History is a funny sort of thing. As humans, we often take an extremely complex event and filter the information from that event that best captures the story in our minds. As a result of the limited nature of the human brain, often fascinating and/or critical information is lost. In this list, I wanted to capture some of the often overlooked and under-reported information surrounding major historical events. This list is in no way definitive and somewhat U.S.-centric. It would be great to see future lists that cover the topic in respect to other countries.
While the moon landing may be the single most remembered event in the history of mankind and President John Kennedy, as the man who championed and led this accomplishment, often forgotten is Kennedy’s true motive for the daunting task. In a conversation with James Webb, the director of NASA at the time, Kennedy was quoted as saying, “Everything we do ought to really be tied into getting on to the Moon ahead of the Russians [...] otherwise we shouldn’t be spending that kind of money, because I’m not interested in space [...] The only justification for [the cost] is because we hope to beat [the USSR] to demonstrate that instead of being behind by a couple of years, by God, we passed them.” Due to this passion to push the U.S. past the Soviets, Kennedy essentially diverted all of NASA’s funds to the moon landing, much to the dismay of Webb, who favored a broader approach of discovery and programs.
Due to the powerful images conjured up while recalling the horrific incident in Jonestown that saw 900+ men, women and children die through suicide or murder, the world often only remembers the victims that were actually in the compound itself and forgets the victims that tried to flee with Congressman Leo Ryan, who was there to determine whether or not U.S. citizens were being held against their will. The day before the mass suicide, Ryan and other U.S. government officials landed in Guyana. During their visit, many of the cult members asked to leave with Ryan’s delegations. Arriving at the airport, the delegation was ambushed by the cult, one of who had embedded himself into the group asking to leave. The embedded cult member drew a gun on the plane and summarily shot the passengers. Additionally, the cult disbanded a small force and attacked the delegation from a tractor with a trailer. Congressman Ryan was one of those murdered, becoming the first and only U.S. Congressman killed in the line of duty in the history of the U.S.
When U.S. history recalls Japan in WWII, it often only remembers the mushroom clouds that scarred Japan’s physical geography and overlooks the strong psychological moorings that were devastated after the surrender. Following the surrender of Japan, U.S. General MacCarthur forced Hirohito to issue the, “Humanity Declaration,” or the Ningen-sengen. In the declaration, the Emperor proclaimed that in fact and contrary to the Shinto religion, which the culture at the time was largely built upon, he was not a god. Interestingly however, the confession was given in an archaic, court form of Japanese allowing the Emperor to be deliberately vague. It is theorized that he substituted the much more common word, “arahitogami” or “living god”, with the much more unique word “akitsumikami,” meaning an, “incarnation of god.” Many scholars have noted that one could be a living god, without being an incarnation of god.
Again, because of the sensational images of the two, 110-story Twin Towers of the World Trade Center falling, many people forget the overall tremendous devastation that the acts truly resulted in. On 9/11, in addition to the Twin Towers- 7 World Trade Center (47-stories tall), 6 World Trade Center (8-stories tall), 3 World Trade Center and the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church were all completely destroyed, the latter entirely buried by debris of Tower 2. Also, 5 World Trade Center (9-stories tall), 4 World Trade Center (9-stories tall), the Deutsche Bank Building (40-stories tall), and Manhattan Community College’s Filterman Hall (15-stories tall) were all damaged beyond repair and have been or are slated for demolition.
Immediately following the 2004 Tsunami, the world was so rocked with the staggering death toll of nearly 240,000 individuals that it is often forgotten that many of the more rural and traditional citizens were able to survive through an indigenous understanding of the signs of an incoming tsunami. For example, scientists in the area initially were convinced that the aboriginal population of the Andaman Islands would be significantly ravaged by the tsunami, however, all but one of the tribes in the islands (oddly enough, the one that had largely converted to Christianity and thus, a change of lifestyle,) suffered only minor casualties. When questioned, the tribesmen explained to the scientists that the land and ocean often fought over boundaries and when the earth shook they knew that the sea would soon enter the land until the two could realign their borders. Because of this, the villagers fled to the hills and suffered little or no casualties. Additionally of note is the story of Tilly Smith, a 10-year-old British student vacationing on Mikakhao Beach in Thailand. Tilly, had recently studied tsunamis in school and immediately recognized the frothing bubbles and receding ocean as a harbinger of a tsunami. Along with her parents, they warned the beach and it was entirely evacuated safely.
While nearly everyone can name the place (The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles) and perpetrator of the assassination (Sirhan Sirhan), few people recall the man who captured and disarmed the gunman. That man was Rosie Grier, an American Football sensation (Super Bowl Champion, 2 time pro-bowler, member of the Ram’s “Fearsome Foursome,” and 5 time All Pro defensive tackle.) On the night of the assassination, Grier was the bodyguard for Kennedy’s pregnant wife. Along with Rafer Johnson, an Olympic gold medal decathlete, Grier heard the shots and tackled Sirhan. Grier, then jammed his finger behind the trigger of the gun and broke Sirhan’s arm. Grier then fought off those that were literally ready to rip Sirhan apart. Later Grier, would explain that, “I would not allow more violence.” Additionally, Grier would later testify to Judge Lance Ito during the O.J. Simpson trial that he had been present when O.J. confessed to the crimes in prison. Judge Ito however, ruled that the testimony was inadmissible.
When the news broke that the Russian military had ended the standoff where 850 people were held hostage by a Chechen separatist group in Moscow, the focus of the news quickly turned to the dramatic rescue. Due to this, the heroism and sacrifice of Olga Romanova, is often overlooked. When Romanova, a 26 year-old perfume-shop clerk, heard of the crisis, she left the safety of her parent’s house and walked to the Theatre alone. Convinced that she could reason with the terrorists and at the very least convince them to free the women and children, Romanova somehow managed to bypass the intense security in the area and enter the theatre. She then confronted the rebels and pleaded for the immediate release of the hostages. The terrorists, suspecting that she was FSB, marched her into an adjoining room and executed her with a shot to the head.
Due to the iconic photo of a student lying dead and another leaning over his body and weeping, the Kent State Massacre has largely been accepted as a single event that took place in Ohio and resulted in 4 students being killed by the U.S. National Guard. What is often forgotten about the event is the sheer size and scale of the overall national unrest at the time of the shootings. Immediately following the shooting and centered on the common sentiment of, “they can’t kill us all,” 900 college campuses were closed because of violent and non-violent protests. Also, 100,000 people descended on Washington D.C., smashing car windows, lighting fires, looting and barricading streets and freeways. The President of the United States was evacuated to Camp David and the 82nd Airborne was brought in to defend the white house. Additionally, Nixon organized a special commission to focus solely on campus unrest. Ray Price, Nixon’s chief speechwriter was quoted as saying, “that’s not student protest, that’s civil war.” Overall, 4,000,000 people took place in the protests. It was at the time, the only nation wide protest on college campuses.
When the Altamont Concert is remembered, it is often solely for the Hell’s Angels providing “security,” and the ensuing riot that left an 18-year old man dead. According to sources, the Rolling Stones had hired the Hell’s Angels to keep people off the stage and to escort the Stones through the site. According to some witnesses, the Angels were hired for $500.00 worth of beer. As the evening went on, the crowd and the Angels got increasingly agitated with one another. The crowd pressed to the stage and the Angels fought them back. In the ensuing melee, Meredith Hunter was killed and the death has ever since been remembered as an example of the Angel’s inherent lawlessness and violence. However, what is not often remembered is the actual event that spawned the killing. Meredith Hunter, high on methamphetamine was captured on camera approaching the stage and brandishing a pistol. In response to the imminent danger, an angel drew a knife and stabbed him. The act of violence was determined by a judge to be an act of justifiable homicide as the Angel had every reason to believe his life was in jeopardy.
The Boston massacre was one of the most critical events that led the colonies of America to revolt against King George III. While it is well remembered in this fashion, the fates of the British soldiers that fired on the civilians are often forgotten. In fact, the Captain that was present and 8 of the soldiers were arrested and tried. What is interesting is that the defender of the soldiers was none other than, John Adams, founding father and future President of the United States. No lawyer in Boston would take the case and so the court pled with Adams to represent the men. Although, he was hesitant, he so believed that everyone deserved a fair trial that he finally relented. Adams successfully convinced the jury that 6 of the men were afraid for their life and therefore, had the right to defend themselves. Interestingly, two of the men were convicted of murder, however, Adams presented a loophole to the court whereby according to English law, if the men could read then they could claim to be clergy and thereby were not bound by secular law. Adams had the men read out-loud from the Bible and the charges were reduced to manslaughter for which they were punished by a branding on the thumb.
























October 12th, 2009 at 1:43 am
wow this is quite a cool list!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:45 am
^_^
October 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
decent list !!!
these informative ones are the best, especially how they cover a broad area
October 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Ah a list for the unsung tales of majr events. Good one ^.^
October 12th, 2009 at 1:48 am
very good list
October 12th, 2009 at 1:49 am
[deleted]
October 12th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Many Guyanese don’t actually know much about the Jonestown Massacre and I think its because we have tried to distance ourselves from it. Unfortunately, its the only thing that has put us on the map. Growing up in Guyana, it wasn’t something that we spoke about. We weren’t told about how or why it happen, just not to “drink the kool-aid”, haha. Well..looks like i’ve learned something new today.
Good list esamuherr
October 12th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Great list, Not sure if the woman in number 4 was brave or just kinda stupid.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:54 am
hmmm…makes you think, i knew the jfk one though
October 12th, 2009 at 1:56 am
I definitely love historical lists.
I think I’m the first one!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:57 am
My internet didn’t work and it didn’t refresh ¬¬
October 12th, 2009 at 2:03 am
“In response to the imminent danger, an angel drew a knife and stabbed him.”
So it’s true that even now there are angels carrying savage weapons youtube.com/watch?v=7lVSr1GzQ9g
October 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
good list yep. what’s happening in picture 2?
October 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Liked it too. Feel bad for Olga, she was annoying in MGS2 though. ;]
October 12th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Amazing list, I’d like to see more of these.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Fantastic list! Love all the nitty-gritty details that were often missed out in the recollection of these memorable incidents. Well done!
October 12th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Another cracking list.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Wowzie,this is an incredibly good list..after some of the bit boring previous ones..
October 12th, 2009 at 2:52 am
The story of number six is quite clever – of course the aboriginals would have seen the signs of the tsunami coming.
Nice list,
October 12th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Which year did the Kent shootings take place??
October 12th, 2009 at 3:00 am
these facts aren’t forgotten, most people just overlook them
October 12th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Man,does this list rock!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:03 am
I watched a documentary which convinced me that the Moon landing was a FAKE..but I have my doubts
October 12th, 2009 at 3:16 am
@geronimo1618 (23) yo, i have also seen that one…flags fluttering on the moon! Haw… Wotta laugh!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:43 am
@geronimo1618 (20):
The Kent shootings took place on 04MAY 1970.
As for the moon landing being faked, watch documentaries from the other side as well. Then make your decision. I watched several from both sides about the moon landing and, frankly, they makes the conspiracy theorist look a bit stupid. :/
October 12th, 2009 at 3:43 am
You trolling? “Well, quite simply, NASA wanted to have a flag to plant in the lunar surface. There is no wind, so the flag would just hang there limp. That would not be very impressive. Also, it would be just a swatch of colored fabric in photos. There would be no way to tell that it was an American flag. So, they came up with an ingenious way of sticking aS69-39333.jpg flag in the surface that looked like it were waving. The fabric of the flag has a wire mesh sewn into it. The flag rolls up into a nice little package. When on the Moon, the astronauts extend the pole and stick it into the ground. They can then unroll the flag. Working in heavy spacesuits, though, it is easier to unroll the flag and then stick it into the ground. The lunar surface is grainular and tough to poke the flag into. So, they have to rock the pole back and forth shoving it down into the ground. Watching on the TV, this back and forth motion makes the flag swing back and forth like it is waving.’ ASTROPROFS is source.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Great list, really enjoyed it. Thankyou!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:02 am
@SnowKid32 – very informative and clear. Any links?
October 12th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Branding thumbs?
Quite a way to get away with manslaughter.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Cool list!!!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Excellent, excellent list!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:22 am
@snowkid32(26) well…that explanation certainly changed my notion. Thanks
October 12th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I have to say I agree with ants1. The woman in #4 was foolish more than heroic. What did she think she could do to help? Anyone can see she was just going to add to the body count.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:41 am
I like it!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Yeah, couldn’t she forsee what tragedy would befall on her parents.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:44 am
this list made me read up on jonestown. great list.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Brilliant list, JF
October 12th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Really well done list. I knew about half of these but the Altamont Concert was the most interesting. The 9/11 one is probably the most unknown.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:10 am
i love historical little juicy bits! great list… a much better start to the week than last Monday’s penis list…
October 12th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Let’s all Brand our thumbs.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Awsome list, i didn’t know most of these. Makes me think about what other pieces of historical events have been forgotten about.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Wow, I didn’t know about any of this. AWESOME LIST!!!
October 12th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Not sure many of these are forgotten. During the first reading of #9 I thought an error was made and you were stating the delegation was ambushed when they arrived in Guyana. Now that I’ve re-read it I think a little clarity could make it clearer to people who may not be familiar.
The delegation was ambushed when they arrived at the airstrip preparing for their trip back to San Francisco.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:55 am
MythBusters did a show on the moon landing. They went over all the arguments people gave to prove it was faked, including the one about the flag waving in that kind of atmosphere. All were proven wrong. I watched it with someone who believed (notice I said “believed”) it was all fake. He had no more arguments after we saw that.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Awesome stuff, esamuherr!
October 12th, 2009 at 6:03 am
I knew two of these forgotten facts and I love history; so I love this list!! A great book to read is: Lies My Teacher Told Me – by James Loewen
October 12th, 2009 at 6:06 am
I like this list. Learned a few things this morning. I have to say that Olga for number 4 was not brave but stupid.
Cool list, esamuherr!
October 12th, 2009 at 6:09 am
19: I recall reading in the Indian print media that some natives were upset with the helicopters that were sent to rescue them. They shot back at the helicopters with arrows!
October 12th, 2009 at 6:39 am
In Number 3, the Kent State shootings. It wasn’t the US National Guard but the Ohio National Guard. There is no US National Guard but the state national guard units can be activated by the federal military in time of war.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am
fascinating list…bravo!
October 12th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Sorry, but at best a “meh” list that is very poorly written. Really, if you’re going to publish something online for all to see, clean up your prose and make sure you’ve avoided awkward and confusing sentences. Also, make sure that in keeping with good journalistic practice, you provide necessary information to the reader to ensure that he/she understands what you’re talking about.
For instance, right off the bat:
“While the moon landing may be the single most remembered event in the history of mankind and President John Kennedy, as the man who championed and led this accomplishment, often forgotten is Kennedy’s true motive for the daunting task.”
Read closely and that sentence just makes no sense. It’s a confusing mish-mash of clauses that don’t really relate to one another. “While the moon landing may be the single most remembered event in the history of mankind AND President…Kennedy, AS the man who championed…this accomplishment, often forgotten is Kennedy’s true motive…”
It quite simply makes no sense. The entire sentence should have been rewritten, and probably the best way would have been to break it up into two separate sentences.
Lest anyone think I’m nitpicking here, there are in fact numerous examples of this kind of awkward syntax peppered throughout the list.
Moreover, I’d challenge the point of the list itself in some instances. Is it really “forgotten” that our motive in trying to get to the moon was to beat the Russians there? I mean, the term “Space Race” is burned into our collective consciousness.
I’d also be interested to hear where the list author got this quote from Kennedy, as it flies in the face of everything else we know about Kennedy in regards to the Space Program–namely, that he was an enthusiastic supporter of it even before he was elected president. I’ve never seen or heard this quote from him before, though I concede it could be genuine; I’m by no means an expert on the Kennedy administration or the man himself. Again though, the author fails to cite WHERE this quote comes from.
From the next entry: “Additionally, the cult disbanded a small force…” This is a confusing choice of words. What is meant by “the cult disbanded a small force”? Perhaps the author meant “repelled a small force,” but we don’t really know.
There are, as I said, numerous examples of sloppy writing, (as well as poor punctuation–mostly a terrible over-use and inappropriate use of commas) but there are other problems as well. For instance in the entry about the Moscow Theater hostage situation, the author mentions the “FSB” but fails to explain WHAT the “FSB” is. Now, from the context one might assume it was some kind of Russian security or police force. But this should be explained parenthetically for those who don’t know.
The entry on the Boston Massacre, while covering interesting points (I had actually never heard the bit about Adams’ use of the “Clergy Loophole”) leaves off describing the actual massacre itself, the details of which few people know; namely that there was a mob present that was told repeatedly to disperse. When certain members of the mob began to threaten the British soldiers, the soldiers essentially panicked, and so matters quickly escalated into violence. It was hardly a matter of cold British brutality, but rather what one might expect when violent citizens attack a small group of armed men who fear for their lives.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:53 am
and another fact about #10… it was faked LOL
October 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
[deleted]
October 12th, 2009 at 7:18 am
@Randall (51): Good, morning, Randall.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Pretty good. I learned some stuff which is always profitable.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:26 am
You will all have to excuse me as I am not American but I had never heard of the Kent State shootings. I now have something new to read about all morning. Thank you for helping me waste my time!
October 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Randall has not failed expectations with his 10 paragraph comment.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:47 am
@cryan(52) idiot read comment 32.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Good list, I thought, although the sentences could be revised as Randall pointed out. Otherwise, an interesting topic, good choice.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Wo ist mein gravatar?!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Fascinating list, though you can make individual lists from the controversy risen by some of these topics, I particularly remember this documentary where they state that WTC building #7 fell with no apparent reason and the absurdity of Osama Bin Laden theory (really interesting).
By the way, I would also have survived the Tsunami along with Tilly
October 12th, 2009 at 8:08 am
This is a very interesting list, esamuherr. I find it fascinating when I see people who truly seem to have forgotten or mis-remembered their own past; one example is people whom I know who will swear up and down to me that they were not the least bit concerned about Y2K, yet I distinctly recall their preparations in stockpiling canned food and water and withdrawing money from the bank, and their explanations at that time as to why that was necessary and the panic, chaos and mayhem that was shortly to ensue. They do not seem to be deliberately lying to me; in fact, it would not make sense to do so since I was a witness to their preparations. Instead it seems as if they actually believe that they really were never concerned about Y2K and their stockpiling was for unrelated reasons.
I questioned an acquaintance who had accumulated six months worth of canned goods and bottled water and who had explained to me, in great detail, how anarchy would soon reign. She told me that she had never been worried about Y2K and that she had merely stockpiled food in case of inclement weather. It is true that we sometimes have weather that precludes getting to the grocery, but generally it does not last six months, and she has never done it before or since.
A less humorous example, to me, is how many people seem to not remember that during the lead-up to the Iraq War, we in the US were told repeatedly not just that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction but that he was going to use them against us. For example, in 2002 Dick Cheney said “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” Even if Iraq had WMDs, they were obviously not the only country who did – that Iraq was planning to use them to attack another country was critical to the claim that the coalition was invading only to protect our own safety. (Same way as if you are walking down the street with a gun, I am not allowed to shoot you just because I don’t like you. If you are pointing that gun at me while turning off the safety and telling me that you’re going to kill me, now perhaps I am justified in defending myself.)
It is astonishing to me how this part now seems to be almost completely forgotten, by everyone. I sometimes still hear claims that there are/were WMDs in Iraq buried in the desert, they were secretly moved to Syria, etc. etc., but what seems to be ignored is how even IF they existed, they were obviously never used against anyone, thus negating the entire premise that we had to attack in order to defend ourselves.
(I know that some people feel that invading Iraq was the best course of action for whatever reason. I am not even addressing that. I am simply discussing what we were told the reasoning was before the invasion, and how that seems to have changed after.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@GTT(56)Glad to hear your father is on the mend…Kent State was part of the world wide protests against the Vietnam war…I was in London at that time where similar protests were more orderly(then, British police didn’t carry guns!)
@Randall(51)Still believe kerosene and office furnishings could disintegrate hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, in less than an hour, resulting in a collapse of 110 stories in under 10 seconds?(The buildings were designed to withstand airliner collisions!!)
Otherwise greetings!!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:13 am
The Angels were still in the wrong. At Altamont, they knocked Jefferson Airplane singer Marty Balin unconscious. They were clearly too rowdy.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:15 am
@Mathilda(62)last month, Iran announced that its
foreign reserves would be held in
Euros from now on instead of dollars.
The last country to make this
declaration was “pre liberation”
Iraq.
Details:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/349.html
October 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am
fantastic list!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I dont think a person forgets altogether, the news and images you see and hear might fade a wee bit.
I can still recall Armstrongs recorded voice from the lunar surface, the recording was full of static, it was in 69 I think, if Im out by more than 2 years, I think my brain has faded altogether – Thanks
October 12th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Rosie Grier= STUD
October 12th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Altamont was a muddy good time. We only heard about the Angel’s bad behavior on the news. Wish I’d made it to Woodstock, but Altamont, that is, the Stones, was a great experience. People seem to want to think Woodstock was heaven and Altamont was hell. People are wrong.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:45 am
and hot damn John Adams was a good lawyer. I think maybe he was really john Adamstein!! no disrespect intended
October 12th, 2009 at 8:51 am
@lostatsea1 (63): Thanks again for your good wishes….
The other one that was relatively new to me was the Jonestown thing (I think I started reading about it last year after some “dont drink the kool-aid” joke I didnt understand). I have to say, I am fascinated by the way some people just aloow themselves to be brainwashed to the point of murdering your own child and committing suicide. The psychology behing a cult is so strange…
October 12th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Hey, cryan, great writing in post #53 : “your a homo.” I don’t know what’s worse with that statement–its paloelithic mentality or the laughably pathetic grammar. Ever heard of a contraction, you stupid fucker?
October 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I’m disturbed by how many of these I remember happening first-hand. *sigh*
I’m also disturbed that I agree with Randall; many of these lists would really benefit from a good proof-reading.
@6: That’s lame. Here’s a much better way: (oYo)
October 12th, 2009 at 9:32 am
nine guns on the list, history is nice yo
October 12th, 2009 at 9:34 am
In regard to the “we never landed on the moon” wackjobs, Buzz Aldrin FINALLY got fed up with this nonsense and did his own episode of MYTHBUSTERS:
October 12th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Good article,
Another interesting thing about the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that is widely underreported is the fact that it washed up hundreds of nuclear waste containers on the shores of Somalia. You see countries have been dumping their nuclear waste in the Oceans of Somalia since the nation collapsed around 20 years ago. After the tsunami hit the shoreline various areas was litered with every kind of nuclear waste. People in the area began to lose their hair and fall ill. Just go to google images and you cab see the pictures of the giant nuclear waste containers. Also people poach hundreds of millions of dollars worth of seafood out of Somalia waters every year.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Regarding the iconic Kent State photo: The girl who was crying and leaning over the shot student was actually Mary Ann Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway from Florida, not a university student.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@GTT (56): excuse me as I am not American but I had never heard of the Kent State shootings. I now have something new to read about all morning.
Ever heard the song “Ohio” by CSN&Y? It’s a fairly well-known “protest song” by a very popular so-called rock supergroup of the day, though I understand that perhaps in your parts it may not be so well-known. If not, give it a listen. Or perhaps you have heard it a few times but just weren’t aware as to what it was about? Written by Neil Young, here’s a link to the lyrics:
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/fot/lyrics_ohio.htm
October 12th, 2009 at 10:02 am
i have to go to sleep and i havent read the comments i cant agree that in #2the man was on meth. Anphetamine sure or speed but not meth. meth is a new form a bad form. ye olde speed was a great drug. Sorry i just cant believe meth was around then.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:06 am
There’s this one about Hitler during the Berlin Olympics. We all heard that he didn’t want to shake the african-american’s hand who won many medals… I heard that Hitler would only shake german winners’ hands and other elements of how the whole case is a falsehood.
I admit I don’t know much about this, but when reading this list it reminded me of this case. It would probably go into a different category of “historic falsehoods”, and I’ll need to check back into this. Sorry for this useless commentary considering I’m not at all sure about what I’m saying, but if someone could confirm or infirm this it would be helpful.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am
@Joe13(69)I was lucky and was at the Isle of Wight festival in 1970(18 days before Hendricks’ death) Janis was incredible!! We did stop Nixon from nuking Nam!!
Peace
October 12th, 2009 at 10:24 am
@lostatsea1 (63):
“Still believe kerosene and office furnishings could disintegrate hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, in less than an hour, resulting in a collapse of 110 stories in under 10 seconds?”
YES, you conspiracy-nut moron… because we’re not just talking about “kerosene” here, as in ordinary kerosene, but we’re talking about kerosene-based JET fuel. FURTHER, we’re not just talking about “office furnishings” jackass. We’re talking about EVERYTHING in those buildings which was flammable—INCLUDING much of the material the buildings themselves were MADE OUT OF.
The twin towers were NOT constructed with the full “box-like” construction one would think of in a building tower of the sort they appeared to be. They were constructed, instead, with a CORE which carried the bulk of the load, supporting FAR lighter and weaker members THROUGHOUT the structure, on EACH floor, because it saved WEIGHT and steel and therefore saved MONEY. AND, jackass, once the weaker, lighter supporting members began to melt and give way, the stress and increased weight on the LOWER floors and their members CAUSED the pancake effect that we saw.
There’s no big mystery to this, and it’s perfectly plausible and reasonable that it happened this way. AGAIN—VERY FEW actual STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS argue with this. The “authorities” you could cite who are skeptical are A) A TINY MINORITY and B) are NOT structure engineers with experience of this sort of building.
“(The buildings were designed to withstand airliner collisions!!)”
NO THEY WERE NOT. THAT is an outright LIE. They, like all buildings of their type, took into account collisions with small aircraft—NOT airliners—because AIRLINERS AREN’T ORDINARILY ALLOWED TO FLY AT THAT ALTITUDE OVER NEW YORK CITY, YOU IDIOT. Small aircraft, however, ARE taken into consideration AND the buildings WERE designed to withstand such a small impact and fire.
BUT THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT designed to withstand the impact of a JET AIRLINER FILLED WITH AVIATION FUEL. The resultant fireball of such an impact is EXACTLY what caused the catastrophic loss of integrity within the buildings’ structure and such a thing was NOT planned for.
So what, nutcase? You think the Bush administration or the Israelis went through the buildings setting bombs in secret, so that they could later use Arabs (?!) to hijack some airliners and fly them into the buildings—and then secretly detonate the bombs to make the buildings come down neatly? Jackass. THAT is CRAZIER than the truth! WAY CRAZIER.
WHY would it be necessary to even BRING THE DAMN BUILDINGS DOWN? The act of flying the planes INTO the buildings would have been enough excuse to start a war! As if the Bush administration NEEDED an enormous excuse! Or do you not believe the planes were even there? IS THAT IT? The eyes of the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD were on those planes, but what? They weren’t really there? Is that what you think, gnat-brain?
And just WHO went through those buildings setting these bombs? And how could they do it without being seen or detected? Who are all these master prowlers? And who would really plan such a thing and think NOTHING would EVER leak out? The risk of a leak would be ENORMOUS. The INFRASCTURE to support such a scheme would be ENORMOUS. The number of people in the KNOW would have to be ENORMOUS.
But the number of people who would agree to hijack some airliners and fly them into the buildings? You only need a few. And back in the day when we weren’t looking for such things, they could easily get away with it. And did.
I’m sorry, lostatsea… but I’m sick to death of your ridiculous conspiracy-theory nonsense. Use your goddamn brain for something more constructive, or get medication to clear up this absurd problem of yours. You want to believe the world is a sinister place filled with evil powers that walk amongst us? Fine. But at least have the critical thinking skills to reason about it RATIONALLY, and not just endlessly grab at imaginary straws.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@randall(82) hmmm…you’ve got me wondering how the joker planted all those bombs in gotham hospital.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I always thought #10 was common knowledge. And kennedy died long before we even made it to the moon, so i dont know why he gets so much credit.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:46 am
The Kent state kids were friends of a group of people who later formed Devo as a direct response to what they saw as the devolution of man.
Nice list. I hope we get more of these lists in the future! Oh, sorry, I’m breaking character… that should read “more of these fucking lists in the fucking future.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@Randall(82)Have you even looked at the design plans? 210,000 tons of structural steel was used in the core columns…5/8 inch bolts held the floor trusses to the central cores…3/4 inch bolts were used at the outer girders forming the lattice work…core columns supported 60% and lattice 40%…You answered segue in regards to secret projects…keep it in the military…I have never diparaged you and your naivety, please refrain from infantile ranting!!
October 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
oops! disparaged!! means don’t piss me off!
October 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I ’spose if Randall would practice what he preaches, he would realize his crafty response was worserly poorliest dumbeliest written with a couple of cliches to boot. Snooze.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@Randall (82): It´s truly shocking to know that you don´t consider some of 9-11 “facts”, information, antecedents and consequences at least manipulated.
I´m not nearly fond of conspiracy theorists, but I´m sure the world isn´t a “place filled with benign powers” either, and dead certain that you aren´t a structural engineer either.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@Edumicated (88):
Is that so, asshole? Care to point any of this out to me with specifics?
October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am
New rule: No ist is complete until Randall has had his say. @El the erf: Dein gravatar is varscheinlich aufs Klo.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am
@Randall (82): Yeah,pretty convincing explanation you’ve given..THOUGH one can’t deny that USA brought it upon itself.By that,I mean the Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden were the creation as the result of the US govt.’s stupid actions.After all,who funded and equipped them with weapons to fight against the Soviets? No,they have to poke their nose in the affairs of every other country for their petty gains.The ‘terrorist’ has been created due to the selfish policies of the US government and unfortunately,the American citizen had to pay for their(the US govt.) follies.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Oops, I meant no LIST, obviously.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Geronimo: AMEN!!! (I don’t know how meaningful that is coming from an atheist, but you get my point.)
October 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@psychosurfer (89):
Nope, I’m not a structural engineer myself—but I in fact personally KNOW several of them. And I’d damn well bet that that’s more than you or any other conspiracy nut can claim.
*I* am shocked that ANYONE (including you) DOES consider some of the 9-11 facts “manipulated” when you have NO PROOF of such a thing.
Go ahead and TELL ME what “facts” you consider to have been “manipulated,” genius.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:30 am
@atheists eat fish(91) it’s been a loo-ng time !
October 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Powerful list. Revisit memory once in awhile.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@lostatsea1 (86):
Spare me the bullshit about my “naivete” lostatsea… however, I STRONGLY counsel that YOU listen up when I tell you that you’re cracked and need to seek some sanity in your whacked-out beliefs.
AGAIN–you offer NO PROOF whatsoever—you simply believe that the towers were built so strongly that they COULDN’T have fallen…. yet all you do is mention what SEEMS TO YOU to be proof of an unassailable structure (it wasn’t) while offering NOTHING else to counter the points I put to you OR my questions. Convenient, but intellectually lazy a means of arguing a point as there ever was.
YOU ARE NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. Neither am I as it happens—but I at least know a few and have talked to them. But the point is, you’re mesmerized into believing that because it SOUNDS TO YOU like the towers were built like Everest itself, they can’t POSSIBLY have been brought down merely by flying airliners into them. Well you’re wrong, and all you’re doing is displaying a total lack of knowledge regarding structural integrity, material strength, and the capacity for a fireball of aviation fuel to compromise such things in buildings that were basically built to handle far more “normal” and LIKELY catastrophes, but NOT what they were finally hit with.
If anyone here displays naivete, in fact, it’s you. You’re so caught up in being convinced that such things CANNOT be that you don’t even bother to attempt to grasp the science that explains clearly how they very much could and DID happen.
I am not naive, lostatsea—I am INFORMED. You are not, but think you are. I can walk downstairs and across a couple hallways to a Materials Engineering department here in the university where I work, where there are several friends of mine who can tell you precisely why you’re wrong and why it’s perfectly possible the towers collapsed the way they did. But that information IN FACT exists all over the place online—you and people like you simply refuse to listen to it, because you’d RATHER believe in nonsense.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I agree with Randall. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy is an idiot.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Best list I’ve read yet
October 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
you should check out, for yourself, especially how WTC 7 came down. Very interesting.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
hey Randall and Davy,
you guys should check out what some actual architects and engineers have to say about it.
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
@Petie (97): Memory is fried.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Seems no one will take your word, Randall, simply because you’re not a structural engineer. Maybe they should refer to the extensive research done at Popular Mechanics. I’m pretty sure some of those people conducting the investigation are structural engineers. It’s a long read but if you’re interested in hearing facts I suggest taking the time to read it. However, there’s no proof that these people aren’t “in on it”…
Also, I’m so sick of hearing “we had it coming” or any variation thereof. I did not have it coming. My 3 week old daughter did not have it coming. My elderly parents did not have it coming.
Blech, you bother me!
October 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Randell nice to see you back, got to run to pick up the other half, just had a quick squiz at the list, agree on the 9\11 thing jet fueal on inpact can melt steel, so the reinforsing proberly melted causing that pancake effect.
Kerosene is mixwd in aircraft that fly in very cold weather, no let me go or no supper for me tonight.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I refuse to believe that the same regime that would back George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Sarah Palin could have orchestrated the greatest conspiracy ever…
Here’s a quick question for the conspiracy nuts – if the Twin Towers were secretly rigged with bombs, then why go to the trouble of flying fucking airliners into them? Why not just saying that terrorists blew the shit out of them with bombs? I mean, if they were smart enough to orchestrate such a perfect conspiracy, they could have realised that the planes were extraneous.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Burning jet fuel cannot melt steel, but it can lower its structural integrity to the extent that the weight of the floors above could have caused it to give way.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
@randall
That university where you work…it’s definitely one of those top universities of the world, if i am not wrong,eh?
Do they have a masters degree for architecture??
Do I stand even an iota of chance to apply for the course??
Oh,Please,please do reply!!
BTW right now i am doing my Bachelors in Arch.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:53 am
@jimmythet (102):
I’m not saying someone or something didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, I just don’t think the government or Bush had anything to do with it.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@El the erf (108): Stop being a stupid sycophant..
October 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am
@Ninja_Wallaby
I understand how it would be hard to believe the guy was on meth because we’ve only recently been hearing about it, but it really has been around for quite some time. In fact it was first synthesized in 1893 and used extensively by soldiers on both sides of WWII. Maybe that should be on the list as well.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@geronimo1618 (110)
“Stop being a stupid sycophant..”
STOP BEING SUCH A NOSEY PARKER
October 12th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Randall (95): @Randall (95): Well I´m not more of a conspiracy nut than you a dumb TV viewer for that matter, so if TV evidence represent our “facts” I have nothing.
However I do think the true relevance of the 9/11 (regardless of all the melodrama) lies in the WAY things were managed by the US government, which were manipulated in various ways.
But come on, you truly believe the authenticity of that Osama Bin Laden video where he laughs gesticulating to his evil buddies how those planes crashed into the buildings?
October 12th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@Psychosurfer(113):
“However I do think the true relevance of the 9/11 (regardless of all the melodrama) lies in the WAY things were managed by the US government, which were manipulated in various ways.”
Excepting a few stubborn ones,that’s something most of the people around the world would agree upon.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Very interesting list
October 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@psychosurfer (113):
Your tortured and awkward prose is no better than the lousy writing evinced by the author of this list, psychosurfer, so I’m having a hard time understanding just what it is you’re attempting to say.
“Well I´m not more of a conspiracy nut than you a dumb TV viewer for that matter, so if TV evidence represent our “facts” I have nothing.”
Are you trying to imply that MY understanding of the technical points regarding 9-11 comes strictly from watching TV? That’s dead wrong, if so. I already made a point of mentioning, several times, that I personally KNOW structural engineers who have considered carefully the problem of the towers, and who in turn dismiss all the conspiracy nonsense about them, and dismiss the idea that they could NOT have been brought down just as we appeared to SEE them brought down, i.e., by two jet airliners crashing into them. No further “manipulation” was necessary.
Again, I don’t get that information from “TV.” I get it from discussing the matter with TRAINED AUTHORITIES in the field who have the KNOWLEDGE needed to make a professional judgement on this matter. Now granted, I have access to such people from working in academia for 20 years, and from simply being friends with some of them for years—either from working with them or having known them since we were all undergrads. BUT AGAIN—none of what I go by is “hidden” or “secret” information. It’s out there for anyone to see. You simply have to be willing to think, investigate, and attempt to understand the science behind WHY the towers fell and how and why it was NOT a big mystery or attributable to some “bomb plot.”
I do NOT understand to what you refer to when you say that you think “…the true relevance of the 9/11 (sic)… lies in the WAY things were managed by the US government, which were manipulated in various ways.”
Why the circumspect talk? Why not just come out and state with clarity what it is you’re trying to say? What manipulation?
“But come on, you truly believe the authenticity of that Osama Bin Laden video where he laughs gesticulating to his evil buddies how those planes crashed into the buildings?”
Why not? Why do you NOT believe it? Bin Laden is a polarized son of a bitch who believes he is leading a rightful jihad against the West and specifically the United States for offenses he feels have been committed against Islam and god. He has, or had, money and influence, and was the figurehead around whom these men rallied. Why do you find it so unbelievable that he would gloat about his victory against the US on camera? He was proud of what he did, proud of taking on and beating this great superpower that he feels is evil, debauched, and corrupt, and he wanted to crow about it. He’s an evil piece of shit. What’s the big surprise to you, about it?
October 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@Woyzeck(107) Go into the internet and type in Steel melting fires, open the first box and then come talk.
Im not 19 or 20 or 29 or 39 not even 15 years will bring me close – cheack out the site and get back to me – this is all in fun please dont get your back up over this.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
His name is Rosey Grier, not Rosie. I agree with Randall on the proof-reading.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@El the erf (108):
“That university where you work…it’s definitely one of those top universities of the world,”
Yes.
“Do they have a masters degree for architecture??”
Yes.
“Do I stand even an iota of chance to apply for the course??”
For what course? Do you mean for admittance to the program? How would I know? What are your grades like? It’s a fairly well-ranked program I understand, though I don’t think it’s in the same league with the REAL biggies… like, I think, say… the University of Chicago. But it’s close. Let’s just say some famous architects have graduated from here… and we’ve had some famous architects doing work here.
Anyway, I only know a couple guys over there. I was referring to Materials Science and Engineering, not architecture. Engineers will be the first to point out that architects are NOT engineers. They have a long rivalry, in fact.
By the way… as a former Art major myself (I originally studied both painting and art history) and as someone who for a time entertained the idea of becoming an architect, you might think I’d side with the architects.. but I don’t.
“BTW right now i am doing my Bachelors in Arch.”
Well good luck—you’ve got my support, since as I say I once upon a time wanted to do that myself. Sometimes I wish I did, but as you well know, probably, it isn’t an easy life and not the glamorous occupation people think it is, and requires lengthy and extensive coursework. I wasn’t willing to go all through that only to end up working at some piddling firm somewhere designing kitchens and home additions, or at best gas stations and laundromats. But that was me—I just didn’t want to do the small work, so I realized that it wasn’t for me, as an occupation. I didn’t have the passion for it.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
@jimmythet (102):
Bullshit. A small minority of the vast number of the certified architects and engineers in this country, and moreover… A) architects are NOT engineers. They are supposed to understand certain things about load and structure and material strengths, but don’t always… and B) very few of the engineers cited are actual STRUCTURAL engineers, and thus do NOT have the precise and specific expertise in this matter.
See, laymen mistakenly assume that all architects, engineers, or for that matter scientists are equal—this is an incorrect perception perhaps brought on partly by Hollywood. In fact, these fields are HIGHLY specialized, and just because someone is an “engineer” does NOT mean that he or she has the full understanding of materials or structural engineering that allows them to make an authoritative statement on what happened on 9-11. I know LOTS of engineers—probably three or four dozen or more. Only a handful of them could give you a REAL authoritative answer on the structural possibilities regarding the twin towers—the others may have knowledge in varying degrees, but they’re not actual structural engineers or materials science engineers, and so don’t REALLY know anymore than, say, a plumber could tell you how to fix your Toyota.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@Woyzeck (106):
Damn good point.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@undaunted warrior (117):
Everything I found backed up my point. I find it rather insolent of you to tell me to go and look this up. I knew exactly what I was saying and I’m not pulling this stuff out of my arse. If you want to debate this with me then present some fucking facts and figures, don’t tell me to go and look it up on the fucking internet.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
nice!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I must agree with several of Randal’s points regarding my list. He clearly is an educated man. Unfortunately however, he also brilliantly demonstrates a well known principal in the service industry called the, “the evil waitress option.” And before he points it out, yes, I myself am only a lowly former bartender/waiter. In brief, the principal relates to several studies that show that mean waiters/waitresses are constantly tipped higher than their kinder counterparts. It is hypothesized that this is because when the average customer is treated poorly, it feeds into their belief that they are out of their element (the nice restaurant) and conveys to them the professionalism and expertise of the server. Regardless of the servers actual ability. Randall’s behavior on this forum is abhorrent but he understands that it is this behavior that gives him authority. Again, unfortunately his intelligence is clearly above average and it would be nice to see him trust that that alone would communicate his expertise. My bartender reading tells me that he feels unappreciated at the University (possibly, rightfully so) and therefore bullies everyone on the forum with his superior intelligence. Should we ever run into each other over drinks, I’d love to discuss a multitude of topics with him but come on man, where is your civility?
October 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@esamuherr (124):
The harder you piss, the less likely you are to wind up with wet shoes. Let Randall be the mean waiter, so long as he is right.
I shit on all of you.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
What an interesting list. All of this information was news to me. Keep it up, esamuherr!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
P.S. esamuherr – good list.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@Woyzeck (125):
Woyzeck, if you were a woman I’d stand on a hilltop and proclaim my love for you.
“I shit on all of you” not only cracked me up, but warmed my heart, as it so reflects my own feelings about most of humanity.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
old guns on the list, kool history yo
October 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@esamuherr (124):
“In brief, the principal relates to several studies that show that mean waiters/waitresses are constantly tipped higher than their kinder counterparts.”
Mean to whom?
Anyway, the principle doesn’t apply here. I am not a “service professional.” Nor do I require the attitude I make use of to convey my wisdom. I simply do it because A) it’s fun and B) I prefer to humilate asinine people rather than “be gentle with them.” That is to say, in this kind of forum and environment.
If, however, you felt I was needlessly rude to YOU, I’d submit that you’re thin-skinned and rather sensitive.
It was a good idea for a list, and I don’t have much criticism against it as far as a list goes. The only point I really dispute is #10.
“Randall’s behavior on this forum is abhorrent”
IS IT? Is it REALLY? Am I THAT bad, or are you just not all that familiar with the site? I don’t recall encountering you here before. Do you really find me “abhorrent?” Does it not occur to you that this is an open web site and not any kind of a professional entity, and is therefore, by definition, a free-for-all of opinion? I use the tools necessary to entertain and inform as I see fit, because it’s my belief that dry and dull and quietly nice would not be appreciated by most people here. This isn’t the kind of site for it.
“but he understands that it is this behavior that gives him authority.”
I beg to differ. What gives me “authority” is WHEN I am authority on a given subject–i.e., my education and knowledge and my critical thinking skills. I never take the view that my BEHAVIOR lends me any particular authority.
“Again, unfortunately his intelligence is clearly above average and it would be nice to see him trust that that alone would communicate his expertise.”
There are instances when it would, there are instances when it would not. If you knew the site well enough, you would know that I present my “persona” differently at different times, depending on just this criteria.
“My bartender reading tells me that he feels unappreciated at the University”
Nah. Sorry boy-o, wrong. They love me here.
“Should we ever run into each other over drinks, I’d love to discuss a multitude of topics with him”
And so we could. It never seems to occur to people that in REAL LIFE I am not the person I PRETEND to be on this site.
“but come on man, where is your civility?”
On the shelf gathering dust with my sentimentality and sweetness. They don’t much serve me here.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
@esamuherr (124):
By the way… I AM sincerely sorry if I hurt your feelings… but I am also a writer and an editor. And when you put yourself out there, you have to expect to get jabbed now and then.
I didn’t think I was actually all that tough on you, but maybe I was. Anyway, don’t stop offering up lists. This one was a good idea. I hope you have others. Don’t be discouraged by the likes of me.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
nearly all of these are well known facts and obvious (especially 10). surely better ones could be found?
the russian woman in the theatre must have been mentally handicapped. no one in their right mind would just walk in past security and talk to terrorist despite her not being personally involved or trained
October 12th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@esamuherr (124): I don’t see a lot of real intelligence behind Randall. What I hope I see is just a façade.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I don’t subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I do have two questions about it. First off, two planes hit two towers, one plane hit the Pentagon and the last plane (“Let’s Roll!”) went down in Pennsylvania. Were any of the black boxes recovered?
Second, I don’t know any structural engineers or demolition experts personally, but how long would it take to prepare a skyscraper of the Twin Tower scope for demolition with explosives? Or for that matter, a Las Vegas casino for instance? Does preparation time take days, weeks, months?
October 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Fair enough… I dig the idea of having an Internet persona, it just never occurred to me. Although, maybe I’ll give it a try. Regarding my not being on here all that much- thats right, Yo. I’m too busy out on the town banging hot chicks that I impress with my bad grammar-what, what!!!!
October 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@esamuherr (124):
Ignore Randall, you’re list was very interesting. Randall will die a lonely man and although he is somewhat intelligent, he’s lost the game of life.
Seriously, your list was one of the best i’ve read for a while.
@Randall (130):
SSSSHHHHHH. You’re a middle aged man with kids, it’s time to stop coming on the internet and belittling people for your amusement. And even more importantly you need to find yourself a life where coming on the internet and belittling people doesn’t actually give you amusement. It’s….it’s just not a good place to be.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@Randall (130):
Your “persona” is to get chicks, right? We all know that the ladies like the jerks.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Looking forward to your excellent and superior list site Randall
October 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Good List! I really enjoy this site. keep up the good work
October 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
@Randall(95)I just happen to know quite a few ‘pengs’ who also agree the physical improbability of 9/11,,,do you perhaps know the heat sink that much steel has?
October 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@Randall(130)Having worked with steel and other metals for over 40 yrs diploma issued 1969…I do know how steel reacts to heat…it dissipates…most of the fuel burned at impact…low temp fires, black smoke…c’mon!!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Oh!! forgot to add NORAD…no response…Atta trained at CIA!!!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I really enjoyed this list!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Of course, another way to argue against this war would be to point out that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. But even though our own FBI has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” a large part of the American population has been conditioned to reject all revisionism about 9/11 out of hand. As we saw recently with “the Van Jones affair,” people are considered unfit for public service if they once signed a document suggesting that the official account of 9/11 might not be fully true.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15638
October 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I love this list. I, too, remember all of these events. (I am so old, LOL) I just didn’t know about some of the detail. I was a teenager when Kent State happened and remember the 4 people that were killed, but I didn’t recall any of the information about all the discourse that was going on at the same time in the rest of the US. (Not to say I didn’t know about all the protest and such going on around me, I was very much aware of it, I guess I didn’t realize how many college/university campuses had these protests going on at the same time.)
My daughter is 18 years old and she and I were just talking about Kent State a couple days ago. I told her what I know, now I can study up on it more and she and I can have a more intellectual discussion about it.
Thank you for this list. I love the history lists!
October 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Somewhere along his ramblings, Randall asked what typographical errors he made in comment 82. Here goes:
Line 9, capitalization for “Twin Towers”
Line 19, wrote “structure engineers” instead of “structural,” also should have written “knowledge” instead “experience”
See, Randall? You are not above making mistakes. While I did have some trouble with the way the article was written, I’m sure your teachers taught you manners as well as grammar in school, no? What sick pleasure you must get from acting like a great internet asshole on Listverse!
October 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I love the lists about history!
I knew there were buildings next to the Twin Towers that were destroyed on 9/11 because I saw an episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” about a man who’s wife disappeared in NYC on September 10th 2001. He was looking for her after the attacks and he mentioned some of the buildings near the Towers that had been destroyed. Until I saw that episode I didn’t know any of that.
Good for little Tilly Smith in #6, and good for her parents for listening to her instead of dismissing her alert because she was so young.
Why on earth would the woman in #4 think she could just go over and reason with terrorists? Her heart was in the right place, but that was just such a bad idea.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Good List. Can’t believe there are so many 9-11 “Troofers” still around these days. Find a new theory already, like, I don’t know, how about that the US Gov’t caused the Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami using secret satellite weapons or something.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
With regards to the comments – i.e. who’s smart, who’s right, who’s an asshole etc. – I take the approach that:
1) I don’t actually know any of you so I don’t really care what your opinions are
2) I do love watching “train wrecks” however so the arguments are often most amusing
3) I don’t feel the need to “evangelise” my own opinions so I rarely join in the banter (Does this post negate this point?)
October 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@Choco (146): Here goes:
Line 9, capitalization for “Twin Towers”
Line 19, wrote “structure engineers” instead of “structural,” also should have written “knowledge” instead “experience”
Allow me to speak for the rest of us here by saying that I really think we would all be well served if you would go back deep into the annals of the Listverse archives and review each and every one of his “ramblings” for more examples of the type of grievous errors you have painstakingly mined and submitted here for our review. I am sure this is just the tip of the iceberg of such horrific failings, and as such they should be documented accordingly. Please categorize them in subgroups corresponding with list-name, posting date, line-number (I liked that added touch btw!) and word-count. Alphabetizing isn’t necessary, but employing some type of Dewey-Decimal system of cataloguing these items would be appropriate, in the event someone might want to cross-reference them later in response to another “ramble”.
One small bit of constructive criticism, if I may: instead of quotation marks (which tend to appear somewhat rudimentary when used in the abundance anticipated for scope of this magnitude), I think it would be beneficial to us all if you were to utilize italics and bold text highlighting techniques, so as to further provide visual aid to those of us that live for these type of things, and also to raise your personal level of credibility within the Miscellaneous Error Research (MER) community. You really want your work to stand out among the crowd, don’t you? Please advise us as to when we can expect to see the highly awaited results of such an important and prodigious effort on your part.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
@Choco (146):
Hardly even worth an “E” for effort, Choco. Try again. There’s a huge difference between a random typo here and there or a failure to capitalize—pointing those things out IS nitpicking–vs. poor syntax and flat-out poor writing.
And again, I’m sick to death of prissy little fuckers like you trying to “analyze” me with bullshit accusations like how I must get “sick pleasure” out of being an “internet asshole.”
You are under no obligation to read what I write, nor to respond to me. So if you don’t like it, fuck off.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@Maggot (150):
Thanks, Mag.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
@Randall (152): Since it quite obviously just made that poster’s day to find those errors, I wanted to reward a job well done.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@lostatsea1 (141):
And what kind of a “diploma” was that?
AND AGAIN—it isn’t ONLY about the GODDAMNED STEEL AND YOU KNOW IT. There were structural issues at play which were only peripherally related to what happened to the *steel* itself.
This is typical of conspiracy nuts. No matter how much they’re shown a gallery of evidence which negates their craziness, they continue to HARP on ONE issue which they can cling to. Because it’s all they’ve got.
Why? Because it’s a kind of goddamn sickness. People like you, “lost,” feel powerless in the world, and subconsciously they feel they can’t do a damn thing about it, not a damn thing to influence the world or their own lives even. They’ve subconsciously given up and given in. But they can’t face it—they can’t face the pain of a life of failure and powerlessness.
SO they create an imaginary, alternate reality where only THEY know the “truth,” where only THEY have the answers, where only they have been able to see the “real” world which the rest of us “blinded” and “duped” types can’t see. But of course we’ll never see it because IT ISN’T REAL. It’s analogous to a hypochondriac. Don’t we all wonder WHY hypochondriacs always wallow in thinking they’re sick? Don’t we wonder WHY anyone would want to live a miserable existence like that?
But that’s the answer. Because they are souls who subconsciously believe they are powerless in the face of forces controlling them, running their lives. So they only way they can cope with that is to create imaginary “realities” where THEY have the say, where they can say “I know I am sick” in the face of all proof to the contrary. And so it lends power to these sad, failed individuals who really believe down deep that they have none. But they immerse themselves in FALSE power over the world, over reality, and create their own… as the only means of feeling in control.
So it is with conspiracy theorists, who feel the world is beyond them, run by secret cabals and sinister government insiders who manipulate and control and manage life for the rest of us. But by creating this phony reality, they can console themselves mightily by saying, “I see it—I see the truth—while the rest of you dupes do not.”
AND NO MATTER how many times you counter their absurdities with logic, proof, and evidence, they squirm around it. THAT is the sign of a kind of psychosis–an innate failure to recognize reality even when it stands right in front of them.
You have been asked a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION–where is the logic in flying planes into these buildings if they were just BLOWN UP ANYWAY? Why not just blow them up and accuse Al Qaeda of THAT? Or, to turn it around… why not JUST fly the planes into the buildings? What conspiracy would have required them to fall, to collapse? Surely that was unnecessary for an excuse to start a war—because all that was needed was an ATTACK. AND WHY, anyway, if it was BOMBS that were planted for some reason, WHY plant them in such a way to SUGGEST a “controlled detonation” which brought the buildings down pancake style? Why not blow them up to LOOK the way people like you would EXPECT to look, if they fell due to planes flying into them?
ALL of this is simple logic. Your ideas fall apart because you have no answer for ANY of this–and indeed, despite repeated chances for you to offer some answer, you have not done so.
And the reason is because it too closely challenges your need for this false reality where YOU have the eyes to see and the rest of us do not.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
An interesting list. However, I think that you are selling a lot of people short by saying that the information that you cite has been forgotten. Much of it is a major part of the event, and well remembered my many.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@archiealt (136):
You know, asshole, you’ve been shown up time and time again for trying to pull this kind of crap, where you disparage the personality of an individual YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW. It doesn’t work, it never will work, and it’s fucking pathetic. So my sincere advice to you is to knock it off—because no one’s buying it or listening to you.
“Randall will die a lonely man and although he is somewhat intelligent, he’s lost the game of life.”
And JUST HOW DO YOU FUCKING KNOW THIS? You don’t KNOW me, know absolutely NOTHING about me. The fucking amusing thing is how DEAD wrong you are… but the sick thing is, you actually are brain dead enough to think that you can spout shit like this and expect ANYONE to listen or believe it—MUCH LESS ME!!!
“SSSSHHHHHH. You’re a middle aged man with kids, it’s time to stop coming on the internet and belittling people for your amusement.”
And you know what asshole? As ridiculously over the top as your ego clearly is, I hate to break it to you—but I am in no way obligated to do what YOU tell me to do. Isn’t that a surprise? But I find it wonderfully affirming and another reason to love life—that while some prick like you can try to inform me on my own life, from an absurdly huge distance of knowing absolutely ZERO about me personally—I’m free to tell you to shut the fuck up and mind your own goddamned business. And yay for me, I’ve done so, and can continue as I see fit. You, in turn, are free to not like it. But I put it to you that trying to characterize me as you do makes you look like nothing more than an ass.
“And even more importantly you need to find yourself a life where coming on the internet and belittling people doesn’t actually give you amusement. It’s….it’s just not a good place to be.”
And honest to god, you are damn near sickeningly twisted by thinking you ACTUALLY have the right or the wisdom to describe the life of an individual you do NOT know in the slightest, or to give me advice on how I should live my life.
In short, I’m not in the slightest bit interested in your opinion, and you are wasting your time and energy by typing this kind of nonsense.
So I invite you to fuck off. It’s for the best for both of us, because you’re only wasting my time AND yours.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Jamie just got his first copy of The ListVerse Book in his hands!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569757151?ie=UTF8&tag=jamifrat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1569757151
I wonder if it’s going to include our comments?
October 12th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
@Randall (82): God! I officially love you. Thank you for treating this whole conspiracy business as it deserves to be treated: as a pile of bullshit.
That said, I was a little disappointed when I was reading one of your comments and I came across the phrase “in regards to”—that’s nonstandard, it should be “in regard to.” I typically don’t care about those mistakes but I think it is relevant to mention it. Now, please don’t strike back telling me about every single grammatical mistake I have made in this comment because I don’t plan to be an editor or a writer, I don’t even have a college degree, and in fact I have been speaking English only for about three years. My point is, I don’t expect my writing to be flawless but if someone is to correct it, I don’t want it to be out of spite. I will gladly disregard your comment if that’s the case. I just wanted to point that out because I’m not the only person who is reading your comments and some people, unlike me, do care and will probably find it ludicrous that you make a mistake while trying to correct those that other people make.
Now, you will think that I’m trying to use flattery to counterbalance what I’ve just said, but, for the love of Mike, I loved how you ripped that conspiracy nonsense apart.
As for the list, I like the fact that the title doesn’t start with the word “top.” That would have been a little pretentious. However, I did enjoy reading it, and I think it would be interesting to see a second version of it.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
You know, I’ve got something to say here. I’m sick to death of little pussies like archiealt and Choco and the handful of others of their ilk who from time to time crawl out of the woodwork to bad-mouth me because they can’t take my stance on something, or see me only as a negative voice here, “belittling” people. As though I am ONLY about that and nothing else.
But see, I know better—as do the long-timers on this site who know me and have interacted with me—because in point of fact I spend at least as much time engaged in ordinary discussions where I’m disseminating knowledge or speaking on topics I have professional experience with, etc., as I do this so-called “belittling.”
The thing is, I get called to task by these humorless, self-important pricks nine times out of ten because I have deflated some cherished little view they have of the world, or simply because I’ve spoken with a critical voice—and that type of person is opposed to the very IDEA of criticism, as it happens.
This list was a nice idea but was poorly written. I said so, and that’s that. I pointed out why I felt justified in holding this stance, and offered evidence. I COULD have offered much more. Sure, I could have let it go, ignored it… but speaking as a goddamn writer myself, AND as an editor—I know that it’s in fact a SERVICE to the person who has written a substandard work when they hear the truth, as harsh as it may be.
Now, why do I feel that I should provide said service? Good question. To which the answer is, however, “why the hell not?” By placing themselves out there publicly with something they have produced, people are opening themselves up to the reactions of the world. The world is not in any way obligated to be “nice” in its reactions or even encouraging. In fact the world is often nasty and unforgiving in its brutal reactions. That is a fact of life.
I have to face that simple fact of life every day, as do friends of mine who do as I do–who write or produce something that they voluntarily put out there, naked for the world to judge and react to. We have had to learn to take it.
I have, therefore, not a goddamned speck of sympathy for people who, when they see criticism or have it directed at them, react like spoiled children who’ve been told “no” for the first time. I DO have sympathy AND empathy for those who DO put work out there, whatever it is, because they have tried, and particularly if they have done their best. But my sympathy ceases when something is offered up and it is expected that the rest of us are only supposed to admire it or look away from it if we have nothing “nice to say.” *I* do not get that luxury of kid-glove treatment in MY chosen profession as a writer–now tell me why in god’s name I should give it to someone who is attempting some analogous function to that, by offering to all of us their piece of work, whatever it may be.
I was not needlessly cruel to the writer of this list. I simply stated that it was poorly written and said why. I even felt a shade bad later that I may have discouraged him/her. But that’s because at heart I sympathize more with the creator than the editor and always have. But down deep I know the editor is almost always right.
But at any rate, as I say, I hardly feel I was outrageously cruel or needlessly critical. I spoke the truth, and that’s all. I am not responsible for the fear people have of that truth–and in fact, I’m contemptuous of those who can’t face up to it. And I think with damn good reason.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
@Andres (158):
Thanks, but let me point something out here regarding mistakes in my comments. Because others (not you) have tried to use these things against me like spiteful little children, and there’s a logical point here that needs to be made, in counter to them.
When I am writing these comments, I am doing so HURRIEDLY in order to get my thoughts out in a timely fashion. Were I to take the time to put every single one of my grammatical or syntactic ducks in a row (to employ a cliche) I’d get fewer thoughts out and they would be far less timely. So I sacrifice a little of that for expediency. I do not do so deliberately—I would consider that kind of lazy writing to be unforgivable (for myself). I ALLOW it of myself, however, because speed is of the essence at times. I can write fast, but like the typist who can manage 70 words per minute but who begins to produce typos at 90, I have limits to my “automatic” quality, and there comes a point where I have to slow down and correct errors that crop up here and there. When I am writing to produce something professional, I do just that. Which is why it takes me upwards of a week to finish a short story, and it has taken me years, now, to reach a point where my longer works are at near-completion. Naturally there’s more to it than that—but you see my point.
At any rate, I face the choice on this site–write fast and get it out there, or slow down at some point and make sure it’s perfect. Slowing down, however, means I fall behind in the “timeliness” of what I’m trying to say… particularly if I’m answering someone’s question or challenge or what have you.
But there is a WORLD of difference between writing COMMENTARY on a list and actually WRITING the list itself. I have done both. In writing lists, I try my best to make sure my writing is the highest quality I can produce–within reason of course, since I’m not getting paid to do this, and no one of professional consequence (to me) is going to take note of what I’ve coughed up. Again, it’s the time issue. Even so, out of pride and a sense of what’s right, I made a strong effort to write well and coherently. I feel this is also a matter of respect for the audience. (and good entertainment).
In commentary, however, my primary focus is speed. And the best of writers can slip up when writing fast.
This does not excuse the writer of a list who has the time and freedom to ensure that he or she has done his or her best work.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
You all have internet sticks up your asses. I provide IS extractions for a nominal fee. Mac or PC. There are better places to get drunk, let loose and take offense than behind a keyboard. Spit game to someone’s face and see what transpires. You might get a rush out of it…
October 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
@BryanJ (76): this is the back story to the ‘pirating’ in those waters
October 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Keep stroking each other’s egos, Maggot (fitting name) and Randall. For someone who doesn’t care so much about what people online think of him, you sure do spend a lot of time writing rebuttals (which this time around, I did skip right over). I stopped reading Listverse months ago because your crap was crowding up the comments section and taking all the fun out of it, but happened to be linked to this list today by another site…too bad you’re still polluting up the area.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
@Choco (163): I stopped reading Listverse months ago
Then why are you still here whining like a little bitch?
October 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Nice to see you can read, old Maggaroo. I was linked to this article through another site.
Got anything else to say?
October 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@Randall (160): Hahaha I like Randall
October 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@Choco (165): I was linked to this article through another site.
LOL so you got “linked” over to a site that you profess to dislike not once, but twice? In one day?
Got anything else to say?
Yeah. Not only are you a whiny bitch, you are a dumbass.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Have you all had your fill of juvenile brattiness? Oh well, I can’t in good conscience describe this as juvenile because I know children with more poise and maturity than I’ve seen here. Normally by this point, I’d be trying to keep the peace and demand respect for the author of the list and the work he/she put into this, but I see the author of this list also joined in the melee that drew the conversation away from a topic that was actually pertinent to the today’s list. Really? I’ve respect for you as a fellow list submitter but you had the best chance to keep this thread civil and instead you threw another log into this flame war…especially with this attempt to garner guilt or sympathy by calling yourself a “lowly bartender”. A former roommate of mine was a bartender and I guarantee that should either of us have seen you in person, she would knee you in the groin if I didn’t get to you first. 1) *NEVER* be ashamed of what you are or what you do for a living. and 2) That wasn’t even part of any argument here. You brought that out of the woodwork solely to use it against other people. Cheap shot.
So what about the rest of you? More name calling? More “psychoanalysis”? It was a good list idea that needed a little tweaking and instead of focusing on that or focusing on specific items, you completely disregard the list for sake of yet another day of “gang up on Randall”. You all proud of yourselves?
Choco:
You were here, you left, you were linked here by another site that would either have a hyperlink saying listverse or mention something about listverse before posting the link and if not, then upon entering the site, you’d see the name listverse and decide not to come here based on previous interactions regarding the site but instead decided to stay long enough to read the list and read the comments and then submit a comment to complain about Randall still being on listverse and say you left listverse because Randall was on listverse and then continue to write two or three subsequent comment responses on this thread even though you said you are sick of listverse.
Have I understood everything you were trying to convey?
October 12th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
So I can’t come back and defend myself? Seriously? Because it’s apparent that a few of you here like to talk crap and think that if you have the last word, you have somehow proven your greatness on here. Is this site not for discussion and comments on the list? I was linked here once (no I don’t go scrutinizing every hyperlink before I click on it, what kind of weirdo does that) and continued to come back to make sure my comments were misunderstood. Give me a break if I’m going to be put down because I don’t like Randall’s nutsack and take everything he says for gospel.
This site says “Listverse” not “Randallverse” and it’s mind-boggling that this dude loves to bag on everyone and that there are even some people who support him! What do you get out of cutting people down on a light-hearted site ? Maggot and gabi, was I even addressing you? Is this some posse that I’ve now upset that will defend their dear leader? Oh, please! Keep talking down to people on here if that’s how you get your kicks. Nothing constructive about that at all.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
*to make sure my comments were NOT
October 12th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
In the middle ages, people like Olga were canonized.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@Choco (169):
For someone who doesn’t care so much about visiting Listverse, you sure do spend a lot of time writing rebuttals on the site.
no I don’t go scrutinizing every hyperlink before I click on it, what kind of weirdo does that
Ahh, so we have someone who’s gotten a computer virus from a spam email? or someone who’s “inadvertently stumbled upon” porn at work?
Sorry I answered a comment on a public forum that can be seen by anyone considered part of “the public”. Perhaps next time you can gift wrap your comment so inapplicable people won’t see it.
JFrater is the only one I’d consider my leader on this site. Yes, I’ve had dealings with Randall in the past and he’s certainly gotten the best of me in a number of interactions, but don’t think for one second I’m some kind of pansy who wouldn’t call him out if he were just picking on someone needlessly. Was he here? Not that I see. Someone essentially challenged him with a question, he responded, the other guy responded… and they had a conversation in line with the list. It was the others here who weren’t addressed – YOURSELF INCLUDED, Mr./Ms. Pot/Kettle/Black – that decided to jump in and dissolve the conversation to nothing but name calling.
Where exactly have I talked down to people? What is not constructive about my “Never be ashamed of who you are…”?
unbelievable…
October 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
nice list. informational.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
esamuherr – IMHO: the BEST “history” list to date.
Undaunted Warrior (117) I think you touched a nerve: I watched a scientific breakdown of the mechanics of WHY the towers collapsed – they were built to withstand the kind of impact caused by the airliners: they were NOT designed for the central cores to stand up to tens of thousands of gallons of burning avgas.
BTW – if Randall and Woyzcek are so anti-humanity and hold us in such contempt: maybe the Kevorkian Solution would be their best avenue – and BTW “Randall” if you ARE so busily employed at a university (anyone could make such a claim without having to substantiate it) – you can’t be earning your pay at present; considering how much time you are devoting to tearing strips of any and every-one on this forum. If you don’t like what people say: go away.
Oh and don’t bother trying to shoot me down in response – I won’t be back to give creedence or credibility to your rants by reading them!
I have shot people down in the past and have not (from memory) had to resort to swearing at them) Boittom line you cracking little ray of sunshine – You are nothing but a bully (both you and Woyzcek): what’s the problem; don’t you get enough attention at home (or at uni) that you have to invade a simple list forum and attempt to dominate contgributors with aggression? Poor Child.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’m out – not going to bicker online with people I’ll never deal with again in life. As you said gabi, I don’t want to be a hypocrite and add nothing to this comments section by going back and forth over nothing. Keep rambling on about whatever you were saying about porn at work and gift-wrapping comments because really, why not? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Knock yourself out. You scan each and every one of your links and I don’t. Congrats.
All I was trying to get at was Randall and his little peanut gallery are really played out and detract from the point of the site more than adding to it. If Randall so desperately wants to share his knowledge he should get his own blog and write his essays there where Maggot and whomever else can ooh and aah to their hearts content. No need to ruin an otherwise nice site with all the vitriol.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
@Choco (169): So I can’t come back and defend myself?
Sure you can. Just don’t try to come off like you are above the fray. Because you’re not.
a few of you here like to talk crap and think that if you have the last word…
Says the person who can’t seem to shut the fuck up and keeps coming back for more. Let it go. I dare you.
was I even addressing you?
When you make a post to a public forum, you are addressing everyone. Any post is open season for reply, by anyone else. HTH.
Is this some posse that I’ve now upset that will defend their dear leader?
Not really. I barely know the guy (if that). I just get tired of reading all the incessant whining about him. No value-add. But your post number 146 was particularly laughable, and begged a response in kind. Then you got all butthurt, and here we are.
This site says “Listverse” not “Randallverse”…Keep talking down to people on here if that’s how you get your kicks. Nothing constructive about that at all.
Well, I’m still waiting for you to comment on the actual list, rather than whatever the hell it is that you’re babbling about. Hypocrite.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
So Maggot, when will you be satisfied? Until you insult me enough that I don’t respond? Until everyone sings Randall’s praises or what?
I originally wanted to comment about how I enjoyed the list and always I like to scan other people’s comments first before I do so as not to repeat anything. It was too bad to see how things quickly deteriorated *yet again* because Randall and his croanies decided to just go off on someone.
The list was a nice read; the comments were not. Sometimes I wish the comments section was disabled so one could just enjoy the information. Save the drama for the forum.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Now those were interesting….
October 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@Choco (175): All I was trying to get at was Randall and his little peanut gallery are really played out and detract from the point of the site more than adding to it.
And you did this by detracting from the point of the site with your first comment on this thread. In fact you didn’t comment on the actual list until comment 177 with “This list was a nice read”. Way to add to the detraction.
Also on comment 175: I’m out – not going to bicker online… I don’t want to be a hypocrite and add nothing to this comments section by going back and forth over nothing.
@Choco (177): comment, comment, comment, bicker, bicker, bicker.
Lol, were you trying to make me look or feel like a hypocrite? I wasn’t the one saying “I’m out” but coming back to reply yet again nor was I the one leaving a comment wishing that the comment section was disabled. Good job. I’ve been duly chastised.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I’ll come back and reply as long as you’re addressing me, if I feel the need. Or do you want to keep trying to have the last word? Do continue spreading your good cheer! You’re really making this a welcoming place.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@Choco (177): when will you be satisfied?
LMAO, I knew you couldn’t do it.
Until everyone sings Randall’s praises or what?
I’m not the one that keeps bringing him up here, Choco. You really should stop obsessing about the guy.
I originally wanted to comment about how I enjoyed the list and always I like to scan other people’s comments first before I do so as not to repeat anything. It was too bad to see how things quickly deteriorated *yet again*
And so then, what did you end up posting about? You’re no better than anyone else. You just jumped right on into the mudslinging, didn’t you? You just couldn’t help yourself.
Sometimes I wish the comments section was disabled so one could just enjoy the information.
You crack me up, man. What, so you have come to the conclusion that you don’t like reading the comments, but you don’t have the self-discipline enough to just read the list by itself and not the comments? Or if you do decide to read thru the comments, you can’t just blow by something you don’t like and actually post something relevant to the list (which was your supposed intention)?
Save the drama for the forum.
LOL you probably don’t want to go down that road…
October 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@Choco (180): You’re really making this a welcoming place.
Thanks.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I mention him because his posts are so ridiculously long that I couldn’t just blow by them…and it wasn’t just one or two, he had several. Whatever, you want to point out that I keep posting, well so do you buddy so keep on at it. I like reading comments to see how other people felt about whatever the article is and see if I could learn some other tidbit (whether it was here or on any other site) but the amount of mean-spirited garbage on here is just ridiculous. You don’t see it as a problem but I did and I commented on it. So what? I feel like Randall’s manners are lacking and have the right to say it.
If you want to keep addressing me I will keep coming back to respond, simple as that. There’s no need to be rude and insulting because I’m pretty sure the comments section really isn’t for that. People can have manners and host normal discussions, even over the internet.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
@Choco (183): There’s no need to be rude and insulting because I’m pretty sure the comments section really isn’t for that.
And yet what was your very first post in this thread? The only reason I am on your ass is because you are a fucking hypocrite. I don’t care what you think of Randall or me or anyone else, just stop bullshitting. But do keep whining, Choco…even though the comments section isn’t really for that either.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
So if I call someone else out for what they are slamming another commenter on, I’m a hypocrite? Sure thing, Maggot. Keep on my ass then.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
You might want to re-read your posts and maybe listen to yourself for a change.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
@Choco (183): People can have manners and host normal discussions, even over the internet.
And you certainly proved that with:
146: great internet asshole on Listverse!
163: your crap was crowding up the comments section
169: what kind of weirdo does that
And various backhanded insults.
Good job leading by example. My comments are mean-spirited garbage while yours smell like roses.
his posts are so ridiculously long that I couldn’t just blow by them…
Ever heard of scroll down?
Go ahead and keep trying to make yourself out to be the injured party and me the hypocritical bad guy. You’ve been doing a good job thus far.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Never claimed to be an injured party, that’s you trying to paint your own picture. And wasn’t it you who was making fun of me for breaking things down line by line? Even when people try and be nice to that dude, he viciously shoots them down, I wasn’t going to go bowing and scraping to him so whatever. You and Maggot came at me hurling insults, so why would I play angel? If you are offended by me saying crap and weirdo, my bad.
Like I asked time and again, I really wonder what you and Maggot gain by insulting people and trying to chase posters off this site. I would understand if Randall wanted to reply to what I said, because it was directed at him but for you two to come out guns blazing? Seriously? So what have you gained? “That will show her to whine about people being more civil on here! This here’s Listverse, home of the wild bunch!” Give it a rest. In one breath you tell me I have to right to complain about Randall because I was rude as well and in the same breath you hurl curses and insults at me. So what gives you the right to rudely complain about my rude complaint? Ridiculous.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
*no right
October 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I always found the parallels between Jonestown and Masada interesting yet one is a national treasure and the other a national disgrace.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
If it weren’t for Randall,going through the comments would be a pretty drab affair..cheers!
October 13th, 2009 at 12:02 am
@Choco (188): Like I asked time and again, I really wonder what you and Maggot gain by insulting people and trying to chase posters off this site.
I’m not trying to chase you or anyone else off this site. I might’ve been trying to coax you into making a usefull comment about the list, but I see this is futile. Do you do anything besides whine?
October 13th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I whine as much as you insult. And your coaxing sure looks like attacking.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@Choco (193): I whine as much as you insult.
No, I think it’s safe to say that you are MUCH more of a whiner. lol
October 13th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I thought it was a good list. I was especially interested in #1. I guess that was why it was made #1!
On the flip side though, I think it’s sad that new people are going to be afraid to add their comments in case they get called an idiot or an asshole. I’ve read this site for ages but have always held back on commenting for fear of that, in fact I was wondering wether I should post this at all, but I think I needed to say it. To all the people above who are throwing insults around, try to think of the community. Don’t make this an environment where it’s frankly terrifying to have an opinion on something.
Thank you.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:15 am
@Choco (188): Never claimed to be an injured party
ORLY? Even when you accuse me of “hurling insults” at you? Even though you’ve been spending the last few comments saying things like “All I really wanted was to enjoy reading this list” and how you hate comments and wish they were disabled but then slightly retract that statement with “I want to read how other people felt about the article” and “I was just going to comment on how good the list is”…wah wah wah… Guess what? You had your chance to do so with your first comment and what did you write in that first comment? In the second one? in the third comment?
You and Maggot came at me hurling insults, so why would I play angel? If you are offended by me saying crap and weirdo, my bad.
WHERE have I hurled insults at you? Copy and Paste. I’m not offended by what you said. Did I say I was? That list of phrases were things *YOU* submitted in comments past and yet YOU harp on other people’s inability to have normal and civil discussions. Think of it as making fun of you if you want but it was nothing more than a reflection of what you have “said” on this thread. I’m painting with nothing more than what you’ve given me. Where did I say you had no right to complain? I haven’t told anyone that they have no right to complain. Copy and Paste where I mentioned that on this thread. For someone who isn’t pretending to be the injured party, you’re certainly hurling quite a few accusations my way.
Again, this is a public site. If you wanted only Randall to read and respond, then you should’ve sent him an effin email.
Look in the mirror next time you attempt to say “ridiculous.”
October 13th, 2009 at 12:18 am
@Tomkun (195):
That one was new to me, too! Although not really surprising given that Adams was an amazing lawyer. Have you ever read John Adams by David McCullough? Pick it up sometime. It was pretty good.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:24 am
No I haven’t read it. I like and am fascinated by history, but I can’t honestly say that I have any real knowledge about it beyond it being a sort of hobby.
My University degree was in video game design and I am now teaching English in Japan. I didn’t study a huge amount at high school and I regret it now. Most of my knowledge has come from me reading furiously since I realised how much time I had wasted at school.
Anyway, I am always interested in reading something new and I will search for that book in the local library. Can’t imagine that they will have it though unfortunately.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:32 am
@Tomkun (198):
Woah! I’ve a friend who’s teaching English in Japan right now! Small world.
meh… learning doesn’t stop when high school end and books don’t have an expiration date so you’ve got plenty of time (I haven’t had time to read for fun in a while so some of my library books have been continuously renewed since last May, lol). Hopefully they’ll have that book there, if not, Amazon.com it!
October 13th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Yeah? Where does your friend live? It would certainly be a small world if I knew him/her. Unfortunatly amazon is not an option for me for a couple of reasons. Still, like you said, books don’t have an expiry date. And it’s not as though John Adams is going to be doing anything new!
October 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
@Tomkun (200):
Sendai? I thought the name she wrote on the postcard was longer than that but I can’t find the postcard and this is what she’s got on her facebook, lol.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Too bad. Sendai is miles from me (I’m in Chiba).
Something related to the list, but why is it called the “Boston Massacre“? Evidently it happened in Boston, but doesn’t massacre imply that lots of people were killed? Is that some sort of early American propaganda or has the word changed somewhat?
October 13th, 2009 at 12:58 am
altamont…check your facts…my understanding is he was targeted because he was with a white chick, then pulled the gun to protect himself…ive been around long enough and have dealt with enough to believe this is more than likely the truth. I dont buy the justifiable homocide story…But then again maybe he had a tail like the black soldiers during world war two…hint… hint.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:44 am
kennedy has just been crossed off my christmas card list.
and oprah winfrey, i can’t stand him.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:44 am
@Randall (156):
Listen sunshine, I never once said that you had to do what I say, i’m just throwing it out there, you do with it what you want. And despite what you keep saying, I wasn’t analysing you or your life on any deep level, I was just working with the facts that I have.
FACT 1) You’re a middle aged man with kids who gets amusement from tearing in to people you don’t know over the internet and impressing your fan club.
FACT 2) Any middle aged man with kids who gets amusement from coming on the internet and tearing in to people he doesn’t know….and stay with me here big man because this is the important part….is a tool.
Just the facts sweetheart, just the facts.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:33 am
@Shagrat(174)Actually most of the fuel was consumed at impact, as is visible from videos…people seen at crash site testify to the cool temps…I was going to refute Randall on his error, but why bother…reminds me of Stizzy!!empty vessels make great noise, signifying nothing!!
Seems I woke up to a cat fight!! haha!
October 13th, 2009 at 5:54 am
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
“In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.”
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:03 am
The reason more engineers are staying quiet…blacklisting and possible loss of credentials. I suggest watching ‘Zero’
Zero 9/11 Movie – A Feature Length Documentary about September 11th
28 Apr 2008 … ZERO: An Investigation into 9/11, has one central thesis – that the official … and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, …
http://www.zero911movie.com/ -
October 13th, 2009 at 6:05 am
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm -
October 13th, 2009 at 6:28 am
When an event of this magnitude occurs, some people automatically assume that there has to be much more to it than what they’ve been told or see for themselves. They give our government way too much credit. I was employed with the government for over 20 years and we would give each other “high fives” for pulling off a fire drill correctly!!!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:00 am
@archiealt (205):
I strongly suggest you go back to school, archie, because you clearly have no clue as to the meaning of the word “fact.”
“I never once said that you had to do what I say, i’m just throwing it out there,”
Why? Why don’t you mind your own fucking business? Who appointed you “defender of the lists and listwriters?” I wasn’t addressing you in my original posting–I was criticizing the list. YOU didn’t write it, and indeed YOU had nothing to do with it. Your ego, obviously, makes you feel like you MUST stand up and attempt to counter me–but WHY? Who are YOU to do that? Who are you to even WANT to do that? Again—it isn’t YOUR list, you are irrelevant here—so shut the fuck up and stop wasting EVERYONE’S TIME.
“you do with it what you want. And despite what you keep saying, I wasn’t analysing you or your life on any deep level, I was just working with the facts that I have.”
WRONG, asshole. You have NO facts about me EXCEPT that I am middle aged, with kids. THAT IS IT. You certainly have NOT presented ANY OTHER facts here whatsoever.
This bullshit is your OPINION. NOT FACT.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@lostatsea1 (206):
I NEVER said the fuel was NOT consumed on impact! THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. The point is that a HIGH TEMPERATURE FIRE was created which was fed by the flammable parts of the building itself, with the final result as we saw.
You are SKIRTING the issues here, which, again, is exactly what conspiracy nuts ALWAYS do.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:20 am
@Shagrat (174):
“I think you touched a nerve: I watched a scientific breakdown of the mechanics of WHY the towers collapsed – they were built to withstand the kind of impact caused by the airliners:”
FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN FACT, THEY WERE *NOT* BUILT TO WITHSTAND IMPACT FROM FULLY-FUELED JET AIRLINERS. OR jet airliners at all. Impacts from that size of aircraft are NOT normally taken into consideration in the design of such buildings. IN PART because such aircraft are not ORDINARILY allowed to fly in the airspace where such buildings exist. The impact of SMALL aircraft IS taken into account—but such an impact is NOT ordinarily going to produce the kind of raging fireball that was produced by the crash of fully-fueled airliners into a building.
“they were NOT designed for the central cores to stand up to tens of thousands of gallons of burning avgas.”
True, but it is in fact the CONNECTING members TO the central core, which supported each floor, that is REALLY the issue here. And they were NOT able to stand up to the high temperatures involved, and quickly lost integrity, thus precipating the collapse which we saw.
“and BTW “Randall” if you ARE so busily employed at a university (anyone could make such a claim without having to substantiate it)”
Yes, they could. You want proof, ask Jamie, the owner of this site. I’d authorize him to verify this information, and he can do so without telling the actual NAME of the university, as I prefer to keep my privacy. Bucslim also can verify this fact.
“Oh and don’t bother trying to shoot me down in response – I won’t be back to give creedence or credibility to your rants by reading them!”
Then why address me? Why not mind your own goddamned business and choose NOT TO ADDRESS ME IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I’ve run into you repeatedly on this site—you make sweeping statements about which half the time you are factually in ERROR, and when challenged, you refuse to ackonwledge your mistakes. This has happened time and time again with you.
“You are nothing but a bully (both you and Woyzcek):”
The tired old refrain of people who can’t stand being A) criticized or B) contradicted.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:20 am
great list… although all are super tragic i really hate the Jonestown story…
October 13th, 2009 at 7:33 am
@Randall (159): Unfortunately, they´re never going to get it. Some people think this site should be all about “high fives” and hugs and kisses… Can you imagine how boring it would be if all you read in the comments was “Great list! You are such an awesome list writer!”? If someone makes an asinine comment, they deserve to have their asses handed back to them.
Dear all: this whole “Randall is an asshole” is getting old really quick. If you dont like the guy, feel free to skip over his comments. If you feel that his aggressiveness is out of line, do not add to the fire by insulting him! You gain nothing and just come off as a whiny hypocrite.
@lostatsea1 (207): I would like to read your responses to Randall´s questions.
1- WHY would the US government have to fly planes into the towers in addition to detonating the bombs?
2- If they needed an excuse to go to war, wouldnt ANY attack have been sufficient? Therefore, just detonating bombs would have done it… Why the planes? Or you could have had just the planes and no bombs… It would have been reason enough.
3- Why was it necessary to flatten the buildings? WHY? Did they need the real estate?
October 13th, 2009 at 7:34 am
@Maggot (150): LOL favorite comment of the day!
@gabi319 (172): Second favorite comment,
What a great place LV is!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:39 am
@Choco (188):
Choco, grow the fuck up.
A) it amazes me again and again that people such as you just pop up in here out of nowhere (I’ve never encountered you here before that I can recall, and I’ve been contributing to this site almost since it’s very inception) acting like you’re some kind of self-appointed policeman of “manners” and “decorum.” In my experience, people who talk blather about “manners” over and over again, particularly in this kind of forum, are self-important, humorless twits who have nothing of substance or intelligence to say, and are perhaps frustrated by this fact. Certainly the evidence you’ve offered thus far backs this up *entirely.* You have nothing whatsoever to say about the list itself, nor anything germaine to contribute to the various debates going on ABOUT the list and/or its subject matter (at least lostatsea has things to say about at TOPIC mentioned on this list, however much he endlessly repeats himself and fails to answer questions). Having nothing to say, your only recourse is to attack me because I DO have things to say, and you don’t like them, and don’t like me having this right to say things. You use outrageously silly excuses—like you can’t just “scroll down” past my comments… you’re somehow “compelled” to read them apparently (it seems I can now hypnotize people over the internet–neat trick I didn’t know I possessed) and yet still have NOTHING to offer of substance. You may not like what I say or how I say it—and I frankly don’t care if you do or don’t—but I at least offer up SUBSTANTIVE statements and comments.
B) it further amazes me that people like you have this frame of mind where you can ONLY imagine that people who might agree with me, or feel similarly to me, at least, must be my “followers” or “peanut gallery.” Pathetic. Clearly you believe people can’t make up their own minds—that is, IF they fail to agree with YOU and get behind your pointless bashing of ME. See, this is how people like you think—you assume that everyone must agree with you or else they are someone ELSE’S toadies—they have to be either YOURS–or mine.
In fact, however, all these people think gloriously for themselves. Gabi and Maggot and dozens of others I could name on this site HAVE disagreed with me from time to time—but they are secure enough in their own personalities and wits to know that they needn’t hate and attack me to make themselves feel better. We also find agreement on many matters—but does that make them my “followers?” No. That’s rather the pathetic view of someone (like you) who can’t imagine that people can think for themselves and yet NOT agree with *you.*
The thing is—there is a class of person on this site who wants to pop their head in, make whatever statement they want, however incorrect, invalid, illogical or factually off the mark (or bigoted or what have you) and then have that statement or statement stand. Shagrat is a person like this. There are many others. I stand up to people like that, and always have, because I personally can’t stand that kind of pomposity. *I* am accused of pomposity myself a great deal, but it always amuses me that nine times out of ten, it comes from the VERY people I’ve challenged.
And again—here we are, a list that is ABOUT things—and we could be discussing those things—and instead, all this talk is about an irrelevancy—namely, your ridiculous little view of what’s “right” and how conduct should carry on on a website.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:54 am
@Tomkun (202):
S”omething related to the list, but why is it called the “Boston Massacre“? Evidently it happened in Boston, but doesn’t massacre imply that lots of people were killed? Is that some sort of early American propaganda or has the word changed somewhat?”
Sadly, Tomkun, the answer is that it was largely propaganda.
Yes, people were killed, but the use of the word “massacre,” as you can see, was a bit over-the-top. Basically, this was a mob affair where a small group of British soldiers were bodily threatened by a group of unruly locals brandishing sticks, clubs, bottles, and the like, and things simply got out of hand. As I recall one of the soldiers was struck with something, and then shortly afterwards, someone let go with a gun shot. The brief melee then ensued which left Boston citizens dead in the street. But a “massacre?” Well, that’s clearly a bit much. The soldiers were scared and threatend, and things got out of hand.
But it was expedient and useful to characterize this as a “massacre,” Boston already being an independent-minded and anti-royalist town. Boston was the home of several radicals who had actually been clamoring for colonial freedom for ten years or more–surely in those days a minority in relation to the colonies overall. As a propaganda tool one could hope for none better–”innocent” and “unarmed” citizens brutally gunned down by British soldiers. Perfect stuff for energizing the populace against the ruling order. So propaganda it was, and it served its purpose well. Even today we readily remember “The Boston Massacre” and assume it to have been so, and have forgotten that it actually issued from a chaotic scene out of which one could only *expect* violence, and a situation in which at best both sides were to blame. (Even that is pushing it, and if we were there to watch, we might feel inclined quite a bit to sympathize with the British).
Clearly the propaganda worked. Now, the British DID later do things that *were* actually terrible, unfair, and brutal. But this affair was not really one of them.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:57 am
This from Popular Mechanics…. took me all of five seconds to find it–an answer to lostatsea that he’ll no doubt ignore:
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”
“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
“The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”
October 13th, 2009 at 8:00 am
lostatsea:
Now answer my fucking questions, as GTT pointed out:
1- WHY would the US government have to fly planes into the towers in addition to detonating the bombs?
2- If they needed an excuse to go to war, wouldnt ANY attack have been sufficient? Therefore, just detonating bombs would have done it… Why the planes? Or you could have had just the planes and no bombs… It would have been reason enough.
3- Why was it necessary to flatten the buildings? WHY? Did they need the real estate?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:06 am
In the oft quoted yet deeply profound words of Ron Burgundy,
“Wow, that really escalated.”
October 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I didn’t know the facts about the tsunami OR the hells angels. Good list!!
October 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Wow… debate! Oh well, won’t get into it. I kinda agree with Randall.
Anyway. Good list!
October 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am
@KlamFan (190)
I think Masada is viewed as it is because the only two choices were to be captured and tortured (raped, flogged, crucified, etc.) or to commit suicide. They were under siege and could not run anywhere. It’s looked at positively because the Romans were known for brutalizing anyone they caught after there battles. Meanwhile, Jonestown was caused by an unstable charismatic man ordering the killing of people trying to leave his compound. Then he decided that everyone should die because he wasn’t going to go to prison and he didn’t want his “sheep” living outside of his influence. I do agree there are many similarities, but the timeframe of each event makes them wildly different. Women and children were killed at Masada to spare them the rape and torture that would have been visited upon them. The Jonestown children and women would have been cared for, but they were killed anyway. That to me is what sets the two apart.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:29 am
@GTT (215):
High Five!! Hugs and kisses!!
Excellent use of the italics
October 13th, 2009 at 8:35 am
With all the discussion on the World Trade Center going on I think we need a new list. “Top 10 WTC Facts” or “Top 10 WTC Conspiracy Theories” could both log a bunch of comments if the previous posts are any indication. Anybody up to tackling one or both of those?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Excellent list–this is why I read LV religiously.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Conspiracy theorists are short on explanations as to how explosives could have been planted in the World Trade Center, which were occupied by companies involved in the global 24 x 7 marketplace.
The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.
Moreover, a demolition project would have required the tower walls to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.
All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other.
With ALL that being said, the only question I have is: what is the deal with building seven going down that day?
Is the following vid for real?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA
If Larry Silverstein is admitting that they decided to pull building 7 the same day as the towers fell, doesn’t that require controlled demolitions? If so, I point to the beginning of my post asking: wouldn’t anyone have seen demo experts coming in and out of the building? Or did building seven collapse because of a fire?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I like the list and would like to see another.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@Randall (220): Hahahahaha, Randall those are excellent questions! Kind of cuts to the very heart of the matter doesn’t it? I just posted those same questions onto at least four “9/11 truther” forums and they’re all stammering like idiots!
October 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Randall, you think I hate you? Hate is a strong word. You’re annoying, nothing more nothing less. Delude yourself into thinking what you’d like, write another essay that I know now just to skim through and carry on. Gabi and Maggot are equally as useless and can respond with some more insults that I’ve also stopped reading. As one poster said, think of the community. If you think being civil is boring and like to say things like “grow the fuck up” and sprinkle CAPS and curses all over, then you’ll just keep right on doing that and turning this comments section into a hostile war zone, won’t you? But don’t you think for a second I’m going to back down with a stooped shoulder and hunched back like some cowled animal because you want to write the longest, bark the loudest, and be the meanest little poster on here. Not impressed.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Oh and Tomkun, well said!
October 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@Randall (211):
‘WRONG, asshole. You have NO facts about me EXCEPT that I am middle aged, with kids. THAT IS IT. You certainly have NOT presented ANY OTHER facts here whatsoever.
This bullshit is your OPINION. NOT FACT.’
Sadly my friend, this is not true. I’ll walk you through it once more.
You’re a middle aged man (fact 1) with kids (fact 2) who gets amusement from tearing in to people you don’t know over the internet (fact 3) and impressing your fan club (fact 4).
Any middle aged man with kids who gets amusement from coming on the internet and tearing in to people he doesn’t know….and stay with me here big man because this is the important part….is a tool.(fact 5)
You just can’t argue with the facts.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Funny how Choco can manage to stop reading my comments and yet can’t manage to stop reading Randall’s when his “delusions” annoy her so much. But of course, since Choco’s not reading my comments anymore, I feel no need to ask yet again to copy and paste any of my insults towards her… a yo mama joke… perhaps some comment where I referenced her thunder thighs… Nope, I won’t get a response of course because she has stopped reading my comments and decided to “talk about me behind my back” in a public avenue such as a forum in which I can read every fuckin word submitted. I especially like the added dig of throwing out yet another insult by calling me useless. Correction: EQUALLY as useless and yet Randall’s equal uselessness warrants a response and future skim-throughs. Nice touch. Hmm, if we keep score of the uselessness, we’ll find that Choco’s only written ONE very fleeting comment relevant to the list. I would point out that the conversation was veering back to topical until this special comment in 231 but as Choco maturely pointed out, I’m being given the silent treatment. I think I’m supposed to be sad now. Is that my cue?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@Choco (231): But don’t you think for a second I’m going to back down
Keep dancing for us, marionette. Show us all how you’ve “stopped reading”.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am
*yawn* Still not impressed.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@Choco (236):
Because my whole life revolves around impressing you. Gawd, sometimes the power of your statements is enough to put me on permanent eyeroll.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@gabi319 (225): I recently learned how to use italics and bold so I´m all a-tingly with excitement! I think I deserve an extra tall *high five*… maybe even with a little jump!
Aint this just the nicest, most polite thread ever?? It´s so exciting!!
October 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I skipped what you said (tl;dr), I was talking to Maggot. Don’t strain yourself with that eyerolling, lol. Ant it would seem your whole life actually revolves around responding to my posts.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Holy fuck, Randall has the power of hypnosis now? As if he needed another super-power. Just remember Randall: With great power comes great responsibility.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@GTT (238):
I remember that recent list with my horrible attempts to explain italics. Hence pointing out your excellent applications. I’m usually too lazy to add it within paragraphs, lol.
Dude, I’m only 5′ almost 3″. To me, most regular high fives are an extra tall five.
@Choco (239):
Skipped over what I said enough to respond to things like eyerolling which was in the comment, eh? Oh, so Randall’s and Maggot’s equal usefulness deserve responses and this comment 239 is all a figment of my imagination? I think I’m supposed to be sad now. Where’s my cue?
This comment (and many many more others here as well as on other lists) disproves your theory that my whole life revolves around responding to your posts. I see I’ve interacted with a number of people here in a rather civil fashion. Perhaps you should take a look your comment thread interactions.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I responded to the eyerolling comment because it was short; skipped the other one because it was full of insults and why bother reading that? What is to be gained from someone who doesn’t know how to talk or address others?
Read this comment because the tone was markedly different from the others…what cue are you expecting?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am
@Choco (242):
Ahh, so I must remember short comments full of expletive-ridden insults. Should they be read because they are short? Or ignored because they have insults? How would insults be skipped without first reading them? Your absolutes “I don’t go on Listverse.” “I will ignore you” blah blah blah whine whine whine… have so many asterisks attached that it’s ridiculous.
…why bother reading that? What is to be gained from someone who doesn’t know how to talk or address others?
Perhaps the chance to make you wise up and actually pay attention to what you write?
what cue are you expecting?
…are you for real? check minus for reading comprehension.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Wow, funny how worked up my posts get you that you just want to hold on to each and everything that I write and dissect it line by line, word for word.
I haven’t been on listverse before last night since winter. Unfortunately, someone posted a link to here again this morning from another site that I am hooked on. I was hoping to ignore you but you kept insulting me so of course I’ll respond. Want me to stop posting? Stop addressing me. *cue your sadness now, I guess*
October 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am
@Choco (244): I was hoping to ignore you but you kept insulting me so of course I’ll respond
Weren’t you supposed to skip comments with insults? You’re awfully worked up over a check minus.
you just want to hold on to each and everything that I write and dissect it line by line, word for word.
Well, if you aren’t going to pay attention to what you write, someone’s gotta.
cue your sadness now, I guess
You sure told me what’s what. burn.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I don’t care about your measly check minus, I’m just wondering if I still get a star or a cookie…
October 13th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Oh and I was taking your advice this morning about skipping comments laden with nothing but insults; last night I was just reading and responding to everything directed at me – aren’t you the one who’s supposed to be paying attention? heh
October 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@archiealt (233):
So that’s all you’ve got, asshole? To just endlessly repeat yourself?
Pretending you don’t recognize the clear difference between a fact and an opinion may be recognized as some sort of “wit” in places I’m not aware of—but it nevertheless remains a sad and pathetic tactic.
I suggest shutting the fuck up before you fall any further behind, or upping the meds, archie.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@Choco (231):
“…you think I hate you?”
hmm. I don’t *recall* using that word. But does this mean you love me then? I’m flattered.
“Hate is a strong word. You’re annoying, nothing more nothing less.”
What a coincidence. That’s pretty much the same way I’d describe you—though it’s a very minor, piddling annoyance at best.
“If you think being civil is boring”
*I* never said that. What I said is that’s ALL YOU HAVE TO FUCKING SAY. Now, if you have something pertinent to say here, something that has to actually DO WITH THE LIST or with the discussions therein, then SAY IT. Otherwise you’re doing NOTHING but wasting EVERYBODY’S time. And so, I suggest you “think about the community” and cease this needless waste.
“But don’t you think for a second I’m going to back down with a stooped shoulder and hunched back like some cowled animal”
That’s “cowed,” not “cowled.” Though a “cowled animal” IS funny. I’d like to see that.
But honestly Choco, you’re nothing but a colossal bore. LISTEN to yourself. All dramatic and portentous… “don’t think for a second I’m going to back down…” wooooooooooo… I’m suitably chastised and scared.
For chrissakes Choco, I don’t give a rat’s ass WHAT you do. Keep prattling away. Or don’t. I don’t care. All I’m asking is that you stop repeating yourself and SAY something, if you want to contribute to the discussion. You have YET to do that. Your big chance is here to say interesting things, make some intellectual points, share your considered opinions about matters on which this list was based. We’re waiting. But all you seem to want to do is play Miss Manners all day. It’s fucking yawn-inducing.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Choco (246):
@Choco (247):
Were those jokes? Because they weren’t funny.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am
@Randall (248):
I honestly fail to see the confusion. Could you please point out the bits that don’t count as fact? Are you trying to tell me that a middle aged man with kids who gets his yaya’s from acting like a big man on the internet…isn’t a tool? Because i’m afraid your mistaken. He would be a tool. That’s just fact.
Oh, and on the subject of wit, that whole ‘upping the meds’ comment, brilliant. So witty, so fresh.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
246 was sarcasm, 247 was clearing up something you got wrong.
And yup Randall, you did say that…just wanted to clear that up in my post before. I did say I liked this list, once I had a moment to do so between the bashings from the peanut gallery up there. Some of the facts I really hadn’t heard of (like the other buildings that were damaged in NYC and the misguided Russian lady). Thanks for pointing out my typo with cowed (no sarcasm, honest).
You and I both have a case of the yawns…
October 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Running out of insults gabi? I thought you never tire of nitpicking something that I say! Your last post was weak.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I take that last post back – I don’t want to continue to goad anyone on. *wishes there was a delete button*
October 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@damien_karras (230):
Well yeah, damien, if you notice, these conspiracy theories always ignore the 50,000 lb gorilla right in front of them, which is LOGIC. That is to say, the logical problems that have to do with their insane little arguments. Bring them up, however, and they either skirt around them like petty little psychotics, or they turn all stammer-y and start raving.
For instance—the “moon landing hoax” theory—NONE Of them ever address why it is the Russians would not have exposed the damn thing. Because they surely would have been able to tell that signals from the various Apollo spacecraft were NOT coming from deep space or the moon. Moreover, they would have been tracking the launch of the various Saturn V’s that carried these spacecraft up, and surely would have noticed a lack of telemetry, or some kind of false telemetry which would have clearly indicated to them that no spacecraft were in orbit or were leaving orbit. Why would the Russians play it complacent? The public relations coup for them, to expose a vast American hoax, would have been a windfall.
Furthermore, there was equipment left on the moon which regularly sent signals back to earth, and laser targets placed there by the Apollo astronauts which can still be “shot at” to this day (I’ve seen it, and been privy to sessions where lasers shoot at the moon and bounce back). Again, not only did those devices have to GET there somehow (they’re far too small and delicate to have been “secretly” placed there by unmanned robot craft or whatever) but if they didn’t actually exist and the whole thing was fake, astronomers all over the world would know it.
Pearl Harbor “Conspiracy”—the idea these nuts put forth is that Roosevelt not only knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but actually somehow orchestrated it, but at any rate, allowed the attack to happen in order to get the US into WWII.
But again, the gigantic logical fallacy to this is that a Japanese VICTORY was not necessary to get the US into the war. All that was needed was a Japanese ATTACK. If Roosevelt knew, or even orchestrated it somehow, then he could have easily contrived to have the attack thwarted so that serious damage wasn’t done to American naval power in the Pacific. Why allow a devastating attack that cripped the fleet and put the US behind for several months, requiring The Phillippines and several other key islands to be lost? Moreover, Roosevelt was a navy man, a former secretary of the navy, who most certainly would NOT have allowed American ships and naval personnel to be destroyed wantonly. There’s no logic to this whatsoever. In short, Pearl Harbor as a Japanese victory was unnecessary, if you wanted to get the US into the war. The indignation would have been the same if the fleet was destroyed (as it was) or was left more or less intact, but damaged. So why allow it be effectively neutralized for months, risking all manner of possible further Japanese victories (as was the case) and why start a war with a demoralizing blow to your own people? It makes ZERO sense.
And so on.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@archiealt (251):
Yawn. Honestly, this IS all you’ve got, isn’t it? Enough, jackass. Stop wasting everybody’s time and let it go. You’ve got nothing.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
@Choco (253):
Again, copy and paste my direct insults to you. When did I say I enjoy nitpicking? Was I attempting some kind of jab at you in my last comment? Please give me future warning of how I should respond to you.
@Choco (254):
But there isn’t a delete, which is why I’ve been trying to show you the bile you’ve been spewing since it’s so readily visible for everyone here to read. This insulting nature you’ve accused me of…All I’ve essentially been doing is copy and pasting what you’ve said. While you can’t delete what you’ve written, you can certainly change the direction of your future comments. I’ve chanced upon some wonderful people here because I’ve had far better quality conversations with them than I have had with you. Even with Randall, who is a big teddy bear, seems to respect anyone who has wit and decent rebuttals (but no one read this comment should in case this ruin his internet personae) and can stand by their convictions *towards a debatable topic* even if they don’t go along his beliefs. You have a chance to actually have some decent conversations with people as well if you’re truly done whining as your comment 254 implies.
So if you’re done goading, you can try this new attitude of yours by saying something about the list that esamuherr worked on and go from there.
I actually like that there is no delete button. Keeps people more honest.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am
@Randall (255): I’m well-versed on a lot of conspiracy theories including my favorite: a cult that believes when you leave a room and shut the door, the room itself disappears.
I’m reading all sorts of conflicting reports on whether the towers were designed to withstand an airline crash. (Not of the mono-engine Cessna variety mind you, but one of the commercial airliners) The PBS website claims that they WERE designed to withstand this type of impact but the resulting fire would cause the structure to be compromised to the point of collapse.
However, this is where things get muddled: John Skilling, head structural engineer of the Twin Towers contradicts this in an article from the Seattle Times written in 1993.
The article states, verbatim:
“Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”"
NOW I’m confused. Who’s right and who’s wrong here?
Here’s the article:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
October 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Regarding the numerous conspiracy posts on this thread, although I agree that none of the ones mentioned are in any way plausible, it is important to remember that no government (no man for that matter) is above that type of behavior, as the Tuskegee Experiment and Operation Northwoods clearly shows. In this, I do kind of enjoy the fringe that keeps the conversation going. True, they often end up barking at everything from the moon to the cat in the tree but 9 times out of 10 they’ll be the only ones who spot the intruder.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
@Randall (256):
I see you have no answer for me. Marvelous. Then we are in agreement that you are in fact a tool. Glad we cleared that up.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@damien_karras (258):
““Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.”
The Towers were hit by a 767, which is almost twice the weight of a 707. They withstood the impact, but didn’t withstand burning for 100+ minutes.
““Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
NOW I’m confused. Who’s right and who’s wrong here?”
Judging by the events of the day, Skilling was wrong on this point.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
@Woyzeck (261): Yay for RESEARCH!
Gordon Gecko quote: “The most valuable commodity I know of is information! Wouldn’t you agree?”
Twice the weight, I would imagine, would require MUCH more fuel than the 707. Thanks for looking that up man.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@damien_karras (258):
AH, you had to mix it up, didn’t you?
Well, here’s how I understood it. According to the architect of the WWTC, the buildings were NOT built with the specific consideration in mind of an actual airliner collision, as this was thought to be highly unlikely. MY understanding is that the design team and engineers who worked on the Towers agreed with this, that such a contingency was not specifically planned for in the construction of the building. But that does NOT contradict the quote you’ve offered here from the engineer, because in essence an analysis after the fact is NOT the same actually DESIGNING a building in advance ot address a specific issue.
Here’s what this turns on: in 1945 (I think it was) a B-25 bomber got lost in fog and flew into the Empire State Building. The resulting damage to the building was not particularly severe. It certainly was quickly determined that the building’s structure was not in any way compromised. Basically it just blew a big hole on a couple of the uppermost floors and wrecked part of the interior on those floors.
But there’s key points here. A) a B-25 bomber is NOT the size of an airliner. My dad flew a B-25 in the Pacific during WWII. The B-25 was a twin-engine medium bomber, just over 50 feet long and about 67 ft wingspan, about 16 ft high. Modern airliners are FAR larger, and carry a great deal more fuel. B) the B-25 was lost in fog and had deviated (obviously) from its approved flight plan. C) It had also lowered its altitude, (clearly) thinking they were either on the approach to their destination, or hoping to spot some visual clue as to their location. I can’t remember which.
In short, the plane wasn’t supposed to be there. But it was also just after WWII, and the country was still on a war footing with military aircraft still flying in paths and assigned courses that they otherwise would never be on. As I recall, these guys were flying a hop over to Long Island (I think, though I could be wrong) and there were only three of them in the plane. (All were killed of course). It occurred on a weekend, so very few people were in the Empire State Bldg at the time.
At any rate though, a feasiblity study on a Boeing 707 impact may have been done—this is the first I’ve heard about it—but again, an analysis of this sort is not the same as designing a structure to address that *particular* issue. Also, it’s not really clear if they took into consideration the peripheral fire damage to the building that would be caused by impact with a *fully fueled* jet airliner.
At any rate, though, my understanding is that all this still stands. The Towers were NOT specifically designed to withstand airliner impacts. An analysis is not the same thing.
We can also say that they certainly did not take all factors into account. The stress placed on supporting members running off the core was such that when compromised by fire damage this severe, the structure lost integrity. Had this been planned for in advance, in the actual design, then the building would have been reinforced in different ways. An analysis after the fact is, again, not the same thing. (By after the fact I mean, after the structure was already designed and blueprinted).
October 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Woyzeck also makes a great point—a 707 is NOT a 767.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@Choco (254):
I really do hate to get involved but I feel like I have to say something. The point I think various people are trying to convey (and correct me if I´m wrong Maggot, gabi or Randall) is that your first post on this list intended only to trash talk another poster for “trash talking” the list writer. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
You claim you want to talk about the list, then talk about the list. Feel free to scroll over posts (or posters) you are not interested in and comment on the damn list. If you start by attacking others then you cant really be all that surprised when others attack you back.
@gabi319 (241): It´s a sickness really… I´m all italics crazy now.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
excellent list, very informative and unlike some of the crap on this site, this was actually worth reading. Well done.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Its weird to be the list writer in question. Like I said earlier, Randell made several good points regarding my list. I felt like he was a little harsh but then he explained where hes coming from and its not my thing but I totally get it. I appreciate all the people saying its a good list and everything but the conversation has turned into the Towers and come on, theres nothing there. Not to say that there couldn’t be but as of yet, no one has anything real on the conspiracy. That really can’t be argued. And I’m not defending Randell, like I said, its not my thing and I think its way overdone but whatever. Regarding Gabi saying that I should be kneed for calling myself a lowly bartender, listen, I (and many of my colleagues) went into that line of work because its not rocket science. Its a good living and it allows us to spend more time reading or doing whatever it is we do. No one I know lives the life I do, with as little effort as I put into my “career.” But for you to just drop a cliche like, “no one should be ashamed of their work,” come on. I’m not ashamed at all but in the scope of things (doctors, lawyers, corporate types,) I chose it because it is lowly and easy and requires less time than my corporate or tech buddies. Also, I didn’t bring it up to garner sympathy, I brought it up cause I was making a service industry reference.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@esamuherr (267):
Hey, another point I want to make clear. This was a good idea for a list, and in large part your choices were sound.
By the way, you never did answer—where did you GET that Kennedy quote?
October 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Well if we are going to hypothesize about the collapse of the Twin Towers, then let’s make it interesting. Why not assume that there was a planet in the Andromeda galaxy that was hell bent against Earth having buildings taller than 1200 ft. So, they sent their operatives to embed a corrosive compound into the steel used to construct the towers.
They determined the exact moment when the steel would fail due to the corrosive compound and sent their agents to fly aircraft into the towers at that exact moment to make it look like that was the cause of the towers collapse (they didn’t want us to get mad at them).
Now here is the interesting part; there’s no way you can prove my story wrong! Moral of the story; you can believe what you want to believe. Me? I generally rely on common sense. When I see a Boeing 767 slam into a building, and then see the building collapse; I have a tendency to connect the two events.
Sure, it is possible that there might be another reason for the collapse. Anything is possible. The sun might stop shining tomorrow. But unless I have hard evidence to support such a claim, I’ll stick with the obvious. I realize that I will be declared gullible by some, that I need to be open to all possibilities. But quite frankly, any other possibility to me seems ludicrous.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Landing-on-the-moon
October 13th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
@Randall (268): where did you GET that Kennedy quote?
@esamuherr (270): [cite]
Here’s a better link to the whole meeting where the quote occurred and an analysis of it:
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/backgnd.html
At the left side of this webpage is a link to a pdf of the transcript and also a complete audio recording of the actual meeting. The quote is at the bottom of page 17 of the transcript.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Has there been a list or article written of conspiracy theories that have been proven true?
October 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Why are we not staying on topic? Before commenting maybe we should read the “read me first” before commenting.
“6. Can I carry on personal chats in the comments?
No – this becomes very tedious for other readers – please take it to the forums.
10. Can I discuss other topics in comments?
No – you must stick to the topic – when comments go so far off the topic they cause people to lose interest and they add nothing to the list. Of primary importance is the fact that the comments are meant to enhance readers time on the site – not cause them to get bored with idle chit-chat.”
October 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
@Maggot (271): I’m sorry-but you could please be a little more specific? Thanks
October 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@ames801 (274): Are you suggesting that I am a bit anal-retentive? I’ll have you know, I resemble that remark!
October 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@imcrystalclear (273): Who cares? The comments here could be a lot worse…
October 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@Mark (276): I care
October 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
@imcrystalclear (277): Well then, we’ll get right on it for a regular such as yourself
October 13th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
@Mark (278): Thank You, (:
October 13th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
@imcrystalclear (279): Sorry, I was being sarcastic. You obviously haven’t been here for very long? I guess it’s been a while since I was last hanging around the LV comments.
A guy who was here when I first came and started commenting once told me something along the lines of “when the comments go off topic, that’s when things get interesting”.
You know why he told me that? Because I said exactly the same thing as you did. True, the rules say we shouldn’t go off topic, but it is a lot more interesting around here if they do.
As he also said to me “just go with the flow”.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
If you think that 911 is a government created conspiracy you are mindnumbingly retarded.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@Mark (280): Yes, I am kind of new, but I see your point, I will go with the flow. I just want to say that this list is a very interesting list to me and enjoyed reading it immensely.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@GTT(215)I will reply to your questions, since you ask in a civilized manner unlike some!
1 The planes’ hijacking could be traced to Arab mujahideen.
2 There are documents saying that a new Pearl Harbour style event was needed to goad the American populace towards approval of war.
3 The Towers contained asbestos fireproofing which would have cost approximately 1 billion plus. Yes they did want to rebuild!!
If the steel had weakened due to fire the building would have bent sideways to the path of less resistance.
The people visible at the gaping hole are proof of the low temperature at the crash site!!
Google History Commons, then 9-11 timeline…very informative.
Prior to the event the Towers were shutdown and teams of ‘workmen’ were supposedly installing new wiring, as all power was shut off.
One more point…survivors on floors below crash told of no fires…if I remember right only one elevator went to the top floor, although there might have been two. I don’t have the time to go back and restudy the floor plans. I might add that the Popular Mechanics and Nova failed to include the effects of the sprinkler and other fire suppression systems.
Hope that helps…I have spent too much time already on this…those who wish to learn will have to separate the truth from all the crap that surrounds this tragic event.
The fact that the US defence system failed to react, the Pentagon is probably the most heavily defended structure in America! Thus ends my posts since some here seem to be suffering some type of psychosis!
October 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
@lostatsea1 (283): The people visible at the gaping hole are proof of the low temperature at the crash site!!
No, it’s proof of a lower temperature specifically where those people happened to be standing. Smoke still pouring out of the gaping hole is proof that a fire was in fact burning further inside. Of course the flame temperature depends on what is actually burning, but for example a candle burns at about 750°C/1400°F. And as was quoted earlier: “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F”.
I might add that the Popular Mechanics and Nova failed to include the effects of the sprinkler and other fire suppression systems
The sprinkler systems were disabled due to the impacts. Water supply lines were severed.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Look, I never comment on this site, even though I do come here weekly to check out what the new list topics are.
I have to say, I love Randall’s posts. I find them really informative and I hope he doesnt hold back just because of a few sensitive people here.
I think it is fair for a commenter to point out crappy editing in formal list posts – this is supposed to be a professional site, a service yes? As such it is incumbent on the list authors and webmasters to edit to provide a better service for the clientele. The random people commenting dont need to be held up to the same scrutiny, because they are not providing a web service. Simple.
Also, seriously, if people DONT want others to challenge their opinions, they SHOULDNT post them in the first place – number 1 rule of the internet! If you DONT want to engage in a discussion on your opinions or be challenged, DONT post!
Similarly commenters who try to get other commenters to be more civil need to stop. Its useless – this is the net, not a face-to-face community – no one is responsible for anything in this space because everyone is anonymous. Thats just how it is. Just deal with it or move on.
Dont like long comments or the person commenting? Scroll past the comment.
Point being that if you dont like the nasty or the challenge, leave.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@esamuherr (267):
I apologize for reading too much into that original comment of yours. I’m also sorry you still think of it as “lowly”. Easy, I’ll buy into. After a while, mixing drinks became so second nature that my roommate said the only time she really needed to “turn her brain on” was when dealing with drunk douchebags. But the “lowly” again…as if there is a job hierarchy in which dirtier jobs are inferior… I’m not addressing your perspective but rather the other vantage point in which some of these doctors, lawyers, corporate types, etc. think they are “better” or “higher up” than other people because of their profession. Not all of them are like that but there are still plenty of them walking around. Well, tending bar doesn’t seem to be your career – it seems to be your job – so it probably isn’t all that big a deal to you. As for me and some of my “lowly jobs”, the pretentious idiots were the types I’d make fun of on NotAlwaysRight.com. Short bits I’ve contributed included a rare doctor, probably some lawyers, definitely corporate looking types, diva designers, one prima donna NFL trophy wife…all of whom believe they could act like an ass because they were somehow “superior”. Something in that comment of yours reminded me of that enough to venture into a thread I was only lurking in. And that it annoyed me. It was a random dig from way out in left field.
I’ve veered way off topic. Hope you’ve got “Another 10 Forgotten…” in the wings because it really is an interesting concept. Any 10 obscure, forgotten people who drastically changed the world? Yeah, lame attempt to bring it back full circle.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@Maggot (150): LOL Maggot. I love you.
Enjoyed the list, and the comments as well.
Got to about 180’s and had to start skimming.
I wish I could read faster.
Cheers everyone!
October 13th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
@lostatsea1 (283):
This, again, is typical of conspiracy theorists. Direct questions are put to you—and you still fail to answer. I knew you would. You skirt, evade, and obfuscate in order not to face the DIRECT questions put to you.
“@GTT(215)I will reply to your questions, since you ask in a civilized manner unlike some!”
lost, you’ll get “civilized” when YOU start showing the critical thinking skills of a civilized individual yourself.
“1 The planes’ hijacking could be traced to Arab mujahideen.”
That was NOT the question put to you!!!! The question was–IF you believe that the Towers were in fact brought down with bombs–then WHY was it necessary to ALSO fly planes into them? Why didn’t “the government” (or whoever this secret imaginary cabal of yours was) simply set the bombs, blow them, and then blame whomever they wanted to blame in order to have an excuse for war? (And furthermore–why set these bombs in such a way that they would destroy the towers in a “suspicious manner” (i.e., pancaked) which sets conspiracy nuts like you drooling? Why not make it look “more realistic” to suit people like you?
Your answer is nonsensical and irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question put to you. Moreover it’s incorrect anyway… I can’t recall if ANY former Mujahadeen were amongst the terrorists, but I frankly doubt it. Certainly ALL of them were not.
“2 There are documents saying that a new Pearl Harbour style event was needed to goad the American populace towards approval of war.”
AGAIN—this does NOT answer the question put to you!! The question is, WHY was it necessary to actually DESTROY the buildings and kill thousands? A severe and bold ATTACK would have been enough, if this had been some kind of “plot.” The collapse of the Towers was extraneous, if you believe this whole thing to have been managed by our own government. Or are you going to try to tell us that the only way the American people would have agreed to war would have been if thousands were killed, and if only hundreds were killed, they would NOT have? That’s fucking madness.
“3 The Towers contained asbestos fireproofing which would have cost approximately 1 billion plus. Yes they did want to rebuild!!”
SO NOW IT WAS A COST-SAVING MEASURE? You truly have gone off the deep end, old man. Truly. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT IT IS ALMOST TEN YEARS LATER AND NOTHING HAS BEEN REBUILT THERE?
So now you’re trying to tell us that not only was some secret government cabal in on this—but so were the owners and real estate moguls of that entire block of buildings? You *cannot* actually see the insanity of this?
“If the steel had weakened due to fire the building would have bent sideways to the path of less resistance.”
WRONG. AGAIN, you seem to utterly fail to understand the kind of internal skeletal structure which the towers had. They were built around a central core, off of which “flew” floor after floor of far weaker supporting members. IN AGGREGATE, this structure supported itself, each floor taking some of the load. But once one or two floors were compromised completely, the load bearing capability of the ENTIRE structure failed. And so the floors ABOVE the failure came STRAIGHT DOWN, and caused the rest of the building to pancake due to the overwhelmingly increased load. NO, NOT sidewise–because that is NOT how the load of the building was engineered.
“The people visible at the gaping hole are proof of the low temperature at the crash site!!”
Maggot has kindly already answered that one.
“Prior to the event the Towers were shutdown and teams of ‘workmen’ were supposedly installing new wiring, as all power was shut off.”
BULL. The towers were IMMENSE office buildings of 110 stories each. They were NEVER “shut down” in the manner you claim. It didn’t happen.
“One more point…survivors on floors below crash told of no fires…”
WHY WOULD THEY? THE FIRES WERE ABOVE THEM!!!!!
“I might add that the Popular Mechanics and Nova failed to include the effects of the sprinkler and other fire suppression systems.”
Are you fucking KIDDING us, or are you just LITERALLY out of your fucking mind? Maggot also answered this one, but I’ll repeat the OBVIOUS for you. The impact of the airliners was CATASTROPHIC to the systems in the building at the level of the impact. The water lines and other fire suppression systems were KNOCKED OUT OF FUNCTION. That is to be expected in an impact of THAT magnitude.
“those who wish to learn will have to separate the truth from all the crap that surrounds this tragic event.”
YOU need to turn that around on YOURSELF.
“Thus ends my posts since some here seem to be suffering some type of psychosis!”
Yes, namely YOU. It’s interesting that here you’ve tried to use the VERY word I used to describe you, in order to attempt a deflection of madness regarding this issue from yourself to others. It’s very telling.
Lost, it becomes painfully and sadly more obvious every time you talk about this that you have NOTHING. You fail to respond to direct questions put to you, fail to follow ANY kind of logic, and come up with increasingly more absurd scenarios and circumstances to keep your ridiculous belief in this conspiracy going. It’s a failure on your part to understand science, engineering, mechanics, physics, AND human nature. And I said earlier, the only way an otherwise fairly intelligent human being could possibly overlook, ignore, or fail to grasp such a multitude of simple and obvious factual truths in this way is if they are suffering from some serious personality issue, and one that causes them to feel powerful and “in the know” in a world where they have heretofore felt powerless. And people like that will continue to play the game they’re playing, talking like the rest of us are just simple dupes who “can’t see the truth” while they go on living in their twisted delusion. No challenge to their imaginary reality sways them—they simply become less rational and more evasive–as you have done.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
lostatsea:
Here is yet another site that examines and debunks the conspiracy myths surrounding 9-11. I DARE you to have the courage to go and read:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
I highly doubt you will.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
@imcrystalclear (282): It’s a great list, but the real fun is in the comments. As I’m sure you’ve realised
October 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
lostatsea:
FROM the aforementioned site:
All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off…
-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history… Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neil have come out for less.
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It’s their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don’t call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers… Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don’t even know…
Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026
Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.
-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn’t ask for an investigation. Motive? None…
-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?
-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer…
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don’t want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it’s the money… [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn’t follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either…
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the “Controlled demolition” account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn’t have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called “Conspiracy”. In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that’s simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.
-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn’t write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don’t know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones’ work to any structural engineer?
-Structure Magazine who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.
-The liberals who don’t believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They’re helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue…
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.
-NORAD
-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.
-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.
-Silverstein’s Insurance Company who didn’t question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
-People who detonated the buildings”
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It’s absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd…
Update:
A common excuse for no one coming out who was part of this so called 9/11 conspiracy is they fear death. If you analyze the argument carefully you realize they are debunking themselves. Why would even people in the military be more fearful of exposing this than the common conspiracy theorists behind a computer monitor? Either they don’t believe what they’re saying or they actually think they are more fearless than the thousands of others who would have had to be “in on it”. As if people in the CIA or FBI couldn’t figure out how to get the message out if they wanted to without exposing who they are. People, dates, places, memos and other evidence could easily be disseminated to the public without exposing who they are. The only reason they claim the people are paralyzed with fear is because they have too in order for the conspiracy story to work.
Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy theories
Update:
More from Noam Chomsky
“…I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we’d have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists — of whom there are thousands — who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that’s been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission.”
“I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That’s of course up to you. I’ve explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.”
“…I don’t see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,… etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through “prevention of terrorism acts” and the like. By the “who gains” argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.”
“I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.”
October 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@lostatsea1 (283): The idea that you and your unemployed nutcase friends know more about physics than anyone the government has access to intrigues me. Do you really think that they would have screwed it up this bad if they were trying to set it up to look like a terrorist attack? What makes you think that you know more than them?
You wonder why people don’t believe you, it’s the same as the people trying to convince me that they know more about the physics of the space between Earth and the Moon and the Moon’s surface than NASA
October 13th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@Randall (288): If you think that this is bad you should ask her (him?) about the common cause of both world wars
October 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
@Mark (292):
What, you mean… [i]THE JEWS?[/i}
Dun-dun-Duuuuun!
October 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
cool and I love facts. hehe boom listverse comes back again!
October 13th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Most of thing i did’t know . Like ( The Bobby Kennedy Assassination)
Dazzle Smile Pro
October 13th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
YEAH! Quotes from Naom Chomsky! You don’t see that on CRACKED.com!
October 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. However since the wings were ruptured, most of the fuel was consumed on impact. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
I suppose you know what a stoichiometric mixture should be to allow max energy output ie, 14 parts air to 1 part fuel and since air is composed mostly of nitrogen (21% oxygen) the fire was on the cool side!
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC
9/11 news videos and firefighters transmissions documenting World Trade Center explosions.
whatreallyhappened.com/…/911_firefighters.html
Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn’t this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?
How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a ‘raging inferno’ in the WTC towers?
If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?
Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?
Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
Yes, I’ve read NISTs’ rebuttal and still stand by my views.
While there was damage to the sprinkler system on the impact floors, there was still fire protection afforded by the 14 gravity tanks with 70,000 gallon capacity, 12 pressure pumps, 8 of which were 3 stage 750 gpm, situated on the 7th, 41st and 75th floor,and on the 108th, 500gpm pumps fed by 5,000 gallon tanks.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Randall:
Incredibly thorough explanation. LotsatSea incredibly thorough rebuttal.
Gotta go with Randall. In my opinion it would be basically impossible to keep a conspiracy as large as 9-11 a secret. One or two or five people or 10 maybe. You would need hundreds maybe thousands of co-conspirators to be able to pull something like this off.
All you would need is one person coming forward to blow the lid off the entire thing. Saying something like “yeah I was involved” here is an email from Cheney……” It has not happened nor will it ever.
This act was the work of terrorists
October 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Esamuherr:
Meaning “that woman” in espanol??
October 14th, 2009 at 5:59 am
@lostatsea1 (299):
EVERY SINGLE POINT—EVERY one of them—that you raised is answered in the site whose link I posted here last night. Did you read any of it? Of course you didn’t. Even if you had, you’d dismiss it. Why? Because I hit the nail on the head earlier—this isn’t about “truth” for people like you, lostatsea (how appropriate that name IS) but rather it’s about your own NEED to have an imaginary reality all your own that you can feel you have power over. And to protect that, people like you will squirm and evade any way they can to avoid facing factual reality.
You’re DEAD wrong about this. You have NO scientifically valid points AT ALL, and every point that you DO make has been *thoroughly* and expertly countered by scientists and engineers.
Belief in conspiracies is a sickness. I’d frankly urge you to get help—but in an individual it’s a fairly harmless malady. The family of an old college friend of mine believe in just about every conspiracy you can think of. They’re otherwise sane and pleasant people—in fact, I enjoy their company. But it’s interesting that they are all “outsiders” and no doubt feel this, and wish to create a world within their minds which they *can* feel power over, and feel that THEY have the upside of. As I say, fairly harmless. The only person you’re hurting is yourself, by living in this false world where you can feel more knowledgeable and more hip to the “powers that be” than the rest of us. But in an overall sense, this conspiracy shit is an epidemic that doesn’t bode well for our society our civilization if you ask me.
At any rate, I know you’ll never listen.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am
@Randall (302):
Unbelievable… here is an example of a response I received after posing your questions:
1- WHY would the US government have to fly planes into the towers in addition to detonating the bombs?
2- If they needed an excuse to go to war, wouldnt ANY attack have been sufficient? Therefore, just detonating bombs would have done it… Why the planes? Or you could have had just the planes and no bombs… It would have been reason enough.
3- Why was it necessary to flatten the buildings? WHY? Did they need the real estate?
Here was one classic response from a guy called Spooked911:
“I can’t tell you what the perps were thinking but my guesses are:
1) they wanted a good cover story for the subsequent destruction of the towers
2) they needed sufficient casualties and shock which the crashes alone wouldn’t have done– they needed to show serious devasation
3) the WTC towers were old and outdated; Silverstein got quite bit of insurance money; again they wanted devastation– shock and awe”
October 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am
@lostatsea1 (299): You say the same things every, single, time. They’ve all been refuted before, but don’t mind that, just stay on message.
Don’t you get it? It’s not that the world is wrong and you’re right because you’re so much better than us.
Flipping moron…
October 14th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@damien_karras (303):
Yeah… I’m just… amazed and disheartened that such idiotic people exist in this world. Logic seems to be a tool which is rusting a bit more every day from total lack of use.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:09 am
@damien_karras (303): I’m butting in…do you think these people honestly believe this? I mean…really, truly with all their heart and soul believe this? I just can’t grasp that thought process.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@damien_karras (303):
Did you point out that Spooked911 even says those are guesses and not actual findings?
October 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am
@Randall (302): this isn’t about “truth” for people like you, lostatsea (how appropriate that name IS) but rather it’s about your own NEED to have an imaginary reality all your own that you can feel you have power over.
The telling statement in his post 299 is “Yes, I’ve read NISTs’ rebuttal and still stand by my views.” Here is the rebuttal he refers to, which pretty much destroys his points, item by item (as does the site you linked, which is very cool btw, still reading it!). The “questions” are practically word for word, as if he just went down this list, systematically denying every answer put forth so to continue harping on the questions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
lostatsea, I actually kind of like you, but in a “crazy uncle” sort of way. You really are off the deep end here.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am
@ames801 (306):
If you look in my last post to “lostatsea,” you’ll note that I make mention of the family of a friend of mine who believe all kinds of conspiracy theories. These are nice, decent, smart people (if a little whacky—they’re a shade “out there” in a lot of ways, but nothing “weird,” they just live Bohemian kinds of green and simple lives, outside of the normal middle class consumer culture… hippie-ish, doing their own farming and whatnot… you get the picture). I have never been able to fathom their thinking process, however. Logic only bothers them a little. On some things they equivocate; but they never *totally* abandon the craziness.
It finally occurred to me that they don’t *want* to. And I realized that there must be another reason that people believe in these conspiracies… it isn’t because they *really* are judging matters scientifically or fairly or intelligently. If they were, they’d easily see how wrong they are. But it has to be something else. Some desire, as I pointed out earlier, to create a world of one’s own imagining, where they can feel like they have the insight into the secrets that no one else has. Imagine how empowering that must feel to people who feel powerless in the face of this giant, dehumanizing culture of ours, in the face of giant, monolithic governments and “powers-that-be.”
Sadly, it diverts their energy from getting worked up over REAL problems. It’s like a form of self-hypnosis and self-deception, to avoid the true issues of modern life.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
@Randall (309): Kind of ‘ignore the obvious’ mind set?
October 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@ames801 (310):
Yeah, I suppose. Willfully ignoring the obvious.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:50 am
@Mary (285): Welcome! Unfortunately, you will probably be branded as part of the “peanut gallery” or a “basement dweller” for not joining the Randall bashing. In any case, welcome from everyone with a sense of humor.
@Rolo Tomasi (301): I thought so too but but woman in spanish is MUJER (note the j and the single r.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@lostatsea1 (299):
I read the NIST site that Maggot provided in comment(308)… They answer each and every one of your questions (I´m thinking that´s where you got them from because they are listed word-for-word in the same order). And the answers are logical and almost obvious once you read them.
Not only that, that report was compiled by 200 technical experts (including 125 from the private sector). Are you saying that these 200 experts missed something that you are seeing? Or that they are all in on the conspiracy?
I´m sorry, but it just doesnt make a lot of sense. Plus, you still havent really answered the main questions… Why would it be necessary to fly the planes into the towers? Wouldnt the bombs have been enough?
October 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@GTT (313): they are all in on the conspiracy?
This is really the catch-all answer that conspiracy theorists end up falling back on in order to continue to defend their otherwise illogical and thoroughly debunked claims. It makes for a good Hollywood “tangled web” drama, but that’s about it.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
@GTT (313): @Maggot (314):
lostatsea, IF he answers, will say that it isn’t so much HE that has noticed these things that the experts have “missed,” but rather that OTHER experts have seen them, and he is merely reporting what THOSE experts say. This is another one of the classic consipracy theorist tactics—to turn it into a “my experts vs. your experts” thing, so that then he can characterize “our” experts as either inferior, or dupes, or “in on” the conspiracy. Never mind that “our” experts outnumber his by at least 10 to 1. Never mind that “our” experts are composed of actual structural engineers and materials scientists, who are the true authorities that one should be looking to here–while his are composed in large part of people who are NOT experts in these fields at all.
AND he will claim that there is a “blacklisting” of experts if they should speak up—that if an authority comes out with questions about the attack, appears to be doubting the “official” line–he or she will be blackballed and will be in danger of losing their career. Which is utter nonsense. AGAIN, it’s the old conspiratorial mind—they think it easy to say there’s an unspoken “blacklist,” but never stop to think how monumentally HUGE this would make the conspiracy. Every journal, university, research institute and professional group would have to be in on it. It’s insane.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
To Randall,
While I agree with most of your facts, I’ll bet you’re a mousy fucker in real life. You exhibit short-man syndrome.
If you acted this way to me in a bar I’d shove my fist down your throat.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Let me offer a word of advice to all those who feel inclined to engage in verbal fisticuffs with Randall (as I once did). Debating with Randall could be compared to attempting to put out the sun by pissing on it. You won’t make a hint of progress and you’re likely to get your balls burned off in the process.
Rather, let us learn to enjoy Randall for what he is. Randall is a genius, nay, an artist, in the arena of words. Specifically in using words to weave a glorious tapestry of vehemence, dark humor, and profanity that occasionally has rivaled the finest works of art that man has yet to offer. That is if crushing the human spirit can be considered an art form. Can it? I say yes it can. I may not always understand the motivation or inspiration behind it, or always agree with the morality of it. Much like I may wonder at the motivation and inspiration of a male ballet dancer. But my failure to understand or approve of it in no way lessens the beauty of the art when in the hands of a master. Randall is that master.
Why, you ask, would he choose to spend such genius on spouting volumes of critical commentary and passionate defense of said commentary on a humble website such as listverse? Certainly he has better things to spend his time on? Is he not, afterall, a professor in a well-to-do University? Does he not have tests to mark and insolent students to devour? I have absolutely no idea. BUT let us count ourselves blessed that he so chooses to grace us with his presence and entertain us in such a way. And lets be honest, like it or not hes usually right. Painfully so. Nice? No. Brief? Hell no. Right? Most often.
So when you feel the need to rise up in arms against a vicious retort or a seemingly unfair critique, hold your tongue and leave it for some other idiot to take the bait, some other hapless Christian to stumble into the lion pit, and sit back and enjoy the ensuing massacre.
I salute you Randall.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Apparently lostatsea isn’t familiar with Occam’s razor.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@Spiff17 (316):
All hail the master.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@Jess (317):
Yeah, hippie needs to shave that beard off, am I right? Well am I?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@Spiff17 (316): Plus he’s funny as hell.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:16 am
@GTT (311): Well it could be Portuguese, although it would still be misspelled. But it is less of a far cry than if it were Spanish.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:48 am
@Earl (315):
I’m sure you enjoy shoving your fist into *various* male orifices, Earl. To each his own.
Anyway, big talk, asshole, for someone on the internet. Nope, I’m not short, (6′1″ in fact) I’m not at all scared, not at all impressed, couldn’t care less for your worthless opinion anyway, and if we ever DID meet in a bar you’d be welcome to TRY to “shove your fist down my throat,” but I guarantee you it’d be the last thing you ever did. For a while, anyway.
It’s ridiculously ironic how some prick like you pops in and accuses ME of having some personality failing, while in the next breath making an empty threat that you in no way can follow up on and don’t even know that you COULD follow up on if we *were* to somehow meet in real life.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:00 am
@Spiff17 (316):
While I am a trifle suspicious of your somewhat gushing missive on my behalf – I detect a slight whiff of sarcasm around the edges – I feel I must correct one factual error you made, out of fairness. I am NOT currently a professor–assistant, associate, or otherwise. In the future I may go back to that career; I haven’t decided. I was, several years ago, an instructor, yes—but I gave it up and went over to the management end of higher education because I found the infighting and politics amongst faculty to be a major pain in the ass and not worth it. It wasn’t lucrative, fulfilling, or even much fun. I’ve oftentimes thought in retrospect that maybe I just had a bad experience and wasn’t ready or something–but I still have many friends who are faculty members at various institutions, and few of them seem to love the job any more than I did.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Randall: “couldn’t care less for your worthless opinion”, yet you answered didn’t you. Yep, short man!
October 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@Earl Malone (324):
Yes, Earl, there there. Randall is short, sure. Now, ssshhh, go back to your beddy-bye.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Maggot, some interesting reading:
Statement of Kristen Breitweiser Co-Chairperson September 11th …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
early and mid-summer 2001 as “the most urgent in decades.”
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/091802breitweiser.pdf
The gravity water tanks above the crash site would have had an immense cooling and dispersion effect on fuel fires and yet the tower collapsed in less than an hour!! Even common sense should show the obvious! Don’t worry…it’s my last post on this!!
October 16th, 2009 at 7:03 am
@lostatsea1 (326):
“Don’t worry…it’s my last post on this!!”
Thank you, jebus!
October 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am
@lostatsea1 (326):
I read that link you posted and while incredibly sad, it adds nothing of actual value to your theories. I think we can all agree that the US Government screwed up big time but that is a LONG way from proving any sort of massive conspiracy theory. In fact, quite the opposite.
I would also like to hear what you can say to counter the answers given to your questions in post (298). How would you refute those conculsions? And saying “it doesnt make sense to me” doesnt count.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
@lostatsea1 (326): The gravity water tanks above the crash site would have had an immense cooling and dispersion effect on fuel fires
What are you basing this statement on? Try reading an actual analysis rather than just regurgitating a sentence or two of hyperbole.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-4B%20Fire%20Suppression.pdf
Then, try answering GTT’s and Randall’s basic questions. Simple questions that you continue to avoid addressing:
1- WHY would the US government have to fly planes into the towers in addition to detonating the bombs?
2- If they needed an excuse to go to war, wouldnt ANY attack have been sufficient? Therefore, just detonating bombs would have done it… Why the planes? Or you could have had just the planes and no bombs… It would have been reason enough.
3- Why was it necessary to flatten the buildings? WHY? Did they need the real estate?
October 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Randall: I admit there was a hint of “all in good fun” sarcasm in certain comments
. But overall I think I was sincere and accurate in describing your online persona. You must expect a certain amount of ribbing coming back your way. Anyone as vocal and seemingly self-important as you (which I realize is all part of the joke) is bound to receive some shots back. But I’ve come to rather enjoy your rants. After reading through numerous of the threads on this site I’ve come to a better understanding of your role and character and while sometimes unnecessarily scathing and uncalled for your comments are always entertaining and very often exactly what needs to be said to put an idiot in their place. If only some real enlightenment and character development would occur in the minds of your targets as a result of your rebukes. Hopefully you enjoy writing them as much as I enjoy reading them and your time hasn’t been wasted. But obviously your goal here is not the enlightenment or morons. Its the utter destruction of morons. I take a friendlier approach to life and thus was offended by you initially but I’ve learned my lesson. You won’t receive any humanitarian awards but you do make me laugh. And the clarification on your profession has been noted.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Magot(329)While there was damage to the sprinkler system on the impact floors, there was still fire protection afforded by the 14 gravity tanks with 70,000 gallon capacity, 12 pressure pumps, 8 of which were 3 stage 750 gpm, situated on the 7th, 41st and 75th floor,and on the 108th, 500gpm pumps fed by 5,000 gallon tanks.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the figures I received from the insurance bureau and the NIST figures.
Also there is no conclusion and much conjecture!!
October 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
heh haven’t been here for a time for its not daily any more.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
hey lostatsea 1(331):
What the hell? I thought it would be your last comment on 326 but what the hell you still commented?
October 21st, 2009 at 3:12 am
OMG you guys ruin listverse. I’ve been a reader since the beginning and your constant bickering is a discredit to the site.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Randall
I am a first time reader and first time blogger so you and I have no history. I read your original post, and excuse me if I am uninformed but, I thought the point in blogging was to comment on the content of the list, not the grammer, syntax, etc. Then when someone called you on it, you swore at them and attacked them. I don’t know you, I am not chastising you, but I am perplexed by your anger. Maybe if I had read previous posts, I would see an ongoing war, but you state that you do not know the other bloggers, yet you are so angry with them. Ignore them, I personally thought you were correct in your analysis of the list from a gramatical stand point, but I thought the list had merit none the less. (If for entertainment purposes if nothing else). Just something to think about.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
@Jo (334): OMG you guys ruin listverse. I’ve been a reader since the beginning and your constant bickering is a discredit to the site.
Would you rather we all just post the lyrics to Kumbaya in unison?
October 31st, 2009 at 6:00 am
So funny. To see Randall ranting and raving in the exact same way here as on other lists. The man must waste an awful lot of time on upholding his image of himself. Hard to believe he actually has a job. Or a family life.
BTW I do agree generally with his position on conspiracies.
Very nice list.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
randal u need to do some research.. yes the towers were made to withstand a 747 plane impact…heres a little insight.
) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’’s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?
WHY WAS THERMITE FOUND AT SITE?
4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?
Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence
well its better than name calling i guess
November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 am
awesome about the 9/11 trajic
November 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am
i am doing techsteps in school so we have to get an event in the past so im using it and i think its going to turn out pretty good well g2g techer is coming haaaa lol im in english classss
November 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I’m surprised you wrote an entry on what is forgotten about 9/11 but then neglected even to mention the Pentagon and the plane that went down in Pennsylvania.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Randall,You are the ass.Even a kerosene based jet fuel doesn’t murn hot enough to melt structural steel.A fire that burns abd gives off excessive smoke,is a fire that is not burning efficently.Meaning it is not getting the correct mixture of oxygen meaning it is not burning well enough to produce excessive amounts of heat.A building hit at the top does not weaken the bottom floors,If anything the damaged top floors should have tilted to the weakned side and slid off falling to the ground below.Can you explain the puffs of dust and flying steel I-beams comming uot the sides of the building as it is comming down?I don’t think so,a building yhat is colapsing doesn’t throw debris out the sides on it’s way down.Watch some video of the collapse,the puffs occour a split second before the upper floor drops on each sucessive floor all the way down.The exact way a building being demolished does.I beleive it was WTC building no.7 that was demolished by the owner although it had very little damage and the fires on it were contained to two floors and on the same side of the building.During numerous interviews.He has been quoted as saying”we decided to pull it”.Pull it is the term used to set off the explosives in a demolition,why would heopenly use that term and if he decided to demolish the building that day who installed the demolition charges ? When did they install the said demolition charges ? In a building of that size it would take more than a afternoon and a fair sized crew of experienced explosive experts.Also can you explain why the main support coloumns were found to have been cut off in the exact same manner,as in a demolition when they were sticking up in the rubble ? I was trained in demolition by the US Army,I was taught how to destroy buildings,drop bridges,how to stop a tank and kill everyone in it with a coke can and a 1/4lb.stick of c-4 explosive.How to rig booby traps,I know about blowing stuff up.Also metallurgy is another course of study in a demolition school,because if you don’t understand the properties of a metal you have a lesser chance of compleating your objective.You can burn a steel I-beam all day with jet fuel,it doesn’t burn hot enough to melt it.You can try and belittle someone stating their opnion,but Mr.,your government trained me in explosives and demolitions,I went to one of the best demolition schools the military has.It’s in Georgia,I won’t say where but if you’re so smart look it up.So you can preach that conspiracy theorist crap to somebody else,I know what I saw on the news and on numerous video sources,I know hat I looked up reguarding the9-11 attacks.And I know when somebody is trying to make me believe that something I have been trained to do,was done by something that is physically unable to do what it did.Don’t bother correcting my grammar and spelling mistakes,because frankly I don’t give a damn.