Blighty Skins Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I find this post mildly insulting coming, as it does, from the citizen of another nation (Great Britain). I frankly, don't give a dog's left bollock. I have my theories, you have yours. p.s. Anyway, you can't get offended because you think it never happened. :laugh: Blame yourselves for turning 9/11 into a farce. Because that's what it's become and Britons died and British companies suffered damages in 9/11 too, so it wasn't just an American thing. Hence World Trade Centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually, the towers are still there. We just made them invisible. Remlik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Quote from the video... "As a kind of demolitions hobbiest..."Oh yeah, now there's a real expert. This video is made by idiots for idiots. End of story. So you attack the credibility of one person and ignore the countless people interviewed and the facts brought forth Real open mind you got there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blighty Skins Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The point I'm making here...in case people miss the obvious (like that Boyd chap) is: that you can make 9/11 seem like anybody did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I watched it recently and found it quite disturbing. Has anyone here heard a convincing explanation for how WTC 7 could have fallen? I have yet to hear anyone refute the often-heard statement that no steel building had ever fallen because of a fire, until 9/11. It's much easier to believe that WTC 1 and 2 fell from a combination of the fire and the damage done by the planes, but WTC 7 falling from fire caused by falling debris? To hear Larry Silverstein say that they decided to "pull" WTC 7 on video, it sure sounds like he's saying they decided to demolish it. And if you believe that they did indeed demolish WTC 7, then you have to start asking tougher questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Those buildings werent made of steel. They were made of marshmallows. Didnt you see the jews running around with the graham crackers and choclate bars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 I watched it recently and found it quite disturbing. Has anyone here heard a convincing explanation for how WTC 7 could have fallen? I have yet to hear anyone refute the often-heard statement that no steel building had ever fallen because of a fire, until 9/11. It's much easier to believe that WTC 1 and 2 fell from a combination of the fire and the damage done by the planes, but WTC 7 falling from fire caused by falling debris? To hear Larry Silverstein say that they decided to "pull" WTC 7 on video, it sure sounds like he's saying they decided to demolish it. And if you believe that they did indeed demolish WTC 7, then you have to start asking tougher questions. If someone can give me a reasonable explanation for this I will completely change my opinion But since one has never been given by anyone (experts have no clue why) I guess it's going to be tough to do Because if a few bush fires can bring down a steel skyscraper then I would never step foot in one again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Like I said I'm not looking to start a big debate over this But I will defend this video since it does bring up interesting points that I agree with If you have a problem with any of the facts this video spit out Please bring it forward What in the Buildings accounts for the flames and high heat which weakened the cement and steal? Video leaves the question open ended for dramatic license. Answer Jet fuel is kerosene which burns at 1796 F. Hot enough to weaken steel and concrete. Steel looses half it's strength at 600 C. . Even if the building collapse were associated with the plane and fire it wouldn't have collapsed like it did. all at one time. Answer Once one floor went all the floors on top of that floor were working to collapse that building. The red orange burn of the flame indicated the flame was not hot enough to weaken the building. Answer The red orange burn of the flame ball is not indicative of the hottest flames but the coolest flames in the building. .. Fire wouldn't account for the metal beams and concrete being hurled outward from the building... Answer The collapsing of the tower itself accounts for the kinetic energy to hurl the debre. .. Since the building collapsed straight down, this indicates that the kinetic energy of the plane wasn't a factor, as the building didn't fall over it collapsed down. Answer Gravity is more powerful than the jet crash. The plane weakened and deformed the structure. Once done gravity is what brought it down. The building came down in 10 seconds, you wouldn't get that without explosives. Answer Once the first floor went, nothing in the building was strong enough to hold all the additional weight. Think about it. First floor went in the top third of the building were the plane hit. that means the floor under that floor is now holding what 20 times what it was designed to hold.. The collapse blew papers all over the city. A collapse would have trapped papers inside the building only an explosion would account for the papers being blown out. Answer all the air in the building blew out as fast as 10 seconds. That is enough to carry papers out too... Gave the movie about 10 minutes.... It's not convincing. It's what some smart non engineering dude is putting forward as fact. It's why engineers get degrees because smart with no knowledge doesn't always work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Because if a few bush fires can bring down a steel skyscraper then I would never step foot in one again Kerosine burns 980 °C (1796 °F) Steel looses half it's strength at 600 °C That's all you need to know. Sky Scrapers are safe. Just don't step foot inside one which is hit by a passenger jet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I've Read Richard Clarks version, I've read George Tenates version. I've read Jim Baker's version, I'ver read the bi partisan 911 committee's version. I've been doing nothing but reading 911 accounts for the last few years.What exactly do you think the public doesn't know that they should? (Q) The Iraeli's were behind it and pulled their folks out before the crashes.. (A) A few idiots in a white van don't make an entire country idiots. (Q) The government was behind it in order to justify the War in Iraq. (A) 911 didn't justify the war in Iraq, the country still re-elected Bush. (Q) Bin Laudin's poster on the FBI's ten more wanted list doesn't list 911 as one of his crimes because the FBI still has doubts about the Bin Laudin connection? (A) Just goes to show you that the FBI is pretty incompetent. Not because the don't understand what happenned on 911, but because they haven't figured out how to update their web page. Wow you have a lot to learn. I don't even know where to start with educating you. If you are going to rely on the 911 commission report, then you are beyond help or a schill for the gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Kerosine burns 980 °C (1796 °F)Steel looses half it's strength at 600 °C That's all you need to know. Sky Scrapers are safe. Just don't step foot inside one which is hit by a passenger jet. Ok, I am still laughing at your "fact" post.... but how do you explain the Empire State building still standing after being hit by a B-52 bomber? I'll wait for your response.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blighty Skins Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Ok, I am still laughing at your "fact" post....but how do you explain the Empire State building still standing after being hit by a B-52 bomber? I'll wait for your response.. It wasn't a B-52, it was a B-25. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blighty Skins Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 B-52: B-25: Big difference....also a 767 is a much larger aircraft than the B-25. It also holds a lot more fuel and a more combustible fuel at that...considering the B-25 has normal piston engines (i.e. will run on regular gas), not jet like jet engines which require very dangerous and combustible aviation fuel. The bomber was not carrying a bomb-load when it crashed in the Empire State Building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Ok, I am still laughing at your "fact" post....but how do you explain the Empire State building still standing after being hit by a B-52 bomber? I'll wait for your response.. It wasn't a B-52 which crashed into the empire state building. It was a much smaller B-25 in 1948. B-25 wasn't a jet and didn't use jet fuel and their wasn't nearly as much of that fuel. Lastly the empire state building is not the same type of building as the WTO which was built almost 40 years after the empire state building. State building has a lot more concrete and a lot more steel in it and a lot less glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blighty Skins Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Is there an echo in here? This is the hole made from the B-25 on the Empire State Building: As you can see...tiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Wow you have a lot to learn.I don't even know where to start with educating you. If you are going to rely on the 911 commission report, then you are beyond help or a schill for the gov't. Both I'm afraid. All I ever do on this board is back up George Bush and his government. I can't help it, Bush hired me and Alan Keyes to back him up on issues like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 If someone can give me a reasonable explanation for this I will completely change my opinion But since one has never been given by anyone (experts have no clue why) I guess it's going to be tough to do Because if a few bush fires can bring down a steel skyscraper then I would never step foot in one again Bin Laden is many things but dumb is not one of them. He knows all about structural engineering and I believe he was convinced that the jet fuel / heat combination from a capacity filled jumbo liner would be sufficient enough to melt through the beams and bring the towers down. The only thing I can say is that it could have been much, much worse. We could have lost ten thousand or more lives that day just as easily. If the assault on the Capitol Building and/or the White House would have gone as planned, in addition, if he would have also approved of attacking various nuclear reactors in conjunction, Bin Laden could have achieved what no other American adversary has ever done before - bring America to our knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Both I'm afraid. All I ever do on this board is back up George Bush and his government. I can't help it, Bush hired me and Alan Keyes to back him up on issues like this... mostly Ive been laughing at all the conspiracy loons posts, but that line is awesome. good work JMS that was funny, was a very calm response to a very irrational person who was attacking you and you wittily mocked him with your answer. good show keep up the good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Ok, I am still laughing at your "fact" post....but how do you explain the Empire State building still standing after being hit by a B-52 bomber? I'll wait for your response.. :laugh: :doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Bin Laden is many things but dumb is not one of them. He knows all about structural engineering and I believe he was convinced that the jet fuel / heat combination from a capacity filled jumbo liner would be sufficient enough to melt through the beams and bring the towers down. Not only does he know about them. He builds them!! I lived in Saudi for a few years before (and after the latest Iraqi hostilities were proclaimed over ). I lived in Ryadhi, Saudi Arabia in a sky scrapper there called the Al Faisaliah. Designed and Bult by the Bin Laudin Group. If Bin Laudin wanted to know exactly how to bring down a sky scrapper pre- 911 all he had to do was literally pick up a phone and talk to one of the families in house engineers. The Bin Laudin group is the largest construction company in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Construction and Buildings they know... The only thing I can say is that it could have been much, much worse. We could have lost ten thousand or more lives that day just as easily. If the assault on the Capitol Building and/or the White House would have gone as planned, in addition, if he would have also approved of attacking various nuclear reactors in conjunction, Bin Laden could have achieved what no other American adversary has ever done before - bring America to our knees. I believe more folks died in 9/11 than died in pearl harbor. 911 originally was planned with 10 - 12 air craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I still haven't heard a decent explanation for why World Trade 7 fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 [/u]Not only does he know about them. He builds them!! I lived in Saudi for a few years before (and after the latest Iraqi hostilities were proclaimed over ). I lived in Ryahd in a sky scrapper there called the Al Faisaliah. Designed and Bult by the Bin Laudin Group. I believe more folks died in 9/11 than died in pearl harbor. 911 originally was planned with 10 - 12 air craft. I'll check it out JMS - thanks... Terrible day. I'll never forget the people jumping from the towers or the chatter emitting from various Port Authority Officers, NYPD and FDNY who were in dire straights and knew the end was upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I still haven't heard a decent explanation for why World Trade 7 fell. Then you haven't been listenning. You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make him read the posts on an internet blog. Post a specific objection to one of the many explainations already posted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta613 Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 AnswerJet fuel is kerosene which burns at 1796 F. Hot enough to weaken steel and concrete. Steel looses half it's strength at 600 C.. This wasn't played down in the video They mentioned this plenty of times AnswerOnce one floor went all the floors on top of that floor were working to collapse that building. If this was the case the buildings should not have fell in 8-10 seconds AnswerThe red orange burn of the flame ball is not indicative of the hottest flames but the coolest flames in the building. You only saw the flame ball for a few minutes and then nothing but Black smoke That indicates that the fire was weak and lacked oxegen Something that was in the video AnswerThe collapsing of the tower itself accounts for the kinetic energy to hurl the debre. The building was collasping floor by floor within itsself and still blowing debre outward?? AnswerOnce the first floor went, nothing in the building was strong enough to hold all the additional weight. Think about it. First floor went in the top third of the building were the plane hit. that means the floor under that floor is now holding what 20 times what it was designed to hold.. So it would offer zero resistance?? The video didn't question it giving way there is no way it would hold up under the weight but no resistance at all is what is in question They stated clearly that if you throw a ball off the WTC it would fall in 9 seconds North fell in 10 second and South fell in 8 If it fell floor by floor it would've had to show at least the slightess bit of Resistance but it clearly didn't [Gave the movie about 10 minutes.... It's not convincing. It's what some smart non engineering dude is putting forward as fact. It's why engineers get degrees because smart with no knowledge doesn't always work out. So since you are so hot on the jet fuel defense then explain how in the world the WTC was still burning 2 months after the plane hit Jet fuel does burn at 1800 F and Steel Melts at 2700 F so it is impossible for jet fuel to melt steel but the basement of the WTC was burning at temps as high as 4000 F How in the world do you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 So since you are so hot on the jet fuel defense then explain how in the world the WTC was still burning 2 months after the plane hit Jet fuel does burn at 1800 F and Steel Melts at 2700 F so it is impossible for jet fuel to melt steel but the basement of the WTC was burning at temps as high as 4000 F How in the world do you explain that? So you believe that some sort of incendiary / explosive agents were used somehow in the attack? Curious, did not watch the video is that what they were implying? I'll leave it to JMS to sort out - once he gets that big brain working... It could make for a long night be forewarned;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.