WTC and 911 questions

SexPistoL · Jul 20, 2005, 10:38 PM

Guys,
cowbow is right, there is no conspiricy theory that can back up your arguments. There is NO facts that could back up your cases. Let it go.....It was a terrible thing that happened, we all wish that it never happened, blame is where blame is due and that is with our democratic way of life. We believe that all people are equal and all have the freedom that is deserved to us, ie movement, speech, vote and many more. As soon as our democratric rights are taken away.......all hell breaks loose and people demonstrate, riot and do worst.....So they should!
But to blame any goverment, in my eyes is treasonous. Why.....To remove our right of any freedom is unaceptable, but on the other hand to be relaxed is the same. What can they do.......Hey M8 I'm a Brit but this statement is true: you can please some of the people some of the time".;...you know the rest! What do you wanna live in a democracy or some other state.......

SFOSOK · Jul 21, 2005, 01:06 AM

what are you talking about?

Everyone Equal? I really don't think you get it, there is no dream where everyone can be equal.

Man will have indifferences with man, thats why there are wars, wars are good ways to weed out the strong from the weak with a test of survival. It also does a great # for the population.

Look at China, they will have a mas starvation untill the truelly have one good war.

If I had a choice, I would go and die for my country rather than starving to death. Humans need war just as much as any other suplement of life.

Look at the big picture.

It's either War or eat babies, your choice.

HMS-Dreadnought · Jul 21, 2005, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFOSOK

..........It's either War or eat babies, your choice.

And to think,...

that's what he 'really' said.

LOL

SexPistoL · Jul 21, 2005, 05:40 AM

SFOSOK,
saying something like that is a short cut to thinking. For once try takeing the long way round so you have time to think before you speek.

"Eat babies" and "humans need war".............Prick!

BWX · Jul 21, 2005, 06:09 AM

Wow, amazing how truly and completely gullible the uneducated are. Some people are just blind.

Men didn't go to the moon either did they?

Sandok · Jul 21, 2005, 11:02 AM

Maybe not when the president said they did...

PS: I used to be an avid conspiracy believer but this is all just either the best hoax in the word or just some crazy people like troadas trying to be cool and get girls with big words

~~trodas~~ · Jul 21, 2005, 04:34 PM

Well, okay. Yust answer me one question - did you ever see a dark, GRAY American Airlines airliner?

BWX · Jul 21, 2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

Well, okay. Yust answer me one question - did you ever see a dark, GRAY American Airlines airliner?

O - M - G

it is a black and white grainy low res photo!! Just accept the fact it happened and move on with your life.\

Why do I get the feeling you really - really- really- love those pics you posted?

yoda133113 · Jul 21, 2005, 06:52 PM

Looks like a silver plane taken with a low quality picture, or off of a video.

Sandok · Jul 22, 2005, 02:00 AM

Looks silver to me... And yes, I have seen older planes which used to be dark gray... -_- I can tell you^ve never been on a plane.

AttroPheed · Jul 22, 2005, 04:14 AM

military planes have a matte finish to help with radar or maybe just to look cool but the point is theyre not shiny and they dont launch missles. and jet fuel either evaporates or burns almost instantly it doesn't lay around on the ground and burn 'slowly'. and conspiracy theorists should look for "evidence" in places other than conspiracy theorist websites. But, in keeping with that same vein, here's an anti-bullshit site to get you started http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
It even includes the bullshit webpage that started all the conspiracy lemmings marching. I dont think it will do much to sway your opinion as conspiracy types are unsinkable ducks and see only what they want to see but if i can get just one moron to think critically before jumping on the idiot bandwagon of religion and/or conspiracy theories then my work here is done. please dont have kids.

SexPistoL · Jul 22, 2005, 04:20 AM

please dont have kids.

~~trodas~~ · Jul 22, 2005, 06:49 AM

So, by your conspiracy ideas, the building fall from what, heat by the burning fuel caused?

AGAIN - WAST MAJORITY of fuel was gone with huge BLAST, witch surely does have top temperature 1370F (the max one recorded for fraction of second), but it happen in both cases OUTSIDE the building AND for brief period of time. The time is so short, you can't seriously suggest it heated the steel construction in ANY way.
Melting can't be seriously suggested, as typical steel melt over 3000F...

It's the same as when boys jump over the fire. The temperature are wastly over 1300F there, yet when it is only for fraction of the second, the clothes and human body remain untouched.
Do you suggest steel is weaker to heat that human?

Talking about humans, there is literally THOUSADS of pictures of persons waving from WTC crashsites. Do you say that where the steel was melting, persons could withstand the excessive heat and not die?

Now it is you, who is talking about some cryzy unproved theories. Crazy theories to say at very least!

Show my ONE skyscraper that fell because of fire.
And then compare the picrures of the fire with what we saw on WTC - a brief fire with very low oxygen, therefore generating lot's of smoke, but no heat...

Once again, please take a good hard look on THIS picture:

Is this IMPLOSION or EXPLOSION

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jul 22, 2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

So, by your conspiracy ideas, the building fall from what, heat by the burning fuel caused?

AGAIN - WAST MAJORITY of fuel was gone with huge BLAST, witch surely does have top temperature 1370F (the max one recorded for fraction of second), but it happen in both cases OUTSIDE the building AND for brief period of time. The time is so short, you can't seriously suggest it heated the steel construction in ANY way.
Melting can't be seriously suggested, as typical steel melt over 3000F...

It's the same as when boys jump over the fire. The temperature are wastly over 1300F there, yet when it is only for fraction of the second, the clothes and human body remain untouched.
Do you suggest steel is weaker to heat that human?

Talking about humans, there is literally THOUSADS of pictures of persons waving from WTC crashsites. Do you say that where the steel was melting, persons could withstand the excessive heat and not die?

Now it is you, who is talking about some cryzy unproved theories. Crazy theories to say at very least!

Show my ONE skyscraper that fell because of fire.
And then compare the picrures of the fire with what we saw on WTC - a brief fire with very low oxygen, therefore generating lot's of smoke, but no heat...

Thanks for repeating and clinging onto what has already been debunked the
temprature that is put out by buring jet feul is 1500 DEG That is a FACT and
also it a fact that it esimated the fire burned at as much as 2000 deg in some
areas. @ 1500 DEG steel has lost 50% if it strenth, @ 1800 DEG 85%!!!!

Meaning if the steel held say (pilling a number our of thing air) 20,000 lbs - 50% 10,000 lbs
- 85% 3000lbs Far leess then required to hadle the massive load of the building
So the supports did the only things it could do, it failed...

I REPEAT AGAIN NO ONE EVER SAID IT MELTELD THE STEEL, STEEL WEAKENS
AND BEGEANS TO WARP WAY BELOW IT MELTING POINT

Also the fact that the planes moveing at near 600-700 Mph weighing 198 tons
slameing into the buildings did a lot of damage to the structure...

Quote:

Amazingly, the initial damage to the support structure was not enough to topple the building. The report, as well as a number of prominent engineers, have claimed that the majority of skyscrapers on the planet would have collapsed within seconds of such a collision. But the collisions did divert the entire vertical load of the buildings to the remaining columns, significantly increasing the structure's stress level.

Without any additional loads on the support structure, the report claims, the towers could have stayed up indefinitely. But the extreme heat of the fire, which might have been in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,090 C) at some points, exerted tremendous stress on the perimeter columns, the core columns, and the floor trusses in between them.

The main factor was really the size of the fire -- the total area it covered. Building fires typically start with a small fire -- say a burning cigarette on a stack of papers -- which gradually spreads through a larger area. In that situation, the fire is most intense where it has the most fuel (stuff that can burn), and it significantly weakens the support structure only at those most intense points. If a fire starts in the northwest corner of a skyscraper floor, by the time the fire reaches the southeast corner, the starting fire at the starting point will have burned through most of the fuel, and the fire will not be as intense. The result is the fire doesn't put maximum strain on the total support structure all at once. It strains different parts of the support structure in turn, over time.

In the case of the World Trade Center, the burning jet fuel spread the fire across several floors in a matter of seconds. This massive fire put exceptional strain on the structure at nearly all points on those floors.

Additionally, the report suggests that the force of the collision removed much of the fire-resistant material sprayed on the steel, making the structure more susceptible to heat damage.

The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward. Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building.

When this happened, the top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.

To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall. When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.

To put it another way, the potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the report puts the total potential energy for WTC 1 at 4*10^11 joules). This is the same basic principle that professional demolition blasters use to bring down unoccupied buildings.

WTC 2, the second tower hit, actually collapsed before WTC 1. This was most likely due to two different factors. First, WTC 2 probably suffered greater immediate damage -- the second plane to hit was going faster than the first. Secondly, the plane that hit WTC 2 crashed lower on the building than the plane that hit WTC 1. Consequently, the strained support columns in WTC 2 had a greater load pressing down on them than the strained columns in WTC 1, so it would make sense that they reached the buckling point more quickly. While the towers' support structure ultimately couldn't withstand the raging fire, it was strong enough to save thousands of people's lives. Around 99 percent of the people below the impact in each tower were able to evacuate before the buildings collapsed. If the towers hadn't been built with redundant structural stability, the death toll would have easily been in the tens of thousands.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/wtc7.htm

(BTW gimmie a pick of you and I put one up of you waveing from there too

)

here one to you likeing... your mystery POD...

oh noes 111111!!!! (it's a like all 767's)
must be a conspericy

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

Once again, please take a good hard look on THIS picture:

Is this IMPLOSION or EXPLOSION

To use part of a popular image you should notice something

At the point you picture above the bulding has already lost how many floors???

How many 10's to 100's or thousands? 10 to 100's of millions? of pounds of
pressure slaming down....!!! Beyond your imagination...

but here is earlier then the image you used when it had just started to topple

Zoomed in shot .... from another angle / time etc

notice how the top toppled OUTWARD account for ALL the debree you say
must be proof of exploseives oh noooes 111111!! (NOT)

Twist the evidence all you want, and take 1/2 turth as trouths but when
you look at the whole picture it paint a verry diffrent picture then
consperacy theroy people panted... The debunk them selfs

Sandok · Jul 22, 2005, 08:52 AM

trodas, give up before you hurt urself... Oh, and people get walk downstairs too to get away from the smoke going up you know...

AttroPheed · Jul 22, 2005, 10:55 AM

homie's a glutton for punishment i guess.

OldBuzzard · Jul 22, 2005, 12:51 PM

A very good SCIENTIFIC investigation into why the towers fell.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

However, I'm sure that all of the conspiricy theory people wil calim that somehow the government, or aliens, or whoever bribed/cohersed/whatever these people into making it

AttroPheed · Jul 22, 2005, 01:26 PM

exactly. it's like trying to bring science into a religious debate.

SexPistoL · Jul 22, 2005, 03:23 PM

Religion and science "Well Jesus did turn water into wine"..........Now that's my kind of guy !!! I bet Allah can't do that.......

~~trodas~~ · Mar 29, 2006, 12:58 PM

Heheh, this is still interesting, how many interestingly blind people is trying to support own goverment lies about what happend and why

What do they can say about this?
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf
Another "konspiracy"? LOL

Maddogg6 · Mar 29, 2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

Well, okay. Yust answer me one question - did you ever see a dark, GRAY American Airlines airliner?

I used to work for an airline thats since gone out of business...

The color of the planes makes no point - we rented an aircraft to a private party on more than 1 occasion and they wanted it painted a certain way - we did it, it took time for it to be changed back - so it flew with strange color and no markings other than the A/C ID on its tail...

So - the color of an aircraft means nothing to me.

EVEN the tail numbers can change -
The 'REAL' identifier of an A/C are the serial numbers - the most obvious one is in the cockpit - its a simple 'plaque' that could even be changed as well.

Its *just* paint and rivets - can be done in an evening - literally.

So, in order to prove WHAT aircraft was where and when - is VERY easily 'hidden' - keeping those involved doing so on the other hand is a completely different story.

I would rather have a look at service rcords of the A/C - have forensics test the age of these records - these records *should* include individual parts S/N. THEN cross reference these individual parts with descriptions (S/N - any *mods* that they perormed to those parts, etc..as EVERY BOLT is *supposed* to be accounted for, mandated by the FAA) from the manufacturers of those parts. - then we could make better informed assumptions of what really happened.

Now, AM I A GENIOUS for thinking of this... huh? Why havent others used these points to prove their case on either side? THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM I HAVE with it all.

Yousaif · Mar 29, 2006, 03:30 PM

There were no Soviet tanks in Prague. There was no revolt in 1968 and no one was ever hurt. The Soviets were kind and wonderful and never did anything to hurt any Czech citizens.

It says it on the Internet, so it must be true.

~~trodas~~ · Mar 29, 2006, 06:38 PM

Maddogg6 - well, yea! If customer want anything - he get it. However as far, as I experienced and seen - there is NO airliner that is trying to load ppls into dull, grey looking plane. They always choose optimistic, fresh looking colors (mostly white in the bottom, BTW) to make their planes look nice and ease the minds of their customers.
For logical rasons.
Now there is the problem - the grey color looks awfully same as the US Navy grey they used to paint military airplanes. Is not that a strong hint?
Another hint, that this can't be commercial airliner come from the fact, that such planes aren't ready to have attached things on their belly. While this is pretty common for more sturdy made and with attachment points done military airplanes and there are several ones with similar bottom attachments. Another hint.
And third one - the people that saw it. I don't give rat's a*s about woman screaming "that was not american ailiner", but I raise my suspiction when professional journalist in helicopter, hawing great view and sharp look say, that there is NO WINDOWS on the sides. Nothing comercional is w/o windows. Military airplanes, on the other hand, did not feature passenger windows... What more can be say so this is not become even more obviously inside job?

And Maddogg6 - yea, you are on the very good way of proving or disproving the suspiction that this was not any american airliner. IIRC I stumbled upon weird thing with the serial numbers of the planes - there is a record, that state them, but the weird thing is, that none fo the supposedly destroyed two WTC planes should be on 9. 11. 2001 in service at all. If there is inrerest, I search for these records again and provide a proof.

BTW, what should raise every red flag into any patriotic American is, that