|
|
Well this morning I got the lobotomy I was scheduled for. No longer will I be bothered by pesky 'facts' or 'truth'. To further shield myself from reality, I had an extra-thick foil cap installed. Now I know that everything I read in school is 100% true, and I also know that I would never be lied to by anyone! I also realize I did not have a good grasp on physics. I can't understand how I ever doubted that rocks float, etc. After I awoke from surgery, Santa was at my side. He reassured me that all was well, and told me he only had a few minutes before he had to leave to meet up with the Easter Bunny.
I am in a happy place now :yes: |
Freeze - clean it up man.
The towers did not collapse due to the impact of the planes. The superheated fire melted the structural steel support beams (which ended up exposed due to the impact's). This fire was "superheated" due to the large amount of jet fuel (remember, the planes had basically just taken off, so they were full of fuel. Once those structural beams melted, the weight of 40+ storied of building above the impact zone combined with a classis case of gravity (not a conspiracy - its real) and you get what looked like a stand building demo. If you cant understand how a fire can do this - go get a torch set and play with some steel for a bit. As for "lack of Aircraft parts" - study the melting points of steel as opposed to the materials used in airplanes. Pyroclastic cloud - DUH! That's exactly the effect you'd get with a fire like they had and the forces involved with a collapse of that magnitude. Under that kind of weight and pressure, the steel beams were heating to incredible temperatures as they came down. Try bending a paper clip until it breaks - feel that small warm spot right where it breaks? Same thing except on a magnitude that most people really cant fathom. #7 was hit by debris and damaged enough that it was cheaper to take it down than it was to rebuild it. Quote:
There is NOTHING about the destruction that defies any engineering logic. Dont believe me - go get a degree in some form of structural engineering, or 10+ years of experience in some form of industry that deals with structural materials, THEN come back with your argument. Now at the ripe old age of 19, you need to take some of your own advice, and quit looking for ways to connect your percieved conspiracy and random events. Its been my experience that people who want to connect events to support a belief can and will find ways to do this. You shot down Texas belief in God (wrongly), and yet you'd probably be the first to tell him that his logic in connecting Biblical profecy (i know I spelled that wrong) with current events is completely off base and without logic. People of all beliefs do this same thing every day - can they all be wrong at the same time??? |
"#7 was hit by debris and damaged enough that it was cheaper to take it down than it was to rebuild it."
Yes indeed, and while it was on fire, crews rushed to load it up with explosives, so they could neatly bring it down at around 5 the same day, that's service! Maybe your aircraft expertise can explain how an F-16, capable of Mach 1.5, is limited to 400-500 mph when in pursuit of multiple rogue airliners. I guess they didn't want to break windows, or maybe the jets weren't "firing on all eight". Bad batch af avgas is my guess. Well they did manage to get one of four... JT I do respect you, but please don't play the 'degree' game, as if 4 years of extra education makes anyone a god in their chosen field. I know college grads who can barely flip a burger. |
Quote:
F-16's, and other planes, were limited by policy, not by capability. And there was no order to shoot down anything. The order to get F-16's up in the air was not given in time for any of the 4 crashes. The chain of events and information flow on what was happening just didn't support that occuring. And I for one would not order a shot down of a commercial plane, no matter the consquences. And exactly which plane got shot down? The one in Philly? It nose dived into the ground. Go do more research on similar plane crashes - there haven't been many, but there were a few. If it had been shot down, you would have had a debris field miles long, not a single hole in the groung. Notice, I also said "or 10+ years of experience" - it was meant more for ZP. He's throwing out "facts" regarding things that at his age and level of experience, he would have no clue wether they were right or wrong. I would never play the "I'm better just because" card. Not my style. But there is a very valid reason in industry for an education and/or experience. I too would ship half the guys I work with to McD's. |
|
Quote:
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m.../gifs/what.gif |
Well I have no desire to make enemies, so I will leave amicably.
ZP happens to be intelligent far beyond his years, I don't know if he's college-educated, and honestly I don't care. Again I have no opinion on the Vancouver scenario, but how many of you have fallen for the simple chainletter scam hehe.. I'd be willing to bet, more than one! I could heap up evidence, as I know ZP can as well. But it's in vain. And it'll change nothing. If anyone thinks I'm cowering in the corner with this, PM me. I just have too much respect for the forum to continue with this. I graciously depart from thread... |
Back to a serious level, I still truly believe it was a miracle that the towers collapsed the way they did. Can you imagine the utter devastation and chaos if either or both of the towers fell sideways? :oh: As terrible as it was, it could have been much, much worse.
|
In any case, try to create a conspiracy theory around these facts, mkay?
[YOUTUBE]bMZ-nkYr46w[/YOUTUBE] |
Thiessen, please don't use the degree game, I know many people with degrees that are dumber than shit, literally, ignorant, and loud mouth fools. You have yet to put forth some credible evidence besides attacking me saying I'm 19 (I'm 23 if you must know). So if you think degrees mean something, then why have 800+ and growing architects and engineers joined the AE9/11truth movement in the USA? What do you call that phenomenon?
Freezebyte, since when is speculation considered evidence? That video is science fraud, the whole video is full of assumptions as if they were facts! Makes me sick. I bet you haven't even watched the video I posted have you? There is heaps and heaps of evidence for the "conspiracy" side of this, and what does the official story present you? Nothing, but a far out story about some men from caves with box cutters that managed to slip past the pentagon, CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, homeland security, the military, whatever else.... and crash not one, not two, not even three planes, but four, don't you think that seems a little far fetched? |
Also, Thiessen, I said try and explain WTC 7, you said they pulled it? Well, seeing as it takes weeks to plan and carry out a demolition project like that, I can't see that happening on the morning of 9/11. Here is an idea, maybe they set all the charges in the few weeks before when they have power shut downs, bomb sniffing dogs removed, and during that time the building had abnormally high levels of dust and contaminants in the air. Maybe you want to go tell all the firefighters who were actually there that they never heard bombs going off, that they never saw floor by floor explosions? Are you going to go call them liars?
Remember this, the best place the hide something is in plain sight. |
Quote:
And tell me this. What would you tell a six year old that argues with you that Santa Clause is real (assuming you weren't concerned with their feelings)? The reason they can believe is because they haven't experienced enough to be able to rationally make the connections. I see the same thing here. If all this stuff that you've gathered from these various websites were true, more credible sources would have been all over it, and you'd see nothing but this on the news. I fear that your sources are the modern equivelent of tabloid news papers - I can start a website and put anything I want on it, and do it without retribution. The civil engineers are saying that the buildings may not have been built to the specs that were claimed by the builder. They couldn't prove that because the debris was removed in a manner that facilitated them finding the bodies, as opposed to a method that allowed the engineers to study the dynamics of the collapse. As far as explosions after the fact, consider this. You have many broken gas lines. You have uncontrolled electrical sparking. What do you think is going to happen when those two are combined in a devastation zone like there was there? Have you ever been in a building right after an earthquake almost completely demolished it? There is gas everywhere, and there are electrical lines everywhere. I almost didn't make it out because of the gas. The building next to mine exploded - but it had been relatively stable during the quake - same effect as #7. And its not just the gas that can cause the explosions - its the dust. Once the ppm gets high enough, just a static spark can blow up an entire building (being from where you are from, do a search on grain elevator explosions). Gotta run - wifey says she wants some...:na: |
You are absolutely hopeless. You keep on speculating, speculating, speculating on everything, which, if you were educated properly, you would know is not scientific at all, and deviates the facts from fiction.
|
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
There is not much to say about this one except that whatever hit the ground, it was not a plane that was in one piece when it hit the ground. Debris was scattered over 4 miles radius around this peculiar hole in the ground with virtually no debris around it. Oh, wait, what about all the jet fuel that that would have been ignited at the crash?? You don't see any fire damage, except for the small crater the size of a Volkswagen golf (judging by the hole next to the garage... shouldn't the garage have been completely destroyed if a jet liner crashed there? LOL)
Donald Rumsfeld made a Freudian slip about this one as well, he said on the news about blah blah the other false flag terrorist attacks in Madrid, etc. He says "...the plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania..." Don't tell me it was just a mistake or confusion from another event, because there was no other event that a plane got shot down. The air traffic controllers were told to evacuate from the tower, they said 'they couldn't see the plane from 15 miles out, which was quite odd for a plane it's size'. A photographer at the location said all he could see nothing but a gouge in the earth and some broken trees. The Fox news anchor said the same thing! The whole area was sealed off from anyone, and was considered a 'crime scene'... wait a minute, if that was a crime scene, then what the F#$K was New York? An accident? |
honestly this thread is hopeless,as one of the apparently uneducated fools that sees 9/11 as a true terrorist attack,arguing is pointless.please close this thread!--josh
|
Pentagon
4 Attachment(s)
First of all, WHERE IS THE HOLE TO FIT A 757 INTO?!? That alone is enough to sound the "BULLSHIT ALARM".
Where is all the fire damage from all the fuel onboard? You saw the huge fireball on the twin towers (of which most of the fuel would have been burned off in the immediate explosion), but here you can clearly see open offices with the walls blown off with books and stools seemingly undamaged by the fire (or lack there of)?? Why does the plane have no wings? Aren't 757's principle of flight from the fundamental effect of air flow of an air foil wing? So where are the craters in the Pentagon where the wings should have been? Did they fall of before hand? Did they break off when hitting the building? If so, where are they then? Why are is there hole roughly 7 feet diameter that goes through not one, not two, but THREE rings on the pentagon! So how can the fuselage do that kind of damage (made of aluminum...), and the wings (which would weight a large portion of the total mass of the plane) not do ANYTHING to the front of the building, not even to glass windows!! The only thing that could possibly do that would be maybe a small military drone aircraft (UAV?), or a bunker buster missile. The engine is way too small to be from a 757 jet liner, but does line up with the size of engine used in the Global Hawk UAV. The wheels left in the debris also are a match for design and size to a UAV as well. Not saying it was a UAV though... we have no definite evidence of what it was, but it wasn't a 757! Human remains... hgmm... I mean no human remains, nothing... how can you have no human remains and have pieces of fuselage on the lawn of the Pentagon with seemingly "American Airlines" letters and colors, that aren't even burnt? Ya, that adds up! Check out the pictures. |
whenever you get off your soapbox,people might actually pay attention......im done now.--josh
|
How about you actually read it, and stop being so bloody ignorant.
|
how about you stop acting like you have something to prove and stop trying to force your opinion down everyone elses throat. if your so certain your right,get off your computer chair AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!--josh
|
One man can't do anything, you need a collective force, of which you can only achieve by educating people... it's a bit tricky when they are sheeple instead.
|
Not to sprinkle the sprinkles over the ice cream, (lol), but doesn't steel have a higher melting temperature than jet fuel burns at? and also used some fire retardant over the steel?
Probably wrong... |
yea give it a rest no one gives a rats ass about your damn rant. Go find some other place to do it.....
|
Quote:
|
Rootar, I don't give up... and I want to do it here cuz I like you guys. :)
|
well you "liking" us is making us dislike you man, just let it die off a little.
|
I don't know who was at fault for 9/11 but.....
Buildings don't fall straight down unless they are imploded. In order for that to happen after a plane hit is impossible, too many factors would have had to have been absolutely perfrect for a fire, fueled by jetfuel or anything, to implode a building. This happened twice on the same day!! Beyond impossible!! The charges in building 7 show there was prior knowledge and explosives in the buildings. Building 7- was "pulled". I forget the name of the guy, but he was recorded saying, "pull it", and then building 7 was imploded by explosives. Which could not have been placed during the chaos of 9/11, they were there previously. Nobody knows the answers or the truth. For anyone to close their minds to either side is by definition ignorant. To blindly accept what the media has given us as truth is silly, and to wholeheartedly get on the conspiracy theory bandwagon is nonsense. I KNOW, as fact, both buildings did not fall into nice neat little piles without prior structural weakening and strategically placed charges. Building demolition is a science. Of this I'm sure. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I've watched many many conspiracy theory videos, and many many "debunk the myth" videos. I just can't see how someone can get on here and argue so vehomently against something that they haven't taken the time to study objectively and equally on all sides. That's what the KKK does. And we are all intelligent people on this board, how can someone just dismiss the thoughts of an intelligent person as rubbish, without trying to see where they are coming from. No name calling guys. If you think 9/11 is all hunky dory you have your blinders on. If you claim to know the truth you are a liar. Dunno what else to say, but don't close your mind and never be afraid to learn more. |
Thanks for posting Paralyzed... the guy you remember saying "pull it" was Larry Silverstein, and he made 9 billion big ones from insurance, not bad from a 15 million investment 6 months prior... he went to court afterwards to say it was two, not one attacks of terrorism, so he got double the payback. If he had any sympathy for the victims, if he had any morals at all, he would not even have that thought. Scum bag SOB.
|
Quote:
I would have liked to see BrianG post on here, just like to hear your thoughts? |
9/11 is definately not just a Terrorism incident. The terrorists was definately involved but maybe there was prior knowledge and the buildings were prepped to implode. Buildings that are so massive and made to stand so tall and mighty will not collapse at free-fall speed into neat little piles.
As for Building 7, its not even hit and it too collapse into a neat-little pile. It takes weeks of planning and explosives prep to 'pull' a building neatly into a pile, so no way it was done during 9/11 itself. Also, a lot of reinforcements had a distinctive clean angular cut which is a signature of it being 'prepped' for demolition. Just my thoughts. :) |
I'll prolly regret this later but...
The biggest flaw I see in these conspiracy theories is that they assume there is a binary choice in the versions of truth. There is the public "truth" A, and the "real" truth B. That's it. The theorists then attack A as a proxy for proving B, because ultimately B is poorly supported by evidence and logic and cannot stand under its own weight. This is the same strategy of argument that exists for anti-evolutionists, and even global warming deniers to a degree. Oh look, we think there should be more transitional fossils, ergo creationism/Intelligent Design is true. Usually the weaker the counter argument, the more vicious the attacks. No no, truth doesn't work that way. So, please humor me in explaining exactly how this alter 9/11 scenario occurred? How long did it take to plan? How many people were involved? Bush was in office 8mos by 911, did he have enough time to order up and sneak all those explosives in there? Let alone plan out the massive operation, all of which would need to work flawlessly unless the biggest treason and lie in the nation's history be exposed... He was pretty busy passing tax cuts for the wealthy then. Was the 1992 WTC bombing by terrorists a clever rouse or only co-incidence? How did they recruit all these thousands of people into mass murder of their fellow countrymen? How did they keep them silent? What was the end goals? War? Really? This was the easiest way of bringing that about? They couldn't figure out some simpler plan? Lastly, you are staking this on a level of competency of gov't officials, politicians and other middling humans that I'm not sure anyone possesses, let alone George W F'ing Bush, probably the dumbest and most incompetent president we've had in this nations history (including you Millard Fillmore.) A serious weak link in a chain if there ever was one. These too are gov't officials who have since let two idiot terrorists on planes with explosives, who also only failed due to their shear stupidity and incompetence, not because they were stopped by people who knew them to be coming. I think you are giving people far too much credit. So please, try to make a sensible argument, esp w/o insulting people. I don't think there is one to be made. Evidence needs to be stronger than "d00d, no way, that $hits crazy." Prove that steel heated to many hundreds of degrees retains a necc strength rating. Prove that a truss structure can withstand the massive weight of a 40 story building falling on it and not fail w/o explosives. Show how such explosives can be rigged throughout a 110 floor building and no one notice all the wires and charges or anything. How much is actually needed btw? Where was the guy w/ the timer watching and setting them off? You need to be able to better explain every shred of "planted" evidence, account for every act of deception, every person in the massive chain of deceit in a way that is at least plausible to a reasonable person. In your own words please, not some kooky utube vid or some CnP from some nutty website. Of course, I don't mean all in one post, but at least something better than the nothing you've put forth so far. |
Demolition is taught at colleges. I haven't taken the classes. I can't give you technical data or demolition theory. I can't make an educated formal argument. I can tell you that it is simply not possible for the buildings to have fallen the way they did from plane impacts and the subsequent fire. Every scenario has been tried in controlled environments, and that's why there are demolition experts that are licensed and accredited and very strictly regulated. Ask a demolitions expert, see what they say.
If I don't know something, I say "IMO" or "IIRC". I make it a point to either know what I'm talking about or make it clear that I don't. My conspiracy theory lies more toward the owner of the building, who not only made out huge in insurance money, but now owns the single most expensive piece of property in North America. I don't know what happened, I know planes can't make skyscrapers fall into nice neat little piles. Skyscrapers specifically built to withstand an airplane hit, because the erection and demolition of buildings is a science. Food for thought: Even controlled demolitions go wrong. Is it plausible to you that there were two very controlled falls on the same day right next to each other as a result of a chaotic catastrophe? |
Quote:
I can't wrap my head around parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and how going faster slows the passage of time. That does not mean its not true. Anyway, my post was more aimed at the OP. But as an example of my point as you were the (un)fortunate one to respond. If it was Silverstein's master plan, how did he get a hold of hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, get people to secretly rig them in his building (which 50000 people worked in, and hundreds of tourists visited every day) manage to hijack to 4 separate planes, all the while not getting caught and having enough money left over after the payoffs and materials to make the mass murder worth it? As far as insurance scams go, seems a bit complicated. Really, why bother bombing the pentagon then? One more chance to get caught, and get set on fire and shoved thru a woodchipper by an angry mob. When looking at the implications and totality of these theories, it just doesn't make any sense. |
Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure. The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical. Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm |
Quote:
|
Quote:
How can you I have put nothing forward so far? Have you read any of my posts? How about you put forth a credible theory for the official story? Really, just do one for me, try the Pentagon. |
Who keeps feeding this fvcking troll? :whip:
|
"I'll prolly regret this later but..."
Why do most conspiracy theories originate in the US? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.