Was Mark Wahlberg's 9/11 Comment Insensitive?
SodaHead Celebs
2012/01/19 01:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
267 votes
|
|
47% | |||
|
298 votes
|
|
53% | |||
It didn't take long for actor Mark Wahlberg to start back-pedaling on those 9/11 comments he made in the latest issue of Men's Journal. Wahlberg, who was originally scheduled to be on United 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001, said things would have been different if he had been on the flight. Critics are calling the statement insensitive because it seems to assume the passengers who died on the flight could have -- or should -- have done more to prevent it.
He told Men's Journal, "If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, 'OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'" That sounds nice in theory, but it didn't fly with the families of victims. He later clarified that the whole premise of the statement was off. He told TMZ, "To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with. I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention." Do you think Mark Wahlberg's comments were inappropriate?
He told Men's Journal, "If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, 'OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'" That sounds nice in theory, but it didn't fly with the families of victims. He later clarified that the whole premise of the statement was off. He told TMZ, "To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with. I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention." Do you think Mark Wahlberg's comments were inappropriate?
We all like to think we could have done something to change the outcome, but since the government has taken away our right and deprived us of the means to defend ourselves while aboard a commercial aircraft there isn't a lot one person could have done. But if the people aboard the aircraft had the means to defend themselves the outcome would probably have been very different.
Sure, in hindsight we'd all like to think we could have made a difference, but then it's a whole different scene once the hammer drops.
No big deal to me, really.
He is right , it would have been bloody. those headless bodies would make a mess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
meant. I was just giving the guy the benefit of the doubt knowing how reporters turn words to their advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.bentham.org/open/t...
FACT 1: IMPORTANT!!! The 2.25 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object's gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.
This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.
FACT 2 The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://www.bentham.org/open/t...
FACT 1: IMPORTANT!!! The 2.25 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object's gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.
This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.
FACT 2 The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
FACT 3: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
FACT4: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.
The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section's toppling proves the removal of the lower section's resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
FACT 5: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.
Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
FACT 6: Office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. 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."
The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!
The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it's weakest point. Why should it fail?
No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.
FACT 7. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.