skinfan133 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 First of all, keep in mind that a skyscraper has never collapsed from a fire. Ever. The WTC buildings are the only known examples in history. Even after skyscrapers have completely burned from the top to bottom floor, these buildings have held fast and upright. controlled detonation? It is puzzling and not well explained. also you need to take into consideration that no building over 100 stories has ever caught fire before, there is no precedent to place your conspiracy against. general physics can tell you exactly what went wrong, there were several contributing factors that led to the colapse. the most important was when in the 1960's the city council was revising building requirements, and fire proofing of the interior structures wasnt as important. this led to the fact that the fire proofing was thin to no exsistant in the twin towers. the fireproofing foam in building structures is what keeps burning buildings from colapsing. (there is a building inspectors video footage between the floors of the twin towers taken in 1998 that shows the non-exsitant fireproofing, and where there was any it was sparse and brittle. cant find it online, i saw it in a documentary on discovery probably) anyhow, becuase of this the fire was able to get right at the steel, even slight weakening of a support structre can lead to a cripling reation, try it sometime with balsa wood and books. i dont see how it could have been a controled demolition, how could so many people not see guys just walking in with explosives and seting them? the notion that the government would do this is absurd, its like saying pearl; harbor was staged by the navy to get us into the war (and if you believe that just keep silent about it, morons upset me greatly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm Got news for you. A ten-ton, B-25 bomber with three crewman is nowhere near the size of a Boeing 767. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinva Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo I know what it is...hence the heresay and conjecture line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashmowf Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 You're implying that they would conduct 9/11 just to help Halliburton?Go take a look at the Fortune 500 list and look where Halliburton is compared to the major defense contractors...do you really think they would risk pissing off these guys just to help Cheney and his boys? See...just like your buddy twisting words.......let point it out to you, you posted information about defense contractors losing money and how things aren't going well for them...I dont give a rats bunghole about fortune 500....Halliburton gained business.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Vina, you DO know that conspiracies happen all the time? Even the official story is based upon a conspiracy by Bin Laden and compatriots. Answering everything I say with "produce evidence," even after I post some material and "evidence" isn't very useful. We are on the internet - that means I willl use internet resources. If you reject every internet source while debating on the internet...well, that isn't very useful and a pointless debate. I cannot debate someone whose response is along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?" You demand answers for me, but when I have asked you several times direct questions, you do not answer. I guess maybe you just don't know enough details to provide an adequate response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Good grief. B-1 bombers didnt start flying until the 1980s. What he is referring to is this- http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm A B-25 bomber that weighs about 8 tons compared to a modern jetliner weighing almost 50. Not to mention the amount of fuel in the B-25 was about .5 percent of what was in the planes on 9/11. It's also a different type of building. OK so you called him out on that one, but surely the giant ape climbing to the top of the Empire State Building without causing structural damage supports his argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Visionary: I used Hitler as an example of how someone that extreme can get into power, w/o the country's people all being aware of what a nut he is. I didn't actually compare any one w/ Hitler as far as personality or anything like that. I didn't say all leaders fell under my example, but SOME of the ones in power do fall under what I was talking about. People do terrible things, and just b/c they are in the "spotlight" doesn't mean they don't. Look at how warped some of the Hollywood celebrities are. Just b/c you have a camera in someone's face everyday doesn't mean you have one iside their head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I know what it is...hence the heresay and conjecture line. What's odd is that it's the same argument used against the official 9-11 story. And considering the Downing Streeet Memo was an official British government document, it is not heresay and conjecture. Just by stating that line over and over again does change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Got news for you. A ten-ton, B-25 bomber with three crewman is nowhere near the size of a Boeing 767. Not even close. I misstated that it was a B-1, when indeed it was a B-25. As far as dynamics, the two aren't that far off. There may be a big weight difference, but the B-25 is stripped down to the bare essentilas, where as a 767 has much more "stuff" in it, such as things relating to passengers( seats, stewardess rooms, etc.). While all this "stuff" certainly does not make up the weight difference, the ratio between building and plane is pretty close. Empire State/ B-25, WTC/ 767. The Empire State building had a plane explode inside, and burned for hours, yet did not collapse. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, save the three on 9/11, one of which was not hit by an airplane, nor did any fuel (which can't burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel) get in that building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I misstated that it was a B-1, when indeed it was a B-25. As far as dynamics, the two aren't that far off. There may be a big weight difference, but the B-25 is stripped down to the bare essentilas, where as a 767 has much more "stuff" in it, such as things relating to passengers( seats, stewardess rooms, etc.). While all this "stuff" certainly does not make up the weight difference, the ratio between building and plane is pretty close. Empire State/ B-25, WTC/ 767. The Empire State building had a plane explode inside, and burned for hours, yet did not collapse. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, save the three on 9/11, one of which was not hit by an airplane, nor did any fuel (which can't burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel) get in that building. 1. The WTC didn't collapse JUST due to fire. It also collapsed because of the structural damage due to the impact of the crash. The Fire and Explosion that resulted from the crash merely accelerated the collapse of the weakened structure. 2. Where did the B-25 impact the Empire State building? The WTC was hit almost directly in the middle. 3. I'm not understanding your point about 'stuff' in a 767 plane equalizing the weight difference or making up for the difference with the B-25?? If there's more stuff in a 767 than a stripped down B-25 that weighs a lot less, how does that equalize anything? If a bigger plane hits the middle a tall building and almost goes completely through it and the fuel ignites you don't think the building is going to come down? 4. What does it matter that a Steel framed building never collapsed due to fire before? That to me is called useless trivia. You're not disputing an event that occured because of science, you're just throwing out an antidote and saying X is impossible because of lack of precedent. This isn't law. That's an illogical argument dude. There was never a Nuke dropped on Hiroshima before WWII either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I misstated that it was a B-1, when indeed it was a B-25. As far as dynamics, the two aren't that far off. There may be a big weight difference, but the B-25 is stripped down to the bare essentilas, where as a 767 has much more "stuff" in it, such as things relating to passengers( seats, stewardess rooms, etc.). While all this "stuff" certainly does not make up the weight difference, the ratio between building and plane is pretty close. Empire State/ B-25, WTC/ 767. The Empire State building had a plane explode inside, and burned for hours, yet did not collapse. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, save the three on 9/11, one of which was not hit by an airplane, nor did any fuel (which can't burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel) get in that building. So you get caught lieing to further confuse people and then try to suggest they are the same when we just learned how much each weighs and how much fuel each holds (.5 percent of the fuel). Why are you spitting in our faces and telling us it is raining. I can take your wacky theories seriously and try to debunk them until you guys just start outright lieing in hopes of confusing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 1. The WTC didn't collapse JUST due to fire. It also collapsed because of the structural damage due to the impact of the crash. The Fire and Explosion that resulted from the crash merely accelerated the collapse of the weakened structure.2. Where did the B-25 impact the Empire State building? The WTC was hit almost directly in the middle. 3. I'm not understanding your point about 'stuff' in a 767 plane equalizing the weight difference or making up for the difference with the B-25?? If there's more stuff in a 767 than a stripped down B-25 that weighs a lot less, how does that equalize anything? If a bigger plane hits the middle a tall building and almost goes completely through it and the fuel ignites you don't think the building is going to come down? 4. What does it matter that a Steel framed building never collapsed due to fire before? That to me is called useless trivia. You're not disputing an event that occured because of science, you're just throwing out an antidote and saying X is impossible because of lack of precedent. This isn't law. That's an illogical argument dude. There was never a Nuke dropped on Hiroshima before WWII either. 1. Had just the collapse occurred at the point of impact, where it should of if not for controlled demolitions, the upper portion of the building would have fallen off and fell to the street below, damaging anything in its path. The "pancake theory" where the supports blew out and the building collapsed one floor on top of another, is also bogus. the building collapsed at free fall speed, and only a demolition can create that. 2. The WTC was not hit in the middle, both buildings were hit near the top, check out the impact photos. 3. The "stuff" I was talking about was all the items in a plane that are there b/c it houses passengers. This is overhead compartments, restrooms, seats, etc. I did not say it made up for the weight difference in the two planes, I stated that to show that the weight of a passenger plane is comprised of more than a military plane. The two are still far apart in weight and size, but the scale of a B-25 to the Empire State, and the scale of a 767 to the Towers are similar. 4. The reason no steel framed building collapsing before, or after, due to fire is important b/c of the third buildiing that collapsed. It was not hit by a plane, no fuel was inside it, there was no strutural damage. Yet somehow it caught fire, and collapsed perfectly into the ground like a controlled demolition. The fire wasn't widespread, and only occurred on a couple floors. the firemen from that day stated that the fire was almost out when the building collapsed. (Not to mention the testimonies of many firemen saying they heard loud explosions coming from all three buildings shortly before, and during the collapse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 If anyone wants to read about some of the reasons why I question the official account, and has the time, check out the article linked below. Read it seriuosly though, as it delivers a serious, and well-researched tone. http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 1. Had just the collapse occurred at the point of impact, where it should of if not for controlled demolitions, the upper portion of the building would have fallen off and fell to the street below, damaging anything in its path. The "pancake theory" where the supports blew out and the building collapsed one floor on top of another, is also bogus. the building collapsed at free fall speed, and only a demolition can create that.) Oh for god's sake. Do you have any idea how much the top half of the tallest skyscrapers in the world weigh? They can't just "fall off" the side of the building. That weight wants to go down, not sideways. This discussion is madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 i dont see how it could have been a controled demolition, how could so many people not see guys just walking in with explosives and seting them? the notion that the government would do this is absurd, its like saying pearl; harbor was staged by the navy to get us into the war (and if you believe that just keep silent about it, morons upset me greatly). Interestingly, in the footage of the building's collapse, what appears similiar to demolition "plumes" exploding from the building can be seen. Also, it wouldn't be terribly difficult for a covert team to plant explosives in a building the size of the WTC. Especially, to make it even more odd, George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center. Hmmm - what an odd coincidence! Also, regarding the fire-proofing, I have seen studies and tests regarding this subject. It cannot be dismissed as a possible reason for the collapse, but the question, to me, still revolves around the duration, length, and size of the fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Elkabong makes some points, regarding where the building was hit and the amount of estimated damage to the structures. Also, it must be mentioned that the collapse didn't happen once or twice, and that is against pretty good odds of that happening. Especially considering where the damaged happened - the upper floors of the structure should have made the collapse even more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I havnt read all 20,000 pages of the thread, but one thing I'd like people to be aware of is - didn't bin Laden essentially CONFESS to masterminding the attack in one of his video tapes, shortly after 9/11 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Mick, I guess you can say it was Bin Laden, other than the fact it does not look like him. Other than the arabic/turban part of it: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html I guess you decide for yourself: Is that Bin Laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 1. Had just the collapse occurred at the point of impact, where it should of if not for controlled demolitions, the upper portion of the building would have fallen off and fell to the street below, damaging anything in its path. The "pancake theory" where the supports blew out and the building collapsed one floor on top of another, is also bogus. the building collapsed at free fall speed, and only a demolition can create that. I hate to flame, but my god, you are not intelligent enough to hold a reasonable discussion with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Interestingly, in the footage of the building's collapse, what appears similiar to demolition "plumes" exploding from the building can be seen. . Oh for the luvva pete. When I fart in the bathtub, you will see "bubbles" that appear similar to the bubbles released by scuba divers. There clearly is a scuba diver up my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinva Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Vina, you DO know that conspiracies happen all the time? Even the official story is based upon a conspiracy by Bin Laden and compatriots. Answering everything I say with "produce evidence," even after I post some material and "evidence" isn't very useful. We are on the internet - that means I willl use internet resources. If you reject every internet source while debating on the internet...well, that isn't very useful and a pointless debate. I cannot debate someone whose response is along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?" You demand answers for me, but when I have asked you several times direct questions, you do not answer. I guess maybe you just don't know enough details to provide an adequate response. If I were arguing that the Holocaust did not happen, do you think you should have to provide proof it did? If I were arguing that we didn't land on the moon, do you think you should have to provide proof that we did? My proof is all over the place...if you want to use crackpot websites, I've got plenty too: http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020412.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml And there are many, many more. I especially like the last one. It might just be crazy enough for you to digest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 You been spending too much time in the Castro District again Predicto? Can't we just put this issue to rest. There will always be people (well intentioned or not) who believe what they see on TV is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Why would the government go out of their way to ensure the buildings collapsed, with additional explosives, as opposed to just letting the planes do partial damage ? What did they have to gain, by completely annihilating the building, as opposed to partially ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Oh for the luvva pete. When I fart in the bathtub, you will see "bubbles" that appear similar to the bubbles released by scuba divers. There clearly is a scuba diver up my ass. Why do you refuse to consider this possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Why would the government go out of their way to ensure the buildings collapsed, with additional explosives, as opposed to just letting the planes do partial damage ? What did they have to gain, by completely annihilating the building, as opposed to partially ?? You dolt!! Logic and ration have no place in a conspiracy theory!!! You're a silly, silly man :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.