>> ^heropsycho:
Explain how the US got out of the Depression then. You most certainly can spend your way out of a depression. All those tanks, planes, bombs, guns, war material, all of it was paid for with money the US gov't didn't have on a record scale never before seen to that point.
You absolutely can't refute that. The US gov't did not have the money to pay for WWII, and they borrowed a butt ton to win the war, and it fueled the US ascension to becoming an economic superpower. That's how glued you are to your ideology that you can't see the obvious example in history where you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. It's like saying Jews have never been systemically persecuted with the obvious example of the Holocaust in history.
>> ^quantumushroom:
What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.
Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.


It's this line of thinking that has brought us to where we're at now. Using your line of reasoning one should pay their mortgage bill with a credit card and then take out a home equity loan to pay the credit card bill. It's economic suicide.

Explain how the US got out of the Depression then. You most certainly can spend your way out of a depression. All those tanks, planes, bombs, guns, war material, all of it was paid for with money the US gov't didn't have on a record scale never before seen to that point.

You absolutely can't refute that. The US gov't did not have the money to pay for WWII, and they borrowed a butt ton to win the war, and it fueled the US ascension to becoming an economic superpower. That's how glued you are to your ideology that you can't see the obvious example in history where you're absolutely 100% dead wrong. It's like saying Jews have never been systemically persecuted with the obvious example of the Holocaust in history.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.
Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

Bush Jr. was not a true conservative. Nobody spends their way out of a depression, it's Keynesian bullplop. Why we can't have an honest convo about this topic: leftsift refuses to acknowledge who pays the most in taxes in America, and that the only reason Obama needed to overclock spending was because he could.

longde, as much as I'd love to stick it to QM over this, you're oversimplifying it.

Reagan ran up the deficit with a Democratic controlled Congress. Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican controlled Congress. Bush Sr. is getting a bit of a bad rap in your analysis. He was in wartime, so you're gonna run up the debt during war, and we absolutely should have gone into Iraq the first time.

Bush Jr. on the other hand did run up the debt with a Republican controlled Congress. Granted, with 9/11, etc. it was going to be difficult to not run a deficit, but Bush Sr. + the GOP Congress unnecessarily exacerbated the problem with the Bush Tax Cuts and Senior Prescription Benefit. And by 2004 or 2005, we should have been running a surplus.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

>> ^longde:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

90 degrees is the apex of drop steepness, anything more or less ends up decreasing the effect of free fall.

Considering the way the plane tumbled in free fall to the ground and exploded in a large ball of fire, I wouldn't call it amazing if only 7 out of 160 people on board died, I would call it a fucking miracle and immediately convert to Islam.

... at free fall speeds.

I am not a Truth'er by any means, but I find the explanation of supersonic pancaking unlikely. And that only explains how the floors collapsed...not the center support columns. Unless part of the explanation is that the floors also pulled the center over...which would take away from the energy needed to have objects in near free fall. This really was a case of complete building failure. We owe it to ourselves for future building construction to prevent a building failure of this magnitude. I mean, hell, they can rebuild a plane and reconstruct nearly the exact conditions of its demise...but you have a report here that even doubts its own validity, seems halfassed.

Ever heard the quote "there are no straight lines in nature" ?

Seriously, what are the chances that random, organic events caused three symmetrical collapses at free fall speed? How can a building collapse in the direction of most resistance (through load bearing columns) especially when it is damaged unevenly by either a fire or a plane strike. You make a cut in a tree and it falls in the direction of the cut. You light a wood framed building on fire and it collapses in the direction of whatever column succumbs to fire first. I'm not an expert but what happened does not make sense.

Again, not saying it was an inside job. I'm just pointing out what seems probable vs improbable in my mind, in the same way that I would point out a straight line in the forest.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html


I don't see how Occam's Razor applies any differently to WTC 7. It received serious blast damage from the collapse of WTC 1. It was on fire on at least 10 floors. Emergency crews had been ordered clear of the building fearing the it might collapse. When it collapses what is the simplest explanation?

1.The visible blast damage and fires caused the collapse.
2.Explosives planted before the blast and fires were triggered causing the collapse.
3.Miniature welding robots planted around the steel columns caused the collapse.
4.An inter-dimensional rift briefly opened within the buildings support columns, severing them and causing the collapse.

>> ^bcglorf:

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

One thing that keeps repeating in this thread is the idea that planes were a factor. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and it collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint. I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

I think it should be pretty obvious which is the "conspiracy theory" and which is the simpler explanation. The logistics of someone rigging a building really have no bearing on the mechanics of the collapse - that is a separate body of evidence altogether. I'm not saying it was an inside job I'm just saying what it looks like and what is to me the simpler explanation (from a mechanical perspective only). I can't make a clear argument on intention or logistics because honestly, nobody in this thread can be sure what the government is really capable of.

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


My physics went up to a minor on my undergraduate degree. Even in high school though the potential energy of millions of tonnes of concrete at a certain height is already taught. That is more energy than any bomb or load of jet fuel anyone can get their hands on, and it's all rigged to unload itself straight down.

The truther that are idiots are the ones insisting that the planes weren't the cause of the collapse. If you distrust and loath the government enough to believe they were behind the attacks, if you are a rational, scientific person you will conclude that the government organized the plane crashes to take out the towers. All the insistence that was merely a cover for explosives already planted inside is insanity. If the government wanted to commit the act, they would just plant the explosives and set them off. It wouldn't have even been the first time terrorists tried to use explosives to collapse the buildings. The ONLY thing adding the planes into the mix would do is make it infinitely more prone to failure and discovery.

Then you have the unscientific beliefs that people trumpet as reasons they believe the towers were rigged beforehand:
-Jet fuel can't melt steel! Meanwhile commercial steel furnaces are widely sold that are designed to do exactly that.
-The buildings collapsed at near free fall speed, no resistance! Go see the explosives free building demolition video here on the sift. Same speed of collapse, with just the upper supports pulled out by some cranes outside.
-Everyone knows the planes couldn't have been enough to collapse the buildings! Meanwhile, 10's of thousands of engineers the world over didn't bat an eye at the finding that the fires could cause the collapse. That's a lot of professionals in on the conspiracy.
-Blocking investigation of the real story! Meanwhile google scholar is filled with endless numbers of publicly available journal articles that speak to every loony idea the conspiracy crowd can throw out there.

If you believe the government worked with someone to crash planes into the towers that's one thing. If you believe the whole idea that the planes couldn't possibly have caused the collapse and the government must have wired it with explosives before hand, you believe something idiotic and need your head shaken.

Thank-You Pantalones. Well said.

This video does not corroborate conspiracy theory, nor was that the intention. It simply disproves the official story to pressure the public and powers that be to find the real answers.

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job. Not because of the white smoke, or the perfect furnace/office conditions or the vaporizing Pentagon plane or the free fall of building 7, but because of what America did after.