WTC and 911 questions

Maddogg6 · Mar 30, 2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razgriz

fwz, political & religion debate, it's the same thing.......imho.

Regardless, the picture encompasses most "debates" on the internet anyway....

Well - if your ever convicted of a crime - and I'm on your jury [*you're guilty, I know it*] ... maybe then you will understand my point in my pervious posts - as well as the difference between debate and a FW.

imho: FW <> debate.

this is how I see the difference:
FW = typically less-civilized w/ wit, in the form of a personal (or generalized) attack. Point/topic is optional.

Debate = civil, point making statements. Wit optional. Personal attacks are not allowed.

But - to say: religious debate = fzw... - almost - as theres no hope to 'prove' points from either side, but usually end up in a flame war. So I see there 'can' be civilized religious debate - it just rarely happens. As personal attacks seem to be a common 'defense mechanism' when one is frustrated and can no longer make any new points.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 30, 2006, 06:34 PM

Razgriz beat me to it.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

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

Your conspiracies theories are already been debunked more then once
why are you dredging it up? Also your constant anti Americanism does't
help your arguments any. Your views belong in the flame war zone IMO
so we can really tell you what we think of them andso forth with out
moderation... Part of why you make you posts here as a matter of trying
to feel safe from such coments as are more then fitting for the things
your claiming.

Let us know when you have something thats not solely based wild and baseless
thoery and clear anti us propaganda by those with an agenda and we might listen.
But I think pigs will fly 1st....

BWX · Mar 30, 2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trodas

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

You should be banned for reviving this crappy thread!!

BiGBrOwNPimpsta · Apr 4, 2006, 04:53 AM

funny this thread is amazingly original

how stupid do we think we are to believe you researched this info?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

better watch that than argue with this fool

LHC · Apr 12, 2006, 05:25 PM

*Shakes head* That stupid "loose change" video is ALL people were talking about today in my school.. it was SO incredibly annoying. Just because somebody makes points, everybody has to believe it. And he's supposedly educated! Oh no! Well you know what? There are points that it WASN'T the U.S.'s doing.

Another site that adds to "debunking 911 conspiracies" (though it isn't as.. you know, sophisticated since it is a Geocities site)

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

This one is good though: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

Eventually people are going to say that Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy

~~trodas~~ · Apr 23, 2006, 03:02 PM

LHC - the problem is not, that the floors did not collapse - we all seen them collapse - but rather what caused the steel support culums to prectically disapear in whole building (the fall time of the buildings is free-fall time! - so, for stupids - no support culums slow the demolition - so they are in ALL building gone!) and not only in / near the impact zone. And your debunking site is lying flat out at us, when saying:

Quote:

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707.

The truth is, that he buildings was designed to take impact not from one, but from TWO 707 planes

And that is proven fact, the designer said it repeately and prior 9/11 no scyscraper fell because of fire - and since we all seen that the impacts do little or nothing with the building static (no immediate collapse), then the fire lie become so so stupid...

Gotta find something better and check out the Loose Change as well. It has more points that is healty, mate

Sandok · Apr 23, 2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHC

*Shakes head* That stupid "loose change" video is ALL people were talking about today in my school.. it was SO incredibly annoying. Just because somebody makes points, everybody has to believe it. And he's supposedly educated! Oh no! Well you know what? There are points that it WASN'T the U.S.'s doing.

Another site that adds to "debunking 911 conspiracies" (though it isn't as.. you know, sophisticated since it is a Geocities site)

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

This one is good though: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

Eventually people are going to say that Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy

I have seen the loose change video and I own the 911 Comission report and I lean for the loose change stuff on many things. Even your site has the worst info possible coming from blogs and all as facts. Honestly, steel does not warp at those tempertures (for example) and the Pentagon and Pensylvania crashes don't show a single plane. And THAT's what gets me off, not the NY attacks but the pentagon especially... That hole and all, waaaay too fishy.

LHC · Apr 23, 2006, 03:13 PM

You're not supposed to expect much from a Geocities site

Sandok · Apr 23, 2006, 03:19 PM

Very true

Anyways I'm not a rampagnt guy who is trying to prove 911 is a self inflicted wound. There are some things that are better left hidden...

Falstaff · Apr 23, 2006, 07:04 PM

tsk tsk......
doubting thomases...
of course it all happened...
ironic though, just because most of the world saw it on televsion first, somehow there is less credibility to the reports....

cozumel · Apr 23, 2006, 08:04 PM

I wish the dung beetles from the mythical realm of NARSNA would get to work on this thread!

Sandok · Apr 24, 2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

tsk tsk......
doubting thomases...
of course it all happened...
ironic though, just because most of the world saw it on televsion first, somehow there is less credibility to the reports....

Why does everyone think if you believe in the consipracy that it DIDN'T happen. I am saying it DID happen and people lost their lives but all isn't as it seems... (the attackers especially)

Pompey · Apr 24, 2006, 05:03 AM

I got this from a site , its a conversation with a structural engineer and this part I copied concerns the temperature and failure of the structure i.e why they fell. "NOVA" is the interviewer (or the website he works for) and "Eagar" is the 'expert'.

Quote:

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.

As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling—the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security. To see Eagar's article, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," which was coauthored by MIT graduate student Christopher Musso, go to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Nacht · Apr 24, 2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I have seen the loose change video and I own the 911 Comission report and I lean for the loose change stuff on many things. Even your site has the worst info possible coming from blogs and all as facts. Honestly, steel does not warp at those tempertures (for example) and the Pentagon and Pensylvania crashes don't show a single plane. And THAT's what gets me off, not the NY attacks but the pentagon especially... That hole and all, waaaay too fishy.

A fraternity brother of mine was in Washington at the time of the attacks. His father worked in the Pentagon. He saw the plane with his own eyes.

You're being a little disrespectful.

Falstaff · Apr 24, 2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

A fraternity brother of mine was in Washington at the time of the attacks. His father worked in the Pentagon. He saw the plane with his own eyes.

You're being a little disrespectful.

he can believe what he wants to believe...

but....my second ex-wife saw the memorial and the photos of the reconstruction after the attack, it definitely happened and arguments to the effect that it didnt border on lunacy..

Conspiracy theory be damned, people lost their lives, and America was plunged into the battle against world wide terrorism.

Sandok · Apr 24, 2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nacht

A fraternity brother of mine was in Washington at the time of the attacks. His father worked in the Pentagon. He saw the plane with his own eyes.

You're being a little disrespectful.

Hey, I'm just saying what I heard and saw... From the pictures, no plane debris whatsoever at the Pentagon (and I have seen a plane crash.... LOTSA debris) and all the eyewitness accounts are all soo different. Some saw a small plane and some saw a big boeing. What gives? Anyways, I don't care it's not my country.... Tis no disrespect mate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Conspiracy theory be damned, people lost their lives, and America was plunged into the battle against world wide terrorism.

Again mate, I am not saying it didn't happen, lives WERE lost... I never said otherwise. No dis meant and I don't really care it isn't my country.

Falstaff · Apr 24, 2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Hey, I'm just saying what I heard and saw... From the pictures, no plane debris whatsoever at the Pentagon (and I have seen a plane crash.... LOTSA debris) and all the eyewitness accounts are all soo different. Some saw a small plane and some saw a big boeing. What gives? Anyways, I don't care it's not my country.... Tis no disrespect mate.

Again mate, I am not saying it didn't happen, lives WERE lost... I never said otherwise. No dis meant and I don't really care it isn't my country.

Its okay Sandy, as long as American teleivsion spins it either way or not, most people have some trouble really believing in anything anymore..if any one thing was responsible here is the notion that everything we experience in our lives has an agenda or sorts or part of a master plan.

BWX · Apr 25, 2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Hey, I'm just saying what I heard and saw... From the pictures, no plane debris whatsoever at the Pentagon (and I have seen a plane crash.... LOTSA debris) and all the eyewitness accounts are all soo different. Some saw a small plane and some saw a big boeing. What gives?

Well the thing is, if a plane crashes at 200 MPH and the pilot is trying to save the plane, it is a LOT different than a plane going 650MPH and the pilot trying to cause as much damage as possible.. When big huge planes crash that fast- they disintegrate.. Planes are mostly air, like skyscrapers.. made out of lightweight material that just breaks into a million little pieces at those speeds.

- Azure - · Apr 25, 2006, 06:29 AM

Are we discussing the loose change video?

Anyone who hasnt seen it, should.I f objective debate is the theme. Personally I trust bush about as far as I could throw him, everything stinks.

And saying that doesnt mean we dont care about the people who lost their lives, thats a bit of a silly way to look at it. Living in the UK isnt much better as the nanny state is rising, but I hope that Americas people will wrestle some control back from the government.

I know clinton wasnt a perfect guy but its amazing how mine and other peoples perceptions of America change with one utterly stupid President.

Im not saying it was or wasnt rigged but the main points are...

Passport identifying hijackers found in rubble of WTC, yet Blackboxes "Didnt survive" - 2nd time in aviation history or something.

An aliminium nose of a jumbo jet somehow goes through 3 concrete walls leaving a precise 16ft hole throughout. Alimium isnt exactly armour piercing.

Stock options on airlines shares dropping being 11 times higher than normal in the days leading to the attacks.

German company specialising in data recovery discovered numerous illegal transactions in the 100's of millions of $$$ being moved on the morning of sept 11. FBI has not investigated this.

Gold bullion meant to be locked up missing, then found in a truck a few blocks from the WTC rower....

The towers which were meant to be collapsing floor by floor from the top down fell precisely at a free fall rate [Ie bottom floors gave way first].

Workers, fire fighters and reporters heard numerous explosions along the ground levels of the towers prior to them collapsing.

Provided a reason to change Americas perception on warring with other countries.

Cell call research shows approx 0.0035 % success rate at time the calls were made vs altitude of plane.

Osama "confession" video shows him writing with the wrong hand and wearing a christian wedding band...

----------------------------------------------

There are loads and loads more points but these ones stick out a lot, and as far as the video says the governement refuses to comment.

If I had family die in the WTC I would actually want to know exactly what the excuse is that the Blackboxes didnt survice, and why and I would be a very unhappy camper. I certianly wouldnt say Oh wow I had family die in there man so dont even question what happened lets go to war.

No one questions what happened. 2 planes hit the WTC and lots of people died, how and why they got there are the questions that people are happy to ignore.

BWX · Apr 25, 2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Azure -

Living in the UK isnt much better as the nanny state is rising, but I hope that Americas people will wrestle some control back from the government.

We are losing our right and freedoms at an alarming rate.. we still have more than you guys, but it won't be long before the US is completely in the gutter because of big government control and taxation.. Just a matter of time unless something happens, which could happen if everyone gets sick and tired of the BS, we could vote in enough conservatives and get congress under control- but that won't happen. People are mostly ignorant of the fact that they are living in what is becoming a socialist country.

- Azure - · Apr 25, 2006, 06:53 AM

I think actually Britain and Europe on the whole are a lot more liberal than the US in everything... Except TAXES

I would think twice before slating bush if I lived in the US, seriously. Plus drug laws, libel laws its litigation gone mad.

We have guns banned which sucks for "liberties" but to be honest, i dont think theres any real reason for anyone except the military to have a gun. And no "Because i want one" isnt a good reason.

The politics of Britain sucking off Bush and bush being a neo hitler are concerning me personally so badly that I intend to move to NZ or AUS when i get my degree. I will feel much safer there tbh...