not on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, just because it "says" it has value. Likewise, these conspiracy theories cannot demand equal footing, without surviving substantial scientific review. Lumping together a bunch of ideologically convenient statements with a bunch of fringe scientists or academics is exactly what "intelligent design" is, and that's exactly what kind of crap you're spouting here.

Again, with your scientific doctoral credentials, it should be no problem to author a vigorously researched scientific paper for peer review, if "all the evidence is in your favor" like you believe.

So I'm telling you right now:

Put up or shut up.

Until then, science demands that we stick with the current body of scientists and academics, who believe that the WTC towers were destroyed, due to terrorist attacks. I do not have to be a scientist to uphold science. The burden is on you to construct the kind of evidence that will survive scientific and logical scrutiny. Lucky for you, your doctorate gives you that such power. You'll either turn out to be a hero or a laughing stock.

So what will it be?
This is one of my favorite posts by you (even if I do believe in Intelligent Design).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:34 PM   #104
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


what are you trying to prove or accomplish by shoving this conspiracy stuff down our throats?
I am trying to explain to people that 9/11 is a lie and act of treason against USA.
__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 07:44 PM   #105
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by bofors


I am trying to explain to people that 9/11 is a lie and act of treason against USA.
You're not doing a very convincing job of explaining it.

If what you claim is true, and if there really is this huge mountain of evidence to support your claim, then one would expect that after peer review virtually the entire scientific community would agree.

Why do you think that hasn't happened yet?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com