• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Debate from May 23rd Show Continued...

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

pixelsmith said:
If you knew how the towers were built and you read their hit piece on how the towers fell, then you would know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I've read about the towers and I own the issue that was published about it. I don't have a degree in engineering so I can't pretend to know how they were built. Your statement makes it sound like you do have a degree in engineering. Perhaps you can point me to a peer reviewed journal that refutes what Popular Mechanics said in their article. They wrote an article that was backed with proof and are very open with where they got their information: Debunking 9/11 Myths - Frequently Asked Questions - Conspiracy Theories - Popularmechanics.com
I tried to find the sources for Loose Change - I could not find anything, although I did find this: Loose Change - Internet Detectives
I also watched the debate between the editors and the Loose Change filmmakers.
We have to keep in mind that the Popular Mechanics article is in regards to the science of why the buildings fell, not the politics that caused the attacks.
 
We have to keep in mind that the Popular Mechanics article is in regards to the science of why the buildings fell, not the politics that caused the attacks.
Click to expand...

That is probably the funniest thing I have ever read on these forums. Thanks for the laugh!
 
I guess you didn't really read the PM article. I think the pancake theory is one of the funniest parts.
 
pixelsmith said:
I guess you didn't really read the PM article. I think the pancake theory is one of the funniest parts.
Click to expand...

You're really not making any sort of compelling case apart from attacking the integrity of PM. Again, they supported what they said. I found no support in favour of what the Loose Change guys said. It's really frustrating.
 
so how do YOU explain the WTC buildings falling symmetrically at near free fall speed INTO the path of MOST resistance?
 
pixelsmith said:
so how do YOU explain the WTC buildings falling symmetrically at near free fall speed INTO the path of MOST resistance?
Click to expand...

I have a degree in Art History, I play piano and guitar, I sing well enough, and I'm a big fan of videogames. I'm also awesome at trivia. I am not any kind of engineer, which is why I defer to experts, just like PM did, to explain these things.
Are you an engineer? I'm asking in all seriousness and not trying to be an asshole.
 
pixelsmith said:
Re: Debate from May 23rd Show Continued... so how do YOU explain the WTC buildings falling symmetrically at near free fall speed INTO the path of MOST resistance?
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you personally do not know that the direction they fell was the path of MOST resistance. Were you there? Did you see what was going on inside? They were fishy to be sure, but you are making bold claims with no evidence.

I think what REALLY needs to be scrutinized is the piss poor investigation that occurred afterward.
 
?!?!?!? I think it is VERY clear they fell into the path of MOST resistance. LMAO!!!!
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I have a degree in Art History, I play piano and guitar, I sing well enough, and I'm a big fan of videogames. I'm also awesome at trivia. I am not any kind of engineer, which is why I defer to experts, just like PM did, to explain these things.
Are you an engineer? I'm asking in all seriousness and not trying to be an asshole.
Click to expand...

i was an operating engineer so I guess that trumps you. seriously Angel, even NIST admits that WTC7 fell for a few seconds at free fall speed. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, had very few fires and was heavily fortified as a command center bunker in case of terror attacks. it fell neatly into its own footprint. when you factor in what was in that building at the time I think it should raise more than a few eyebrows.

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------
Angel of Ioren said:
So are you just goofing around now? I'll assume so because you're not really adding much to the conversation anymore.
Click to expand...

NO I am not fooling around. just where do you you think the most resistance was? it shouldn't take long to figure out the most resistance would be the floors below the tops of the buildings?

---------- Post added at 06:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

wow.... are you guys yanking my chain or do you think the most resistance would be the thin air next to the 3 buildings?!?
 
pixelsmith said:
i was an operating engineer so I guess that trumps you. seriously Angel, even NIST admits that WTC7 fell for a few seconds at free fall speed. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, had very few fires and was heavily fortified as a command center bunker in case of terror attacks. it fell neatly into its own footprint. when you factor in what was in that building at the time I think it should raise more than a few eyebrows.
Click to expand...

Well there we go. Much better. So can you provide anything with regards to people having gone through the debris and come to any conclusions to support whatever it is you are claiming? Everything I found online points to the fact that the NIST rejected any hypothesis that controlled demolitions were involved.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Well there we go. Much better. So can you provide anything with regards to people having gone through the debris and come to any conclusions to support whatever it is you are claiming? Everything I found online points to the fact that the NIST rejected any hypothesis that controlled demolitions were involved.
Click to expand...

they still do reject explosives but they cannot reject video evidence of the speed the building fell. i believe that have come up with 5 or 6 different reasons the building fell at all. they still have not come up with reasons for molten metal still in the basements of all 3 buildings several weeks after the 11th. nor can they explain the thermite residue found in the WTC dust.
 
pixelsmith said:
they still do reject explosives but they cannot reject video evidence of the speed the building fell. i believe that have come up with 5 or 6 different reasons the building fell at all. they still have not come up with reasons for molten metal still in the basements of all 3 buildings several weeks after the 11th. nor can they explain the thermite residue found in the WTC dust.
Click to expand...
So it was bombs then. Case Closed. The fact that two giant buildings fell around it and there was no way to put out the fires in the building had nothing to do with it.
 
thermite is not necessarily a bomb. it is primarily used in a cutting procedure for thick steel beams. we are talking about 3 buildings not 2. the fires were nearly out and very "cold" as evidenced by the black smoke and the first hand reports of "small pockets of fire" that could be put out by a single line.
 
none of the buildings fell because of fire or planes hitting them. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple strikes by airliners. WTC3 was reenforced after it was built to house a fortified command bunker and should not have fallen they way it did by a small amount of damage and a few office fires. it is now known that thermite residue was discovered in the WTC dust. There is no reason for thermite to be in the dust. The whole complex was not treated like a crime scene at all. our government spent more on Clintons affair with Monica than they did on the events of 9/11.

i do not know who or how they did it. i do know it was not done according to the official report.
 
pixelsmith said:
none of the buildings fell because of fire or planes hitting them. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple strikes by airliners. WTC3 was reenforced after it was built to house a fortified command bunker and should not have fallen they way it did by a small amount of damage and a few office fires. it is now known that thermite residue was discovered in the WTC dust. There is no reason for thermite to be in the dust. The whole complex was not treated like a crime scene at all. our government spent more on Clintons affair with Monica than they did on the events of 9/11.

i do not know who or how they did it. i do know it was not done according to the official report.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
I think if you dig into it as extensively as myself or cottonzway you may indeed come to the same frame of mind.

think about a simple scenario. if you took a bowling ball and you dropped it at the same time ANY of the 3 towers started to fall, the buildings and the bowling ball would hit the ground at almost the same time. the ball has nothing resisting it but thin air, the buildings all had well... the rest of the building to get out of the way for it to fall at the same speed as the ball. If you ponder that for awhile, you may start to see what we are talking about.

peace.
 
pixelsmith said:
I think if you dig into it as extensively as myself or cottonzway you may indeed come to the same frame of mind.

think about a simple scenario. if you took a bowling ball and you dropped it at the same time ANY of the 3 towers started to fall, the buildings and the bowling ball would hit the ground at almost the same time. the ball has nothing resisting it but thin air, the buildings all had well... the rest of the building to get out of the way for it to fall at the same speed as the ball. If you ponder that for awhile, you may start to see what we are talking about.

peace.
Click to expand...

I probably will never come to the same conclusion as you. I sincerely think that the 9/11 conspiracies are trying to over explain things.
 
Back
Top