I beleve in it being all staged. It's based on opinon though. You decide.
What does where I live have to do with it?Sgt_Sieg wrote:
Dude, if you live in the UK, why are you telling me about what my country did or didn't expect?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-09-11 17:23:14)
If you bend something far enough, it will snap. A bent floor is still standing, but a snapped floor is good for no-one. Research elastic limit, one of the basic laws of physics.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Spark wrote:
Uhhh... or the trusses could just snap...So, did they bend or did they snap?Spark wrote:
I'm not sure that you know what is meant by 'fail'. It does not mean it melts. It simply means it is weakened so far that it can no longer support its load. Usually a sign of failure is extreme bending.
And if they bent, where's the evidence of them bending?
Ask the scrapyard of evidence of bending - that is, if the floors haven't been wrecked enough by being crushed by other floors.
This leads me to another question: How did they make the floors fall down like they did?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
How did they fall the way they did? ummm Gravity?
Ask your question to any respected structural engineer. None of them take the controlled demolition thing seriously. The floors haven't been wrecked enough ? That just makes no sense. They were pulverized into dust. A bent floor losses is center of gravity and stability and falls.
Ask your question to any respected structural engineer. None of them take the controlled demolition thing seriously. The floors haven't been wrecked enough ? That just makes no sense. They were pulverized into dust. A bent floor losses is center of gravity and stability and falls.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes, I know what elastic limit is. But what I asked was "where is the evidence of bending?"Spark wrote:
[b]If you bend something far enough, it will snap. A bent floor is still standing, but a snapped floor is good for no-one. Research elastic limit, one of the basic laws of physics.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Spark wrote:
Uhhh... or the trusses could just snap...So, did they bend or did they snap?Spark wrote:
I'm not sure that you know what is meant by 'fail'. It does not mean it melts. It simply means it is weakened so far that it can no longer support its load. Usually a sign of failure is extreme bending.
And if they bent, where's the evidence of them bending?
Looking at the scrapyard 'evidence' is pretty pointless - once the collapse began the dynamics took over, bending an twisiting trusses and pulverizing some bits and leaving other bits relatively intact.
If there had been bending there would have been sagging and a slower more gradual collapse. That didn't happen - one moment it was standing, the next it was gone.
It is also so highly unlikely to as be improbable that a plane hitting one side of a tower could cause sufficient damage throughout the entire stucture so that the building collapses as a whole and pretty much within its own footprint.
And that's just one building. For that to happen to both buildings. And for them both to collapse in pretty much identical ways? That needs far more than the random events that supposedly caused it.
The towers that fell?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes, I know what elastic limit is. But what I asked was "where is the evidence of bending?"
The fires burned for quite some time before they started to pancake on top of each other. As each floor came down on top of each other the subsequent floor beneath could not handle the force of the momentum.If there had been bending there would have been sagging and a slower more gradual collapse. That didn't happen - one moment it was standing, the next it was gone.
On the contrary, this indeed caused it to lose it's structural integrity. Take a look at the steel diagram of the WTC towers and you will see it was a very unique building. Most of the support of the towers were on the the outside of the towers. They limited the amount of supports inside the building to help reserve room for office space. This is why that tower went down first.It is also so highly unlikely to as be improbable that a plane hitting one side of a tower could cause sufficient damage throughout the entire stucture so that the building collapses as a whole and pretty much within its own footprint.
A plane flying into both towers around the same time of the morning, hardly a random event.And that's just one building. For that to happen to both buildings. And for them both to collapse in pretty much identical ways? That needs far more than the random events that supposedly caused it.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-12 04:44:22)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
someone didnt watch the documentary before talking about falling times. The time it would take for the WTC to free fall would be about 9.20 seconds it took it over 10 the man also explained in the movie well enough about the physics and also the fireman that reported a steel building has never collapsed because of fire damage. They also showed other buildings like 2005 Spain fire where the building burned for over 24 hours and remained standing. The WTC steel was made to last through 7 hours of 2000 degrees celcius fires. They lasted what 1 hour. Can you also please explain how Building 7 fell? Because a minor fire started in it the whole entire building fell yeah feed that BS to someone stupid enough to beleive it. The ignorance about the pentagon is also amazing a 757-200's engines are made of Titanium Alloy and can resist fires of over 1600 degrees celcius which us under the temperature of the Pentagon and theyd have to be under that constant heat for a few hours. Yet the engines decintigrated on impact. Hey wheres their hole in the wall? An airplane is made of re enforced aluminium this thing smashed through steel re enforced concrete but the titanium alloy engines didnt even make a mark? Wheres all the wreckage? You all saw the Helios airlines crash. Tail section, Wings, Engine, Cockpit. This airplane smashed into a mountain. It was a 737-200 something far less superior to the 757-200. Or the Japanese Airlines 747 that smashed into a mountain near Mt Fuji when the pilots lost control of the airplane. Bodies and parts of the airplane still there. Yet the 757 in the Pentagon disappeared. I will question anyones intelligence who actually thinks an airplane smashed into the Pentagon. Think about it people.
DO you wear foil caps so the gov't doesnt read your mind? They have your phones tapped too and your internet so you better stop or they will black bag you.spray_and_pray wrote:
someone didnt watch the documentary before talking about falling times. The time it would take for the WTC to free fall would be about 9.20 seconds it took it over 10 the man also explained in the movie well enough about the physics and also the fireman that reported a steel building has never collapsed because of fire damage. They also showed other buildings like 2005 Spain fire where the building burned for over 24 hours and remained standing. The WTC steel was made to last through 7 hours of 2000 degrees celcius fires. They lasted what 1 hour. Can you also please explain how Building 7 fell? Because a minor fire started in it the whole entire building fell yeah feed that BS to someone stupid enough to beleive it. The ignorance about the pentagon is also amazing a 757-200's engines are made of Titanium Alloy and can resist fires of over 1600 degrees celcius which us under the temperature of the Pentagon and theyd have to be under that constant heat for a few hours. Yet the engines decintigrated on impact. Hey wheres their hole in the wall? An airplane is made of re enforced aluminium this thing smashed through steel re enforced concrete but the titanium alloy engines didnt even make a mark? Wheres all the wreckage? You all saw the Helios airlines crash. Tail section, Wings, Engine, Cockpit. This airplane smashed into a mountain. It was a 737-200 something far less superior to the 757-200. Or the Japanese Airlines 747 that smashed into a mountain near Mt Fuji when the pilots lost control of the airplane. Bodies and parts of the airplane still there. Yet the 757 in the Pentagon disappeared. I will question anyones intelligence who actually thinks an airplane smashed into the Pentagon. Think about it people.
Last edited by Colfax (2006-09-12 09:54:36)
http://lolloosechange.co.nr/Jenkinsbball wrote:
www.loosechangeguide.com
Now, all of you shut the fuck up, please.
Don't be afraid. It's won't bite.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I've seen loose change, both versions. It was ok, but still incomplete.Kmarion wrote:
http://lolloosechange.co.nr/Jenkinsbball wrote:
www.loosechangeguide.com
Now, all of you shut the fuck up, please.
Don't be afraid. It's won't bite.
Click the link, it's not loose change. It's loose change but while it's being shown every lie in the video is being exposed while he is stating it. Read the subtitiles. go forward about 20 minutes into it and you will see.Jenkinsbball wrote:
I've seen loose change, both versions. It was ok, but still incomplete.Kmarion wrote:
http://lolloosechange.co.nr/Jenkinsbball wrote:
www.loosechangeguide.com
Now, all of you shut the fuck up, please.
Don't be afraid. It's won't bite.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Check this out you nubs. Short attention spans need not apply. It starts out slow so give it a chance.
Name calling is the shortest way to show everyone your argument is weak. Be sure to check my link out while your at it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The link is fine and I was totaly joking with the 'nub' thing you silly little parrot.Kmarion wrote:
Name calling is the shortest way to show everyone your argument is weak. Be sure to check my link out while your at it.
Last edited by SpanktorTheGreat (2006-09-12 11:46:55)
Now was the parrot a joke also ? Totaly dude...SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
The link is fine and I was totaly joking you silly little parrot.Kmarion wrote:
Name calling is the shortest way to show everyone your argument is weak. Be sure to check my link out while your at it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
One of the dumbest things I've ever heard...xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
you guys didn't even watch the video. fact is, if it was staged then we're following an unjust cause in this war
The vid that I posted has very little to do with speculation unlike the original LooseChange one. give it a view and you decide you monkey.Kmarion wrote:
Now was the parrot a joke also ? Totaly dude...SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
The link is fine and I was totaly joking you silly little parrot.Kmarion wrote:
Name calling is the shortest way to show everyone your argument is weak. Be sure to check my link out while your at it.
lol , kids and their names.SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
The vid that I posted has very little to do with speculation unlike the original LooseChange one. give it a view and you decide you monkey.Kmarion wrote:
Now was the parrot a joke also ? Totaly dude...SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
The link is fine and I was totaly joking you silly little parrot.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The lolloosechange video said that the plane can distntigrate on impact, but then some debris would still be found right? so those guys are as questionable as the real LC9/11 video.
i beleive the president would do that!stryyker wrote:
honest to god, would the president order the killing of 2,000 people JUST to start a war? ive seen that video so many times, i believe the fact that my uncle DIED helping people out of tower 2. the war is unjust as is, no conspiracy involved
There never was a WTC, it was implanted into your brain by the government.
No, even worse, this world is your punishment for all the bad things you did in your previous life.Paco_the_Insane wrote:
There never was a WTC, it was implanted into your brain by the government.
Can and did are 2 different things.doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
The lolloosechange video said that the plane can distntigrate on impact, but then some debris would still be found right? so those guys are as questionable as the real LC9/11 video.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!! at this video