So, a building DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A DIRECT HIT FROM A 747 just goes and collapses when a 747 hits it. Either it was designed to withstand a direct hit from a 747 or it wasn't. And if it wasn't, why would they say it was. And why the hell would anyone build the tallest buildings in the world (which they were at the time they were built) in a city with AIRPORTS ACTUALLY IN THE CITY that couldn't withstand being hit?Spark wrote:
Also, I believe that the central steel core inside the towers failed, and collapsed, bringing the rest of the tower with it.
yup, that's why the grill on my barbecue keeps melting. i'ts rather annoying.CC-Marley wrote:
The impact shattered the fire proof coating off the beams exposing the un protected steel. That has a lower melting point than the temp of the fire.
I've seen that video and it definitely makes you think about it, but eh whatever I don't really know what to say about it other than it's interesting and definitely worth a watch whether you believe it to be true or not.
Cos Al Gore and his fellow Demcrat leaders are so spineless they're afraid of actually getting into government.breethon wrote:
So why don't Al Gore and all his Pals run with the facts? It seems to me that showing prefabrication would = a win in the Whitehouse and just about any other house! Tell me Whoopie Goldberg wouldn't run with this one? Why....no proof. If they had it, they would use it. Truth is that we don't know and never will for sure, regardless of where you stand on the issue. When you die, ask your creator...or if you are athiest....I guess it won't matter.xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
yeah moron, if you saw it you'd know it has nothing to do with an initiation for a war you idiot. It has to do on how too perfectly everything fell into place and how there was no significant debris at the pentagon and a hell of a lot more. and they're only fucking stupid if you're too fucking patriotic||BFA||xZeler8 wrote:
wow, um, i don't even know what to say...except, why are conspiricy theorists so fucking stupid...i'm not even going to waste my time and watch this video...it actually makes me sick to think that people could be so idiotic as to suggest the president would do something like that with the intention to start a war...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
There were numerous documentares/studies on this. The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires. The core failed too, but more info is as of now beyond my reach.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, a building DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A DIRECT HIT FROM A 747 just goes and collapses when a 747 hits it. Either it was designed to withstand a direct hit from a 747 or it wasn't. And if it wasn't, why would they say it was. And why the hell would anyone build the tallest buildings in the world (which they were at the time they were built) in a city with AIRPORTS ACTUALLY IN THE CITY that couldn't withstand being hit?Spark wrote:
Also, I believe that the central steel core inside the towers failed, and collapsed, bringing the rest of the tower with it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.Spark wrote:
The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
Mellow - did you register just to be able to post that? nice one if so!mellow wrote:
yup, that's why the grill on my barbecue keeps melting. i'ts rather annoying.CC-Marley wrote:
The impact shattered the fire proof coating off the beams exposing the un protected steel. That has a lower melting point than the temp of the fire.
No, that's not the point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.Spark wrote:
The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
When the WTC was built, it was built in record time, becuase it was built with trusses (and using 1970 steel).
Trusses, as you'd know if you ask any urban fireman, don't melt as such, but they fail and sag in fire. One incident I saw was with a truss (small one) with fireproofing. It held up fine when heated under a Bunsen Burner and weights were gradually added. The guy ran out of weights, in the end. However, when the same test was performed EXCEPT about an inch of fireproofing was missing, he only needed to add a few weights, heat, and bingo, the thing sagged like fabric.
Last edited by Spark (2006-02-27 02:04:54)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
OK then IF the stell around the fires melted (I actually tried to find ANY evidence of what you said and there simply is none) why did the entire support structure of the building suddenly evaporate allt eh way to the bottom? the beam people DID get a look at had been completely destroyed and cut clean through, oh and then they gathered all the beams up from the wreckage and shipped it out of the country to be destroyed... The buildings fell as if they had no supports on the floors below the fires and we KNOW for a fact that the fires were not burning on all those floors...Spark wrote:
No, that's not the point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.Spark wrote:
The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
When the WTC was built, it was built in record time, becuase it was built with trusses (and using 1970 steel).
Trusses, as you'd know if you ask any urban fireman, don't melt as such, but they fail and sag in fire. One incident I saw was with a truss (small one) with fireproofing. It held up fine when heated under a Bunsen Burner and weights were gradually added. The guy ran out of weights, in the end. However, when the same test was performed EXCEPT about an inch of fireproofing was missing, he only needed to add a few weights, heat, and bingo, the thing sagged like fabric.
The Next War, Will be a Nuclear War.
America Will Nuke 'Terrorists' as soon as they Aquire Nukes. They have them in there area, its just as simple as going in there and taking what they want by force... They will Shoot Nukes at the United States without Hesitation because they belive That 'America' is the Terrorists. I belive it... But we will know when they have there Nuclear Missles and America will Nuke them before they can Nuke us. Nuclear War will Begin.
America wanted a Large event that would make everyone turn to them and Kneel at there Feet. "Help us oh Great one, Save us from this Plague of Terrorist Attack".
America Will Nuke 'Terrorists' as soon as they Aquire Nukes. They have them in there area, its just as simple as going in there and taking what they want by force... They will Shoot Nukes at the United States without Hesitation because they belive That 'America' is the Terrorists. I belive it... But we will know when they have there Nuclear Missles and America will Nuke them before they can Nuke us. Nuclear War will Begin.
America wanted a Large event that would make everyone turn to them and Kneel at there Feet. "Help us oh Great one, Save us from this Plague of Terrorist Attack".
please - let's stay on topic here ..................( rolls eyes )
I've watched a couple of pretty comprehensive documentary about this. When the planes struck they destroyed a lot of the external columns which forced the weight to be distrubuted around the columns still standing, increasing the load. The first plane damaged some of the internal supports whilst the second plane destroyed more of the outside ones. According to the documentary the fire caused the steel to weaken (whilst its melting point is over 2500 degrees it does get weaker as it gets hotter). So at 1200 degrees or whatever the fire was the beams were weakened. With the stressed outer beams (due to there being less of them) and weakened by the heat the collapsed. The floors below went because they had several hundred thousand tonnes of concrete and steel land on them. They were not designed to have massive weights dropped on them so they also collapsed causing that domino affect.(BS)Commander_Canuck wrote:
OK then IF the stell around the fires melted (I actually tried to find ANY evidence of what you said and there simply is none) why did the entire support structure of the building suddenly evaporate allt eh way to the bottom? the beam people DID get a look at had been completely destroyed and cut clean through, oh and then they gathered all the beams up from the wreckage and shipped it out of the country to be destroyed... The buildings fell as if they had no supports on the floors below the fires and we KNOW for a fact that the fires were not burning on all those floors...Spark wrote:
No, that's not the point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
When the WTC was built, it was built in record time, becuase it was built with trusses (and using 1970 steel).
Trusses, as you'd know if you ask any urban fireman, don't melt as such, but they fail and sag in fire. One incident I saw was with a truss (small one) with fireproofing. It held up fine when heated under a Bunsen Burner and weights were gradually added. The guy ran out of weights, in the end. However, when the same test was performed EXCEPT about an inch of fireproofing was missing, he only needed to add a few weights, heat, and bingo, the thing sagged like fabric.
5/24ths of a second out of an entire tape which was seized from the gas station. Only that much mattered, the rest was just Joe Shmoe filling his car up with gas, and they could not release that for national security issues.RAIMIUS wrote:
-You can't see an aircraft from 5 frames of a security tape! Wow, not seeing somthing traveling at over 300mph impacting a building from one-fifth of a second of footage, THAT must be impossible! (sarcasm)
Do you really think you can see much in 5/24ths of a second of film?
Yeah, thats exactly what they are saying. Did you form that opinion yourself or did you watch it on CNN?RAIMIUS wrote:
-I have to laugh at someone calling a 9/11 conspiracy a planned reason to go into Iraq. The pretext was a completely different reason. (WMDs)
chek out the great 9/11 links http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wrh_9-11_index.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
I Heard from my dad that lives in NYC that it was UFOs that forced Al-Queda to use the airplanes. I have seen on discovery that Usama is from Finland and have been molested by some aliens. Osama thought that this was punishment from US for not working on their side anymore. You can all read the facts on the russian newspaper Pravda
LMAO!! Do me a favor! Why don't you and all of you other "FORENSIC" experts just stick to playing your silly little game!? Remember though, no video games until all of your homework is done, and you eat all your vegetables.jonnykill wrote:
One real quick post before I eat . All the pictures of the "plane" hitting the pentagon tell me for a fact with no dout that our government is lying . it's just plain in your face scientific fact the damaged done to the pentagon is not from a bowing 747 . Forensically speaking , things just don't add up . So if that's a lie ................... Gulp !
Yeah, it has never been shown before that these muslim terrorist are prone to violence, they are, after all, children of a peaceful religion. They NEVER would hurt a soul, especially those of another religion. They are ate up with respect and tolerance of others. Nope, these allah fearing people are the poster children for sane and rational thinking and behavior. So if THEY didn't do it, I can only, "forensically" conclude...........BUSH DID IT!!!.......I bet BUSH was the one who killed all the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972. Give me a few minutes and I will think up some "forensic" conclusions to support it.
First off you don't have to be a "foensic expert " to see through the bullshit . Secondly , this isn't a game to me . Third if your going to post here keep it - serious and debate .elvis wrote:
LMAO!! Do me a favor! Why don't you and all of you other "FORENSIC" experts just stick to playing your silly little game!? Remember though, no video games until all of your homework is done, and you eat all your vegetables.jonnykill wrote:
One real quick post before I eat . All the pictures of the "plane" hitting the pentagon tell me for a fact with no dout that our government is lying . it's just plain in your face scientific fact the damaged done to the pentagon is not from a bowing 747 . Forensically speaking , things just don't add up . So if that's a lie ................... Gulp !
Yeah, it has never been shown before that these muslim terrorist are prone to violence, they are, after all, children of a peaceful religion. They NEVER would hurt a soul, especially those of another religion. They are ate up with respect and tolerance of others. Nope, these allah fearing people are the poster children for sane and rational thinking and behavior. So if THEY didn't do it, I can only, "forensically" conclude...........BUSH DID IT!!!.......I bet BUSH was the one who killed all the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972. Give me a few minutes and I will think up some "forensic" conclusions to support it.
Well, ya may wanna re-read my post. Not too sure you "got it". So I will break it down for you.jonnykill wrote:
First off you don't have to be a "foensic expert " to see through the bullshit . Secondly , this isn't a game to me . Third if your going to post here keep it - serious and debate .elvis wrote:
LMAO!! Do me a favor! Why don't you and all of you other "FORENSIC" experts just stick to playing your silly little game!? Remember though, no video games until all of your homework is done, and you eat all your vegetables.jonnykill wrote:
One real quick post before I eat . All the pictures of the "plane" hitting the pentagon tell me for a fact with no dout that our government is lying . it's just plain in your face scientific fact the damaged done to the pentagon is not from a bowing 747 . Forensically speaking , things just don't add up . So if that's a lie ................... Gulp !
Yeah, it has never been shown before that these muslim terrorist are prone to violence, they are, after all, children of a peaceful religion. They NEVER would hurt a soul, especially those of another religion. They are ate up with respect and tolerance of others. Nope, these allah fearing people are the poster children for sane and rational thinking and behavior. So if THEY didn't do it, I can only, "forensically" conclude...........BUSH DID IT!!!.......I bet BUSH was the one who killed all the Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972. Give me a few minutes and I will think up some "forensic" conclusions to support it.
I didn't say this was a game I said "stick to playing your silly little game" as in, just play BF2 and stop trying to be a "forensic" expert. I said this because you posted "Forensically speaking , things just don't add up.”
As for the rest of it!? It is called SARCASM or if you prefer SATIRE... People use SARCASM or SATIRE to express an opinion that the topic at hand is absurd, stupid, pointless, irrelevant, ridiculous, baseless, childish, uninformed, or biased. They do this by going to extreme corner of the issue to prove a point.
Have a nice day!!....<----------------LOL see? more sarcasm!!
elvis, remember you are typing in a forum, not speaking to us personally. Therefore, any way that you think your words and phrases may come across as sarcastic pretty much flies out of the window. Even if you go as far as you can to be obviously ridiculous to prove a point, there are still people in these forums that type that way and are serious about it, so you'll instantly get pegged as one of those people.
Try using a <sarcasm> </sarcasm> signifier or something...
And jonnykill was right in using the term "forensic." It's the use of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime. Here's an example:
A Forensic study would go like this --
FACT: A 737's wingspan is 94'9" to 103' wide.
FACT: The hole in the pentagon was only a few feet in diameter.
FACT: There were absolutely NO remnants of a 737 in the crash site.
FACT: The only uncovered debris shown in the media was too small to have come from a 737.
FACT: The hole that was punched through the ring sections couldn't have possibly been formed from the 737 nose-cone, as it deforms extremely quickly when put under high stress.
FACT: The explosion in the 5 released frames from a Pentagon entrance camera is proof enough to show it's not a 737. The explosion is not massive enough, you can't see anything as massive as a 737 in the frames (motion blur/shadow/no vertical stabilizer nor wings).
Conclusion: A 737 didn't hit the Pentagon.
Try using a <sarcasm> </sarcasm> signifier or something...
And jonnykill was right in using the term "forensic." It's the use of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime. Here's an example:
A Forensic study would go like this --
FACT: A 737's wingspan is 94'9" to 103' wide.
FACT: The hole in the pentagon was only a few feet in diameter.
FACT: There were absolutely NO remnants of a 737 in the crash site.
FACT: The only uncovered debris shown in the media was too small to have come from a 737.
FACT: The hole that was punched through the ring sections couldn't have possibly been formed from the 737 nose-cone, as it deforms extremely quickly when put under high stress.
FACT: The explosion in the 5 released frames from a Pentagon entrance camera is proof enough to show it's not a 737. The explosion is not massive enough, you can't see anything as massive as a 737 in the frames (motion blur/shadow/no vertical stabilizer nor wings).
Conclusion: A 737 didn't hit the Pentagon.
If you all would just watch this then you would see all the facts, presented by a real physics professor, that you just can't argue with. The knowledge of physics in this thread is lacking to say the least. The video is over 2 hours long and 253mb, so be patient.
Last edited by SpanktorTheGreat (2006-02-27 10:42:06)
There was no conspiracy although I think our government had an inkling of what was going on. Since when was a 747 made of a steel and titanium alloy? Aren't they made out of aircraft grade aluminum? The World Trade Centers had a flawed floor design. The core might have been strong but once the integrity of the floor is jeopardized there is no stopping its collapse. One floor cannot support the weight of another so once one fell they just pancacked on down hence the near free-fall speed.
Also, the war in Iraq is unjust from the beginning. The CIA leak proves it. Joseph Wilson went to Africa to determine whether or not Iraq was seeking yellowcake (Uranium ore) for use in the development of nuclear weapons. He found no evidence of this but that isn't what the Bush administration wanted to hear. They released the name of his wife, Valerie Plame, who happened to be a covert CIA operative, to the press in retaliation. This is a federal crime. Regardless of the scandal, the fact that Wilson found no evidence of Iraq seeking nuclear material and the Bush administration saying that they still had "strong evidence" that Saddam had nuclear weapons is proof enough that this whole war is completely and utterly a waste of life, money and time.
I can't believe that Bush is thinking of invading Iran as well. Why is this country so hostile?? All the United States is doing is digging a deeper hole for itself. Best quit now while this country is ahead. And by ahead I mean not as far behind as it will be in 6 months time.
Also, the war in Iraq is unjust from the beginning. The CIA leak proves it. Joseph Wilson went to Africa to determine whether or not Iraq was seeking yellowcake (Uranium ore) for use in the development of nuclear weapons. He found no evidence of this but that isn't what the Bush administration wanted to hear. They released the name of his wife, Valerie Plame, who happened to be a covert CIA operative, to the press in retaliation. This is a federal crime. Regardless of the scandal, the fact that Wilson found no evidence of Iraq seeking nuclear material and the Bush administration saying that they still had "strong evidence" that Saddam had nuclear weapons is proof enough that this whole war is completely and utterly a waste of life, money and time.
I can't believe that Bush is thinking of invading Iran as well. Why is this country so hostile?? All the United States is doing is digging a deeper hole for itself. Best quit now while this country is ahead. And by ahead I mean not as far behind as it will be in 6 months time.
What about building 7, and where is the proof for the "flawed" floor design?Mawaya-no-kami wrote:
The World Trade Centers had a flawed floor design. The core might have been strong but once the integrity of the floor is jeopardized there is no stopping its collapse. One floor cannot support the weight of another so once one fell they just pancacked on down hence the near free-fall speed.
Last edited by SpanktorTheGreat (2006-02-27 11:19:30)
Marconius,
I have no problem reading intent or satire or sarcasm in any posts that I have read on here. How do you read a joke, or a book for that matter, without the insight of knowing what it is you are reading? How do you interject mood into the story. Or do you need to be told at the end of an article that you just read satire, or drama, or tragedy?
I guess I was painfully mistaken to think that everyone that posted on here could, in fact, have enough intelligence to know what it is they are reading. Maybe when they get out of puberty, and are mature enough to understand written text. they won't need the guidence. <sarcasm>
As far as the forensic comments: I was simply stating, that unless you are Dick Tracy, Columbo, McCloud or Mattlock, ummmmmmm maybe even Baretta,or you work for the NTSB you pretty much have no idea what you are talking about when you make comments like “Forensically speaking, things just don't add up”.
That’s all
Now please don't take my post as disrespect to you or your web sight. I know you guys put in allot of hard work on sights like this and is appreciated by us all.<not sarcasm>
I have no problem reading intent or satire or sarcasm in any posts that I have read on here. How do you read a joke, or a book for that matter, without the insight of knowing what it is you are reading? How do you interject mood into the story. Or do you need to be told at the end of an article that you just read satire, or drama, or tragedy?
I guess I was painfully mistaken to think that everyone that posted on here could, in fact, have enough intelligence to know what it is they are reading. Maybe when they get out of puberty, and are mature enough to understand written text. they won't need the guidence. <sarcasm>
As far as the forensic comments: I was simply stating, that unless you are Dick Tracy, Columbo, McCloud or Mattlock, ummmmmmm maybe even Baretta,or you work for the NTSB you pretty much have no idea what you are talking about when you make comments like “Forensically speaking, things just don't add up”.
That’s all
Now please don't take my post as disrespect to you or your web sight. I know you guys put in allot of hard work on sights like this and is appreciated by us all.<not sarcasm>
A flawed floor design that made the towers pancake PERFECTLY downwards after being struck at odd angles? If two of the four core shafts had failed, then the section of the tower above the crash site would've snapped and toppled down the side of the building. With a tower of that height, the top of the tower couldn't have hit free-fall speed unless every floor was giving way as it went down. There would've been resistance from the rest of the structure as it was designed to handle that force, thus showing that there were other forces working against the integrity of the rest of the Tower. You can see the explosions going off several feet below the destruction "wave" as the Towers tumble.Mawaya-no-kami wrote:
There was no conspiracy although I think our government had an inkling of what was going on. Since when was a 747 made of a steel and titanium alloy? Aren't they made out of aircraft grade aluminum? The World Trade Centers had a flawed floor design. The core might have been strong but once the integrity of the floor is jeopardized there is no stopping its collapse. One floor cannot support the weight of another so once one fell they just pancacked on down hence the near free-fall speed.
Plus, while the airplane wings, fuselage, and vertical stabilizers are created using aluminum and composite materials, the engines contain steel and titanium, as the internal components are subjected to heat and forces much greater than what the rest of the plane sustains during flight.
Something doesn't need to be in liquid form to lose some of its strength.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.Spark wrote:
The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
Even if there were explosives SOMEWHERE in the WTC (basement being most likely), them being there provides zero proof of anything, one way or another. Anyone could have planted and detonated the explosives, even the person flying the plane, since the timings of what people claimed were bomb blasts were out of sync with when the plane crashed.
Last edited by Rathji (2006-02-27 11:58:04)