Why couldn't you see that from the start?SargeV1.4 wrote:
I'm undecided, there's too many coincidences, but at the same there are so many bullsh*t arguements from the conspiracy theorists.
Yeah. . .staying up late and typing furiously does wonders.JimmyBotswana wrote:
lol way to prove your point. You obviously didn't read any of the thread so..........Aenima_Eyes wrote:
See. . .intelligence educated people always win over raving couch potatos.
Also. . . .I saw it on freaking TV about 500 times. It's stock footage of people standing around before the towers fell and you can clearly see floors of the WTC burning pretty far down from where the planes actually hit. It isn't some big secret video that only the applicants for the New World Order get to see or w/e....
My point is this. We KNOW planes hit the WTC. So. . .therefore a logical conclusion is that the planes caused the towers to fall. All this hooey about demolitions and missiles and whatnot. . .the burden of proof is on the conspriacy theorists to show how it was NOT the actually planes themselves that brought the buildings down. They never do that.
They never prove there were explosives in the building. They never prove a missile hit the Pentagon. They never prove anything whatsoever. They SAY a lot of things and they show a lot of spurious unrelated things and then try to act like they proved something. . .but that's it. Oh yeah. . .I forgot. . .then they go and spit on the memories of all the dead people from 9/11. . .they accuse some poor guy of knowingly sending his 11 year old son to his death while he went golfing. . .and they act like complete asshats.
You mean most dumb shit conspiracy theorists who cant bring anything more than cracked out theories to the table. Being a licensed building contractors in addition to having had a lot of fire fighting training while in the military doesn't make me an expert. It does however demonstrate that I have SOME knowledge of the topic @ hand.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Nicely done insulting all Canadians like that I hate to tell you but Americans are only considered intelligent by other Americans, the rest of the world laughs at you guys stuffing your faces while watching your Nascar and baseball.golgoj4 wrote:
I know Canadians are dumb but this is getting outta control. Please provide something other than your internet detective badge or shut the fuck up. Its bad enough you tinfoil hat tards makes the rest of us intelligent people looks so crazy. Seriously. Provide actual fact or shut the hell up. As it stands you don't understand the concept of fire so I really suggest that you find someone smarter to do the talking.JimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
OK, evidence. Before I bring forth the overwhelming evidence that explosives were used, why don't you prove ME wrong by showing me exactly how it is I don't understand fire and how the fire was hot enough to cause the steel to be broken into convenient 20 foot sections and the concrete to be pulverized into a fine dust. Because to most people, it is pretty obvious fire cannot do that.
But hey, if you think an ex nuclear missile technician turned building contractor doesn't know wtf hes talking about, wtf have you ever done that puts you in a position to just make assumptions. I fucking hate dumb asses that just take shit because someone else told them and don't possess the critical thinking ability to decide for themselves. And for the record, its you who need to prove you know your ass from a hole in the ground. People aren't just allowed to stand up like crazy homeless people and claim they know what they are talking about. Your are essentially the leader of the BF2s Crazy homeless people...yet we are supposed to listen to you? I am still waiting for A. this evidence you speak of b. so proof that you know anything other than high school chemistry...
Listen up sheeple....and listen good. Unless you can actually PROVE the alternative theory or provide credible evidence, i recommend a healthy dose of STFU. You are doing nothing more than muddling the debate. And you fucking foreigners can just shut the fuck up period. Freedom of Speech applies to Americans so i can say that and not feel bad
Lol @ what the rest of the world thinks. If you truly live your life by what other people think of you...well do i need to say more? And if we suck why are they trying to move here!
-The American thats Smarter than You
Yeah i know Canadians arent that dumb, but I still like generalizations every now and then. Like those eskimoes! Screw them and their baby seal clubbing ways!Miller wrote:
Ok first, canadians are pretty smart, aside from the ocasional nut jobs (Jimmy). Second, steel used in thw WTC is able to melt, its melting point is pretty much around 2500-2750 degrees Farenhiet. I don't know about you, but it is estimated that the fire's inside the WTC were around 3000 degrees. The protective layers on the steel of the buildings were also blown off in the explosion, causing the buildings to be even more vulnerable. Sounds like this can take a building down quick. Engineers say we were lucky they stayed up for so long.golgoj4 wrote:
I know canadians are dumb but this is getting outta control. Please provide something other than your internet dective badge or shut the fuck up. Its bad enough you tinfoil hat tards makes the rest of us intelligent people looks so crazy. Seriously. Provide actual fact or shut the hell up. As it stands you dont understand the concept of fire so I really suggest that you find someone smarter to do the talking.JimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
BTW good info on the steel. Basic science really...
i am not sure of any conspiracies... however it is rather strange a steel building collapses because of jet fuel. i don't know the exact temp that is generated by kerosene burning in open air without pressure. but if i am welding or cutting steel with a flame... i need extra oxygen to reach melting temp....
of course i know only about 80% of melting temp is needed to make steel softer but thats a lot of heat.
these towers where the first high rise buildings to collapse because of fire and thats a strange thing.
conspiracy??? i don't know.... but it was rather convenient for the popularity of bush...
war= "we feeling"
also have seen that Fahrenheit 9/11.... all you people out there that use this film to reach you conclusion......
your conclusion is not your own. the story told maybe the truth, but is edited and maybe exaggerated.
only the side of the story is told that they want to be seen.
get your own opinion.... don't be a sheep
of course i know only about 80% of melting temp is needed to make steel softer but thats a lot of heat.
these towers where the first high rise buildings to collapse because of fire and thats a strange thing.
conspiracy??? i don't know.... but it was rather convenient for the popularity of bush...
war= "we feeling"
also have seen that Fahrenheit 9/11.... all you people out there that use this film to reach you conclusion......
your conclusion is not your own. the story told maybe the truth, but is edited and maybe exaggerated.
only the side of the story is told that they want to be seen.
get your own opinion.... don't be a sheep
OMFG SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are you so fucking stupid? Seriously? WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!JimmyBotswana wrote:
No you remember seeing black smoke smoldering, as most of the fuel was consumed on impact. Whatever flames there were were minimal. Desks, papers burning, etc.Kmarion wrote:
I am pretty sure I remeber seeing smoke and flames spewing out of the buildings until they collapsed.Umm gravity? Let me ask you where are the "squibs" from the controlled demolotion?JimmyBotswana wrote:
If the damage was so severe to the structure of the building why did it stand for 3 hours and then collapse perfectly onto its own footprint in 10 seconds?
Are you totaly just going to ignore the big chunk of the building missing in that picture ?
If gravity brought down the tower then why didn't it fall right away? Why did it wait 3 hours? Obviously even with the big chunk missing the tower was still able to stand, otherwise it wouldn't have waited for 3 hours before falling.
Squibs in Building 7? Here you go.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no … harges.htm
Basic science isnt goo enough for you. Photo evidence isnt good enough for you. you know what? im going back to my original stance. Fuck Canada. You fucking idiot if the flames were so minimal how do you explain the @ the top? How do you explain the people jumping because of the heat? That not a fucking office fire. And flashing the steel with the heat produced by the explosion want enough required to weaken it. The fucking jet fuel on fire for all that time did.
I gotta stop looking @ these fucking topics because these fucking tin hat tards, both foreign and domestic really piss me off with their lack of reason/ intelligence. I suppose you ass bags subscribe to the 'intelligent design' theory too?
Well it probably is Bush's fault that a lot of these conspiracys come around. People hate Bush. People hate Republicans. So. . .they look at the situation and see that 9/11 helped propel Bush and the Republicans to dominate American politics. Thus, they get pissed and try to discredit what happened on 9/11 or they let themselves be convinced with a bunch of hokus-pokus instead of thinking rationally about it.
So the uninhibited airflow from open walls / window supplying air isnt enough? I dont suppose anyone here understands that as the heat rises artificial winds can develop from the oxygen being consumed causing the situation to become exponetially worse. Much less the constantly rising temps from jet fuel and building materials. Other high rise fires generally DONT involve jet fuel and thusly dont have the ability to reach those temperatures...but when you start off there essentially its not hard to sustain.E1_ned wrote:
i am not sure of any conspiracies... however it is rather strange a steel building collapses because of jet fuel. i don't know the exact temp that is generated by kerosene burning in open air without pressure. but if i am welding or cutting steel with a flame... i need extra oxygen to reach melting temp....
of course i know only about 80% of melting temp is needed to make steel softer but thats a lot of heat.
these towers where the first high rise buildings to collapse because of fire and thats a strange thing.
conspiracy??? i don't know.... but it was rather convenient for the popularity of bush...
war= "we feeling"
also have seen that Fahrenheit 9/11.... all you people out there that use this film to reach you conclusion......
your conclusion is not your own. the story told maybe the truth, but is edited and maybe exaggerated.
only the side of the story is told that they want to be seen.
get your own opinion.... don't be a sheep
Just a question...but at least you encourage people to form their own conclusions.
temperature of burning kerosene is 2048F but it can only reach this a constant flow of fuel is added
melting temp of steel is above 2732F
temperature could be higher in those towers if the heat created a lot of draft... therefor adding oxygen.... therefor burning furiously
melting temp of steel is above 2732F
temperature could be higher in those towers if the heat created a lot of draft... therefor adding oxygen.... therefor burning furiously
To put a different slant on this, somebody a few pages back asked the question "why would the Government kill it's own people" maybe for the same reason it lies about WMD in Iraq.
The British Intelligence knew of the attack on Pearl Harbour days before the attack took place as they had beaten the Japanese code's, they did nothing so as to force the Americans into the war .... maybe the present day Government did nothing to force the opinions of the people into accepting a war with Iraq
Just a few thoughts thrown into the wind
The British Intelligence knew of the attack on Pearl Harbour days before the attack took place as they had beaten the Japanese code's, they did nothing so as to force the Americans into the war .... maybe the present day Government did nothing to force the opinions of the people into accepting a war with Iraq
Just a few thoughts thrown into the wind
Okay, I'll count my 'they probably got an ultimatum a few days before, and they trained the dude who allegedly did it anyway for that sort of thing, and they probably looked the other way, and the investigation was half-arsed and inadequate' as being in the 'work of the American Government' camp, so let's conspire:superfly_cox wrote:
THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR WHETHER 9/11 HAPPENED AS IT HAS BEEN REPORTED
For the sake of this thread I am giving all you conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt and conceeding that 9/11 was the work of the American Government. My question is why couldn't they pull off the same type of operation in "finding" WMD's in Iraq??
If they had gone in and 'found' the WMDs then there would be no justification to spend all that effort developing a pro-American police state. It would have played out like the first Gulf War... the threat would be gone, the troops could go home, problem over. Fixing the situation where Iraqi government had turned it's back on greenbacks and adopted a "we only accept Euro's" policy which would have hurt American buyers profits wouldn't have been possible. There's a reason the country was given it's payments in the food-for-oil deal in crisp fresh 100 dollar bills. And if there had been real WMDs and truly credible intelligence, then it would have been grounds for the UN to act, and if that was the case the mandate would not have included the removal of Saddam, simply the destruction of the weapons.
Anyway, the CIA already pulled off a dodgy psy-op surrounding Iraq with all that 'mobile chemical factory 45 minute deployment' bullshit that got them there in the first place. And apart from anything, they've saved the 'it turns out we were right all along, and now we have uncovered proof the weapons went to xyz' wildcard for the next time a player they think they can handle decides to try and turn their petrodollars into petroeuros. If they ever manage to clear up the current quagmires and get some nice pro-American police states ticking over they might even dream up some reason to get Iran back on the petrodollars. Still, I reckon there's plenty of easier targets on the list first.
Conspiracy theories have been around long before Bush.. JFK,Roswell,etc....Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Well it probably is Bush's fault that a lot of these conspiracys come around. People hate Bush. People hate Republicans. So. . .they look at the situation and see that 9/11 helped propel Bush and the Republicans to dominate American politics. Thus, they get pissed and try to discredit what happened on 9/11 or they let themselves be convinced with a bunch of hokus-pokus instead of thinking rationally about it.
See the beginning of this for a little more detail:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn%26Teller&hl=en[/google]
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Of course. . .I have a buddy that STILL tries to convince me we never made it to the moon. I specifically meant that a lot of these 9/11 conspiracy theories are formed and get such ready acceptance because of Bush and his politics.Kmarion wrote:
Conspiracy theories have been around long before Bush.. JFK,Roswell,etc....Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Well it probably is Bush's fault that a lot of these conspiracys come around. People hate Bush. People hate Republicans. So. . .they look at the situation and see that 9/11 helped propel Bush and the Republicans to dominate American politics. Thus, they get pissed and try to discredit what happened on 9/11 or they let themselves be convinced with a bunch of hokus-pokus instead of thinking rationally about it.
See the beginning of this for a little more detail:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn%26Teller&hl=en[/google]
OMG all the evidence points to the fact that gravity was involved in this conspiracy. If you were capable at maths, you'd realise how fast that concrete would be falling.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?Miller wrote:
Ok first, canadians are pretty smart, aside from the ocasional nut jobs (Jimmy). Second, steel used in thw WTC is able to melt, its melting point is pretty much around 2500-2750 degrees Farenhiet. I don't know about you, but it is estimated that the fire's inside the WTC were around 3000 degrees. The protective layers on the steel of the buildings were also blown off in the explosion, causing the buildings to be even more vulnerable. Sounds like this can take a building down quick. Engineers say we were lucky they stayed up for so long.golgoj4 wrote:
I know canadians are dumb but this is getting outta control. Please provide something other than your internet dective badge or shut the fuck up. Its bad enough you tinfoil hat tards makes the rest of us intelligent people looks so crazy. Seriously. Provide actual fact or shut the hell up. As it stands you dont understand the concept of fire so I really suggest that you find someone smarter to do the talking.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel : Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C
Steel does not need the fire protectant to protect it from collapse. The fire retardant was to protect the people and things inside the building and not the building itself.
Underwriters laboratories certified that the steel used in the construction of the Twin towers would withstand 2000 degree heat for six hours. Yet you claim that a fire that burned at under 1200 degrees for less than two hours turned the towers into dust.
That's another thing, no one seems to want to explain how the concrete was pulverized into a fine dust. The dust blanketed half of Manhatten and went as far as New Jersey. If the towers had collapsed as you describe the concrete would have fallen in massive chunks. Anyone care to explain that or will you conveniently ignore that fact?
What engineers said this. Sources? Again, are you just pulling this out of your ass? Did you see it on Discovery channel?
Lets all follow my new conspiracy theory thats way more sensible than the US govt. blowing up the WTC. It was the designers and builders of the petronas towers wanting the title of world's tallest building back!!! thats a lot more plausible
as said before... don't use someone else's ideas
it is not an actually unbias... making other peoples ideas seem like dumb ass ideas....
music does a lot .... seem it again and mind the background music.
i am not saying i believe conspiracies.... but this commentator makes other ideas seem like a crime....
not a very good example of convincing facts.... in my book
it is not an actually unbias... making other peoples ideas seem like dumb ass ideas....
music does a lot .... seem it again and mind the background music.
i am not saying i believe conspiracies.... but this commentator makes other ideas seem like a crime....
not a very good example of convincing facts.... in my book
I think superfly_cox has missed the point - they didnt plan the 9/11 attacks, they just let them happen rather than stopping them - instant justification for the war on terror
Here is a thought as well. Why fly planes into the towers? Why not just blow them up since they were supposedly rigged with explosives anyways and say terrorist did it? The WTC had already been bombed before. Wouldn't that have been more convincing? It wouldn't have been shown in front of millions of people to watch and be dissected over and over.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think (I didn't look it up) that the max speed of a free falling object is around 180mph, and it takes approx 10 seconds to reach that speedbennisboy wrote:
OMG all the evidence points to the fact that gravity was involved in this conspiracy. If you were capable at maths, you'd realise how fast that concrete would be falling.
concrete would not turn to dust at 180mph
They couldn't pull off finding WMDs in the same way because they didn't hoax the WTC and they went in because they genuinely were worried about WMDs from Iraq. BUT without reason.
For all those who feel the USA went in for oil, before the war it was $25 a barrel, now its over $75. Which would definitely be fission mailed. Unless the US's leading economists got it drastically wrong and they actually thought it would get cheaper. Its clear where the evidence points.
NB: I am against the war, but I have to look at the facts and come up with arguments from them
For all those who feel the USA went in for oil, before the war it was $25 a barrel, now its over $75. Which would definitely be fission mailed. Unless the US's leading economists got it drastically wrong and they actually thought it would get cheaper. Its clear where the evidence points.
NB: I am against the war, but I have to look at the facts and come up with arguments from them
Thats the point - they had been bombed before so it would be harder to bomb them againKmarion wrote:
Here is a thought as well. Why fly planes into the towers? Why not just blow them up since they were supposedly rigged with explosives anyways and say terrorist did it? The WTC had already been bombed before. Wouldn't that have been more convincing? It wouldn't have been shown in front of millions of people to watch and be dissected over and over.
Noone ever thought anyone would have the balls to fly 2 passenger jets into the WTC so they did it
The max falling speed of an object actually depends on the size, mass and shape of falling object. It also would affect how quickly they would accelerate. Also remember the explosions of that amount of jet fuel would considerably stress the concrete, as well as the impact, causing fissures and defects, all weakening the concrete. Also think about the overall mass of the building falling in on itself. finally the dust would not just be from concrete but all the other materials in the buildings as wellBlokieBF2 wrote:
I think (I didn't look it up) that the max speed of a free falling object is around 180mph, and it takes approx 10 seconds to reach that speedbennisboy wrote:
OMG all the evidence points to the fact that gravity was involved in this conspiracy. If you were capable at maths, you'd realise how fast that concrete would be falling.
concrete would not turn to dust at 180mph
Those people obviously have no idea how the oil market works and have never heard of OPEC.bennisboy wrote:
For all those who feel the USA went in for oil, before the war it was $25 a barrel, now its over $75. Which would definitely be fission mailed. Unless the US's leading economists got it drastically wrong and they actually thought it would get cheaper. Its clear where the evidence points.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
would you sleep at night knowing there are a lot of wmd's out there owned by countries that want to detonate them on us soil????bennisboy wrote:
They couldn't pull off finding WMDs in the same way because they didn't hoax the WTC and they went in because they genuinely were worried about WMDs from Iraq. BUT without reason.
For all those who feel the USA went in for oil, before the war it was $25 a barrel, now its over $75. Which would definitely be fission mailed. Unless the US's leading economists got it drastically wrong and they actually thought it would get cheaper. Its clear where the evidence points.
NB: I am against the war, but I have to look at the facts and come up with arguments from them
I'd keep that quiet to prevent mass panic
Last edited by E1_ned (2006-09-26 10:29:57)
that was a great point by kmarion, but you're answer, was a little on the immature side. You could easily say "but no-one would expect them to try the same thing again when it had already failed, so blow it up and blame the terrorists."Mong0ose wrote:
Thats the point - they had been bombed before so it would be harder to bomb them againKmarion wrote:
Here is a thought as well. Why fly planes into the towers? Why not just blow them up since they were supposedly rigged with explosives anyways and say terrorist did it? The WTC had already been bombed before. Wouldn't that have been more convincing? It wouldn't have been shown in front of millions of people to watch and be dissected over and over.
Noone ever thought anyone would have the balls to fly 2 passenger jets into the WTC so they did it
Also as I partly already mentioned, do you really think bush would sacrifice that many lives for oil? not even guaranteeing price would fall? I'm sorry but its just a mental idea, I didn't think people could be that mad
sorry didn't make it clear, the reason that I said "but without reason" is because they were none, which may have been found out by weapons inspectors. Also to drop a nuke on the west or something like that without having huge launchpads (which would draw attention), they would need huge planes flying them out, slightly impractical I thinkE1_ned wrote:
would you sleep at night knowing there are a lot of wmd's out there owned by countries that want to detonate them on us soil????bennisboy wrote:
They couldn't pull off finding WMDs in the same way because they didn't hoax the WTC and they went in because they genuinely were worried about WMDs from Iraq. BUT without reason.
For all those who feel the USA went in for oil, before the war it was $25 a barrel, now its over $75. Which would definitely be fission mailed. Unless the US's leading economists got it drastically wrong and they actually thought it would get cheaper. Its clear where the evidence points.
NB: I am against the war, but I have to look at the facts and come up with arguments from them
I'd keep that quiet to prevent mass panic