Bono's Comments on Terrorism - Page 8 - 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 11-21-2007, 08:08 PM   #106
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
What would be the momentum of those upper stories after a short collapse through the weakened floors?
This is a good question because the government explanation is based on such theory. It depends on the length and speed of the "short" collapse. The government's "theory" is based of the assumption that all the collumns magically disappered and the building-top fell in free-fall down a story or two. This idea is absurb however, collumns, even damage ones, just do not disappear.

Quote:
Steel, concrete and glass are pretty heavy, would it simply stop?
Based largely on the fact that the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, Gordon Ross shows by conservation of momemtum that it would stop here: journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

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

(1) The path of least resistence should be followed because we know it takes less energy than the alternative.

(2) In reality, things are inherently random or off-balanced. For something to disintegrate strainght there most be very strong, precise forces work, not just gravity.

Quote:
Isn't a controlled demolition supposed to make a building implode on itself by making the structure fail internally?
Yes, that is the point. Controlled demoltions take very careful planing, charges must be placed at the right locations and go off at the right time, or the building not fall perfectly (like the World Trade Center buildings did).

Quote:
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.
No, these plane crashes were random off-center events. This is exactly opposite of what is need for a controlled demolition.



Quote:
Why is it that photographic evidence for controlled demolitions ...mutually exclusive to other pictures that show things like debris? [/B]
The video evidence for controlled demoltion is overwhelming. This picture clearly show that the building top is being exploded with debris being ejected outwards, this is not a "collapse".

__________________

__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 08:10 PM   #107
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

bofors:

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
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?
As for your last picture, as the top collapsed onto the floors below it, don't you think pressure alone would force the contents of the floors below outward? Especially considering the exterior support for the towers was relatively weak given it's unorthodox design compared to other skyscrapers?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 08:22 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Teta040, awesome post. From what I've heard, Bono has had a row or two with people in the White House when he's visited-we just haven't heard it/seen it, is all. But I do agree nonetheless-I admire him greatly for his calm means of trying to bring sides together, he's already better than me in that regard as I'd get frustrated with some of these people two seconds after getting there. He's taken more seriously because he explains his ideas in an intelligent, decent manner.

But yeah, I too hope that he never backs down from going toe to toe with somebody when they come to a point of disagreement, though I would sincerely HOPE nobody in this administration would be so cold as to refuse to help with the Africa issue simply because somebody dared to challenge some aspect of their policies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
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.
Exactly. Which is one reason of many why I got so skeptical whenever I'd hear our administration say that we needed to go fight x country because they had a dictator there who was restricting people's rights. Uh...

Like I've been saying, this administration has been showing a staggering amount of hypocrisy during this whole time. Don't sit there and tell other countries "You can't do this, it's wrong!" only to turn right around and do similar things here. This is why we aren't being taken seriously, this is why our standing in the world, the respect we had from other countries, has dropped.

We have a First Amendment. The government answers to us, not the other way around. It's about time we realized these facts and used them to the best of our abilities. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with questioning the government's actions, because what they do will affect us as well as other parts of the world. Therefore, we have a right to know if the effects of their actions will be good or bad ones. And if they're bad ones, we MUST speak out and put a stop to it. I don't know when or why people suddenly thought not questioning things was a-ok, but it scares me greatly that it's gotten to that point, too. The stories of the soldier who was berated and the reporter who later was banned that you shared are scary stuff (and why do people assume they're "liberal plants"? There's people who are straight down the middle, and who are conservatives, that have been critical of this administration lately, too, it isn't just "raving liberal loonies" that are criticizing these guys. That's another thing that needs to stop, too, accusations like that).

All throughout this administration, I've kept hearing the argument of "Well, if you have nothing to hide, why are you protesting (insert government method of dealing with some problem here)?" Well, okay, Bush et al, if you guys have nothing to hide, why not just answer the questions that reporters, soldiers, and the general public direct at you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
I say this for domestic situations. But I hope that at least Bono is aware of the dicotomy.
I'd like to think he is, but regardless, would make for a good question for somebody to ask him sometime, eh ?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 11-21-2007, 08:54 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Based largely on the fact that the concrete was pulverized into fine dust
Not the material above the impacts, it wouldn't disintegrate until it hit the ground, but to get there it has to plough through lower stories. It was being supported by the burning levels, with the random damage and spread of jet fuel and all the combustable material it could get to. It doesn't have to fail instantaneously for collapse to occur, it just has to reach the point where one last bit of damage pushes it over the edge, once the collapse began it could not be stopped.

Where is the proof for explosions; the traces of explosive material in the debris and particulate matter? Distinct explosions from the recordings taken at different points away from the towers? The reasons for the hijackers lives in the preceeding decade? Having debris blowing outwards is expected from the implosion; all those gasses being compressed have to escape, they have nowhere to go but up and out, it seems like it is used to make the case for big explosions, explosions that were not needed to make the towers collapse (unless the unseen ones needed a failsafe mechanism).

The evidence to support structural failure from the impact of the jets alone has been put forth - that theory of what happened explains more than others seem to; why add a needless layer of complexity? It gets rejected by a few hundred qualified individuals; creationism was able to get a list of qualified scientists who reject evolution - that list was outdone with evolutionary biologists named Steve. An appeal to authority based on an overwhelming minority is not a reasonable argument. There needs to be some extraordinary evidence brought to the table, evidence that cannot be explained by the planes leading to the collapse.

Why is a conspiracy of Muslims in a violent faith based initiative so hard to believe but a large scale conspiracy orchestrated by unseen hands inside the government acceptable? Given that the arguments against the hijackings are the ineptetude of most terrorists (which is dwarfed by quite a few fuck ups by the intelligence services) how does that gel with other great government conspiracies like Watergate.

And why is it that conspiracy theorists need the elaborate theory to explain the event yet never focus on making a theory of motive that can gel with events. Why weren't the hijackers patsys of a false flag operation by this rogue government faction of neocon zionist repticons from the centre of the earth; their actions which they thought were for Jihad were really just a means to an end. Why must there be a second shooter on the grassy knoll, why can't Oswald have had motive from a specific faction
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 09:04 PM   #110
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bofors


This is a good question because the government explanation is based on such theory. It depends on the length and speed of the "short" collapse. The government's "theory" is based of the assumption that all the collumns magically disappered and the building-top fell in free-fall down a story or two. This idea is absurb however, collumns, even damage ones, just do not disappear.
Based on such theory? How is it anyone's theory that the columns disappeared?





Quote:
Originally posted by bofors



Two reasons:

(1) The path of least resistence should be followed because we know it takes less energy than the alternative.

(2) In reality, things are inherently random or off-balanced. For something to disintegrate strainght there most be very strong, precise forces work, not just gravity.


1. You still haven't explained why it would be the path of least resistance.

2. This is very contradictory to everything else you've said... First of all a skyscraper of that magnitude can't be too off-balanced or it wouldn't be standing. Buildings are design to stand a certain way, therfore if that structure was compromised, they would fall a certain way as well. And gravity is the main force buildings are designed against. The plane wasn't the forced that knocked down the building, it was the force that compromised the structure.






Quote:
Originally posted by bofors



The video evidence for controlled demoltion is overwhelming. This picture clearly show that the building top is being exploded with debris being ejected outwards, this is not a "collapse".

Controlled demo, uses implosions, not explosions. The point of controlled demo is not to have structure and debris fly away.

Do some real research and not what these conspiracy theorist force feed you.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 09:05 PM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:12 AM
You know this discussion could be aided with a very large Jenga set.

In fact thats my submission for a comedy skit; group playing Jenga, guy looses game, then crafts elaborate conspiracy so he doesn't have to put it back together.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 09:22 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 03:12 PM
LOL, A_Wanderer-you're right, that would make for a potentially good comedy skit, I'd like to see that.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 11-21-2007, 10:52 PM   #113
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:12 PM
How do these people find FYM? It isn't visible until you log in.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 11-21-2007, 10:58 PM   #114
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Why an alias of course.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:04 PM   #115
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bono's Comments on Terrorism

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


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?
You have a poor understanding of how science really works. First of all, scientists almost systemically avoid controversy. People who have spoken out, like Prof. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have lost their jobs. In short, people are afraid to speak out. For example, I have not exactly recieved a warm welcome here.

Moreover, the US government is not exactly passing out grants to disprove their official 9/11 story. Exactly the opposite is true.
__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:08 PM   #116
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Which is one reason of many why I got so skeptical whenever I'd hear our administration say that we needed to go fight x country ...
This is exactly why people need seriously look at 9/11 as "false flag" terrorism.

Without 9/11, we would not be in Iraq.
__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:09 PM   #117
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Bofors, address Melon's post please.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:13 PM   #118
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
You know this discussion could be aided with a very large Jenga set.
Good idea.

Have you ever played Jenga, pulled out a stick and had the remaining structure fall straight down and turn into sawdust?

This is essentially what happened three times on 9/11.
__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:14 PM   #119
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Bofors, address Melon's post please.
Ok...
__________________
bofors is offline  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:16 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bofors
Good idea.

Have you ever played Jenga, pulled out a stick and had the remaining structure fall straight down and turn into sawdust?

This is essentially what happened three time on 9/11.
OK, I really hope that's not serious.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 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 04:12 PM.


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