|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
the facts about 911
#2887492 - 07/13/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
did planes really cause the buildings to fall, read the facts and stop being lazy letting the media do your investigateing for you http://www.911review.org
|
Tasty_Smurf_House
Stranger


Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 8,657
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887518 - 07/13/04 08:29 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
very interesting. things are starting to creep me out.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
|
Quote:
Tasty_Smurf_House said: very interesting. things are starting to creep me out.
i think that the majority of the country beleives what the news told them on sept 11th happened when the very video from those news stations say other wise. the biggest peaces of evidance are builing number 7 clearly being demolished before the other buildings when it wasnt effected by a plane at all. also that the government says the plane that hit the pentigon burned in the fire. a plane that size couldnt be completely burnt up in a fire and news photos show a engine of a even smaller plan. not to mention the size of the whole in the pentigon could never acomidate that size of a air plain
|
ld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887571 - 07/13/04 08:53 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
right... i'd learn how to spell myself
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887573 - 07/13/04 08:54 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"Facts". Uh huh.
Everything that tinfoil hat brigade website is trying to push has been thoroughly discounted years ago.
I'm not going to invest the time to debunk each and every ludicrous "fact" on that site now (check the archives yourself), but I've got time for one of them
-- no plane hit the Pentagon?
Bullshit. They say there was no debris -- wrong! There are photos on many sites showing the debris. I personally know one person in Washington who saw it hit. There are dozens of eyewitness reports to be found on the web.
One thing none of these "no plane hit the Pentagon" theorists ever seem able to answer is:
- if that plane didn't hit, just exactly where are the people who were on that plane hidden? The plane took off with X number of passengers, all recorded on the passenger manifest, it was tracked on radar, none of the crew and passengers have been seen since. Where the fuck are those people? Did they get beamed up to the Mothership?
Give me a break.
pinky
--------------------
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Phred]
#2887594 - 07/13/04 09:04 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
the government says their is no plane debris not me. and their is video footage from a security camera of a much smaller plane hitting. plus non of it has been disprove by a independent investigation b/c the US government will not allow one. even though days after pearl harbor and the Kennedy assassination investigations started independently. they know America is too lazy to look at the facts and do their own research, most Americans will lay back let the government controlled media do the research and take it as pure fact
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887599 - 07/13/04 09:07 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887618 - 07/13/04 09:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Who is going to do an "independent" investigation? Seems to me the Senate investigation is as thorough as we're ever gonna see.
As for "the government" saying there was no debris, that's horseshit. Even senators aren't that dumb. There's freaking photographs of it, fa cryin' out loud! Look for yourself... they aren't hard to find. Or are you too lazy? is it that you'd rather let the tinfoil brigade brainwash you?
I can't help but note that you, too, cannot answer my question -- where are the crew and passengers? It is a well-documented, indisputable fact that those people boarded that plane the morning of September 11, and an indisputable fact that none of them have been seen (in one piece) since, and an indisputable fact that insurance companies paid off their policies (and believe me, insurance companies don't do that without proof).
I eagerly await your answer.
pinky
--------------------
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887619 - 07/13/04 09:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If that is the case wouldn't it stand to reason that someone would have noticed the explosives being placed? It's not like the building wasn't constantly full of people.
-------------------- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: z@z.com]
#2887641 - 07/13/04 09:20 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
their are i witness reports and fire department video of explosiions going off in the lover levels of the wtc right after the plave hit 90 some odd floors up
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Phred]
#2887643 - 07/13/04 09:22 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"I can't help but note that you, too, cannot answer my question -- where are the crew and passengers? It is a well-documented, indisputable fact that those people boarded that plane the morning of September 11, and an indisputable fact that none of them have been seen (in one piece) since, and an indisputable fact that insurance companies paid off their policies (and believe me, insurance companies don't do that without proof)."
its not hard to kill people and cover it up when you are the us government
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887647 - 07/13/04 09:23 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.
More pseudo-scientific gibberish.
Let's see here -- the argument is that in order for them to collapse at the rate they did, the entire interior of the structure had to be empty. This means more than just some "small" explosions set at a few points, it means many "small" explosions had to go off inside the buildings -- say every ten floors or so, and that these explosions had to occur at least some minutes before the actual collapse, sequentially, so that the interior would have time to collapse in on itself leaving the path free for the upper portion to fall at the same rate it would through empty air.
How the hell is any team of demolition folks going to be able to place, in advance, that many charges at all the correct points with no one noticing? Those were busy buildings, dude. Fifty thousand people working in them. Need I go any further with this?
I'm done with this. As I said, every point raised on that site has been rebutted thoroughly and repeatedly a long time ago. You pride yourself on not being lazy? Spend a couple of hours on the net researching those ludicrous claims, then.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887655 - 07/13/04 09:26 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
its not hard to kill people and cover it up when you are the us government
That's your answer?
Nothing I could say in response could possibly be more effective than letting that statement stand on its own.
pinky
--------------------
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2887669 - 07/13/04 09:34 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I confess, my grandmother was behind 9-11. I tried to deny it myself, but as more facts come out I have to confront my demons and face the truth. A few days before 9-11, I caught her bathing with Henry Kissinger. It is all coming together now.
Once the smokescreen is lifted we will all be able to see clearly. In the tender moments of their bath, Grandma, Henery Kissinger, and a little rubber duckie who has yet to be positively identified plotted the demise of our great nation. I would submit to you that at this point, that rubber duckie is the missing link.
George Bush received intelligence reports from Interpol weeks before that had Henry Kissinger naked in her bathtub, rubbing baby oil all over my grandma's sagging breasts. He did nothing to stop it. It all could have been averted.
Not only could a tragedy have been averted, but I am not sure what I am going to tell grandpa.
-------------------- Tastes just like chicken
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2888351 - 07/14/04 01:54 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
NEW SEISMIC DATA REFUTES OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Two unexplained ?spikes? in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center?s twin towers immediately prior to the collapse. American Free Press has learned of pools of ?molten steel? found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic ?spikes? at the beginning of each collapse. These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse. In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of ?literally molten steel? at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself ?the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.? Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ?Yes,? he said, ?hot spots of molten steel in the basements.? These incredibly hot areas were found ?at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,? Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found ?three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,? Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, ?Think of the jet fuel.? Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by ?paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ?pancaked? into the basement.? However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement. Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be ?a smoky smoldering pile.? Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements. Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site?s hot spots. Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded. This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement. The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick. Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, ?Everything went simultaneously.? ?At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down,? Hufschmid writes. ?If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?? Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, ?That?s the $64,000 question.? Loizeaux said, ?If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.? SEISMIC ?SPIKES? Seismographs at Columbia University?s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained. While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that?as the collapses began?a huge seismic ?spike? marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained ?spikes? in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. A ?sharp spike of short duration? is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph. The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall. Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University?s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, ?This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.? Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These ?short-period surface waves,? reflect ?the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,? according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute. ?The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,? the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001. One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was ?not coupled? to the ground. ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,? Lerner-Lam said. ?The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? Last November, Lerner-Lam said: ?During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage?but not causing significant ground shaking.? Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source? While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests. Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse. Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel. ?I am not a metallurgist,? Corley said. Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East. Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel. Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports. Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia. http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
|
finally suport. yes that is true and i didnt bring that up, also this same evidance can be used in the oclahoma city bombin. the vibrations clearly show oklahoma city was the same deal and not just a redneck car bomb
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2888489 - 07/14/04 03:21 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Also weeks before 911 the ownership of the tower had changed hands the new owners made but loads of insurance money after the fall of the towers they wouldn?t have made if a plane just hit them. also this artical shows that when the towers were built charges were built with the building to make it fall exactly as it did when we all thought the plane fire brought it down http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm
Also why did the other wtc buildings come down in the same demolition fashion when they werent even hardly damaged, the video of a almost untouched building number 7 can be seen just about anywhere. also if you watch any of the buildings come down you can se darkening on different floors almost like a shadows showing internal destruction from explosives. and all the fire that blew out of the building when it came down wasnt simply from the almost dead fire the planes cause the fire was clearly a large explosion
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2888498 - 07/14/04 03:27 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
here are some more great facts to disprove the medias story line http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2888587 - 07/14/04 04:13 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Although I would deem it perfectly possible that the twin towers collapsed from the plane impacts (but then, I'm no expert), you've got to be honest with yourself and carefully watch that WTC 7 footage. There's absolutely no way a building could accidentally collapse in such a neat and clean way. To obtain such a flawless collapse, you just have to have a simultaneous explosion in every single one of the main foundation points. No way a bunch of diesel (!) tanks on fire could achieve the same result.
Will someone address this issue here?
I agree with those who think WTC7 is the most blatant piece of evidence that there was some kind of inside job on 9/11. I must admit the Pentagon attack is not bad either though. And then there are all those fantastical official stories: Atta's passport found quite intact among the smoking ruins of the towers, Atta trying to secure a government loan to buy a crop-duster plane, disclosing his 9/11 plans to the office clerk (do a search on "atta bryant", this story is too ridiculous), etc. etc. Face it, there's a lot of "evidence" that's obviously been planted after the facts.
Unfortunately, the truth is too much of a shock for people to see it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2888725 - 07/14/04 06:10 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Larry Silverstein admitted in an interview that WTC7 was collapsed with a controlled demolition that afternoon because of too much structural damage from fire.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2889124 - 07/14/04 10:27 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I know, that's an interesting point. This is from http://libertythink.com :
Quote:
Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder on the World Trade Center complex in Manahattan, admits that WTC 7 was "pulled," that is, intentionally demolished: I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
This rather undermines the FEMA report on the WTC collapse, which says: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
Rather strange, isn't it? Official investigation reports claim the collapse was due to unknwon causes, maybe the diesel fire (at least they realize the case looks suspicious), and then the owner of the place (who BTW was luckily insured against terrorism) simply says the building WAS put down, by... the NYFD! So what this means is that the official investigators from FEMA were not aware of the fact that the NYFD took down the building, because Silverstein wouldn't tell them... or maybe Silverstein made up a new version later on, in the face of growing disbelief from the general public? But really, if Silverstein is correct, how on earth would FEMA not be aware of the facts?
Other question: Does anyone really believe that such a controlled collapse can be organized in the matter of a few hours, in the immediate aftermath of the largest disaster in New York history and while the base of the building is on fire?
Conclusion: WTC7's demolition was indeed (planned and) controlled, but this fact was at first hidden from the general public. Can anyone tell me why?
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889338 - 07/14/04 11:40 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AhronZombi said: All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).
I bet if I support a cow so that it just touches your head and then let it go it will fall to the ground (with you underneath) at about the same rate as it would if you were not under it. The fact is that between the inertia and weight of the already moving upper floors the fire weakened structure below amounted to a fraction of what would be needed to slow the fall of the buildings. Had the building been pre wired don't you think that all the flamming fuel dumping down the center of the buildings main structual supports (the place where explosives would be located) would have gone off prematurly rather than the perfectly orchestrated sequence that would be required to pull off the conspiracy that you believe happened?
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
KingOftheThing
the cool fool


Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889355 - 07/14/04 11:47 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
would be scary if it was true...i wouldnt put it past bush and crew...but i doubt it
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2889392 - 07/14/04 11:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape. They are enginered to withstand high lateral pressures and winds, so the least likely way for one to fall is to tip over. Especially the towers since a large part of it's structure was the outer skin. The path of least resistance was straight down into itself.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889456 - 07/14/04 12:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It seems that all of you conviently ignore the evidence that I presented about Henry Kissinger and my grandmother. The mainstream media has kept you blind to the truth.
-------------------- Tastes just like chicken
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2889593 - 07/14/04 12:39 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mntlfngrs said: Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
Haha, that's just laughable. They're designed not to collapse at all, collapsing is not an option, until something just too strong hits them, and then they're beyond control. If what you say was true, it wouldn't take controlled demolition experts to take down buildings, you would just have to blow up the base in whatever way.
Now will someone help me with this WTC7 problem?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889608 - 07/14/04 12:41 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> would have gone off prematurly rather than the perfectly orchestrated sequence
No. Most explosives will burn rather than detonate when exposed to fire... they probably would have used a water gel explosive, which is very difficult to detonate without a cap. These would be formed into shaped charges and have to be placed along the superstructure (two, one on each side of a beam) in order to cut the support beams. This in itself isn't enough to drop the building, typically. There would also need to be a set of lifters to start the collapse, which are large explosive charges set at the base of the support structures. These most likely would have have been TNT or anfo... both of which are next to impossible to detonate without a booster and a cap.... the timing of the lifters has to be correct as well... they have to go off after the main support structures have already been cut.
Also, in the implosive demolition of a building, the system is designed so that the building pulls itself down. I don't know where you are getting all of this 'Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air', but common sense typically has very little to do with the way things really work. The lower portions of the building actually pull down the upper sections, in a controlled demolition.
> Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
I haven't had a lot of civil engineering courses, but I would be very surprised if they design the buildings with collapse in mind. You don't design a bridge so that when it fails, it fails in an orderly fasion... you design it so that it doesn't fail. Buildings are not like cars where they expect accidents and failures to happen.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
trendal
Jâ™


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889676 - 07/14/04 12:52 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I've always thought the idea about jet fuel collecting into buddles down elevator shafts was a little strange...
A liquid like jet fuel, when slammed into anything at aircraft speeds, turns into a rather fine spray - causing the bulk of it to burn extremely fast in a large fireball. I don't know how much fuel there would have been left, unburned, to pour down elevator shafts... Also, if that WAS the case I would have expected fires to start throughought the entire building right down to the basement...
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: trendal]
#2889714 - 07/14/04 12:59 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> A liquid like jet fuel, when slammed into anything at aircraft speeds, turns into a rather fine spray - causing the bulk of it to burn extremely fast in a large fireball.
Only if you have a small amount. When you are talking about 80,000 pounds of liquid, it takes a massive amount of energy to vaporize it. Jet fuel is also much more difficult to light than regular automotive gas, and only the vapor burns, not the liquid. Even if the fuel did vaporize, the oxygen available would be limited.
> I don't know how much fuel there would have been left, unburned, to pour down elevator shafts...
I would guess quite a lot... in the multiple tens of thousands of pounds.
> if that WAS the case I would have expected fires to start throughought the entire building right down to the basement
Again, the fuel has to vaporize before it will ignite. There is a limit on oxygen available for cumbustion. It would take a while for the fire to propagate downwards. The falling fuel would be mixed with all of the falling water from the broken water pipes and the fire suppresion system. Etc...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2889731 - 07/14/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said:
Quote:
mntlfngrs said: Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
Haha, that's just laughable. They're designed not to collapse at all, collapsing is not an option, until something just too strong hits them, and then they're beyond control. If what you say was true, it wouldn't take controlled demolition experts to take down buildings, you would just have to blow up the base in whatever way.
Now will someone help me with this WTC7 problem?
whhhaat??
discovery had a nice show on skyscrapers many many many (pre 9/11) years ago. They take ALL POSSIBILITIES INTO ACCOUNT AND TRY TO ENGINEER FOR THE UNTHINKABLE.
No one thinks the bay bridge was going to collapse or half of cali was going to fall down during that BIG fucking quake of 89, yet it did, so now we know better.
Obviously, when they build things lik that they KNOW that there i a possibility it might fall down, collapse, be bombed, attacked, wind, etc. They DO design them to fall inward if at all possible.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889733 - 07/14/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Skyscrapers do tend to fall straight down. The twin towers were supported by a middle column and the outer exoskeleton. The planes shattered the outside... and they crashed into the middle. The heat from the plane's fuel melted the middle column causing the upper floors to crush the building below. This caused an unreversable chain reaction floor on top of floor... as the buildings collapsed like a slinkey. The odd thing was they collapsed from above rather than from below. It is obvious from the videos that the towers started to colapse from the point of impact. With my own eyes, I could see the tops of the towers tilting off center before their collapse. And in the video, you will see the building above point of impact give way first, almost as if the top portions of the buildings were sheared off. That heavy, unsupported weight caused the upper floors to collapse in on themselves, one on top of the other. The floors were only connected to the center and side... not to the floors above and below them. I'm pretty sure the towers were attached to their foundation at the point of impact, or they would have toppled from the force of the planes. Don't believe me? Stand up straight, with your legs locked and have someone gently push you on the forhead with a finger. You will fall over. Now, have your friend do the same to a small tree firmly rooted in the ground. The pools of molten whatever at the base of the towers was residue from the 3 month long fire that was burning directly above them. No other building fire has lasted so long. Investigators have never seen such a thing as the WTC fire aftermath. As for WTC 7, it was damaged at the base from the collecting debris of the twin towers. I imagine workers wanted to have some control over when it fell so explosives may have been used. They did evacuate everyone when they knew it would come down. Either way, though, since the base of WTC 7 was damaged, it would look much more like a controled demolition than the two towers did, because it fell from the bottom up. No big surprise, the bottom was what was most damaged. The fire didn't help. That is my unofficial interpretation of the events.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2889755 - 07/14/04 01:10 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
As for the owner, he only was able to collect half as much $$$ as he thought he could because the two towers counted as one terrorist act... not two... one for each plane. His insurance will not cover the monitary value of the archetecture that was lost.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889864 - 07/14/04 01:34 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Most explosives will burn rather than detonate when exposed to fire Sorry Suess, couldn't let this one slip past. Obviously you didn't play with enough fireworks as a kid. If you throw explosives into a fire, they will definitely detonate as intended 99% of the time.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2889916 - 07/14/04 01:44 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
someone should paste the link to the video on the net somewhere of the fireworks factory that caught fire..
it definately exploded.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2890004 - 07/14/04 02:01 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I went with one of two possibilities there. And I was thinking that most explosives today are very stable. So the other way I was going to go was that the fire would render the explosives or the firing mechinisms unusable. There would have to be some sort of electronic control to set them off right? I don't see how they could survive a fire of that magnitude.
Designed was the wrong word there. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.
As far as the tempuratures and the molten metal goes. There is a very good chance that there could be temp spikes sufficiant to melt steel. Consider that a blast furnace that melts steel uses forced air to reach the temps needed to melt steel. Consider that the towers were filled with mostly air. Where did that air go while the buildings collapsed? It essentially created a blast furnace near the bottom up the building. With the juel and forced air the temps were much higher than the temp of fuel alone at least for a short time.
You caught the tater
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2890054 - 07/14/04 02:14 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I used to work at an oil refinery. One time we had a seal blow on a pump handling jet fuel. The resulting fire melted steel in the pipeway above the pump within the 15 minutes it took to put the fire out - we had water on the fire probably within 3 minutes of it starting. The steel supporting the weight of the towers did not have to totally melt, it only needed to soften a bit to ruin it's load bearing capabilities.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
trendal
Jâ™


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2890141 - 07/14/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Fireworks are made out of low-explosive materials like blackpowder...which ignite (but do not detonate) quite readily when burned.
Demolition charges and shaped-explosives use high-explosive materials which are MUCH harder to detonate, and will usually burn slowly in a fire instead of detonating.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2890294 - 07/14/04 03:02 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
illuminati
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2890316 - 07/14/04 03:07 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:As for WTC 7, it was damaged at the base from the collecting debris of the twin towers. I imagine workers wanted to have some control over when it fell so explosives may have been used. They did evacuate everyone when they knew it would come down. Either way, though, since the base of WTC 7 was damaged, it would look much more like a controled demolition than the two towers did, because it fell from the bottom up. No big surprise, the bottom was what was most damaged. The fire didn't help.
Please, read my above arguments on this and answer them instead of plainly ignoring them.
How can you plan a controlled demolition in a matter of hours amidst the turmoil of the century, and how do you strap explosives to the foundations of a burning building that is about to collapse, and who volunteers for such a job (I know, they were heroes)?  Why were the official investigators (allegedly) unaware of the controlled demolition? 
|
Redo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2891230 - 07/14/04 07:48 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
And we have yet to still land on the Moon.
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2891350 - 07/14/04 09:00 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You people can debate the structural integrity of skyscrapers all you want. It is all BS. You know why? Because the man wanted you to have this conversation all along. You are being played by big brother, and you are to dim to realize that you are just a cog in the machine. I told you the real origins of 9-11. It was my grandmother and Henry Kissinger caught butt naked in a bathtub. Nobody has yet refuted my claims. They had whimsical and lurid sex right there in the tub, and somewhere between the baby oil and her sagging breasts they plotted the demise of all free men.
-------------------- Tastes just like chicken
|
monoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: JesusChrist]
#2891433 - 07/14/04 09:45 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It was my grandmother and Henry Kissinger caught butt naked in a bathtub. Nobody has yet refuted my claims
That's not possible because I was nailing your grandma that night.
-------------------- People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything... Douglas Adams
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2891468 - 07/14/04 10:01 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I was just giving my opinion of the events not intentionally ignoring yours. I do not think WTC 7 was demolished by explosives... but I have yet to look for links about it. There was a lot of confusion that day. Live amunition from Police, FBI and CIA offices were among the rubble. I imagine as soon as it looked like WTC 7 may come down, they got people away from it. But it is interesting to think it was demolished with explosives. I do not see what the big conspiracy is concerning WTC 7. It was gonna' fall. Perhaps they decided to controll the fall, perhaps they didn't, perhaps it was discussed and people got confused in the big mess. I do not think the reasons for 9-11 lie in WTC 7's rubble.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Meat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck

Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: monoamine]
#2891561 - 07/14/04 10:26 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That was you! I was the one banging Kissenger! Tag team back again. Next time I get first dibs on granny.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2891839 - 07/14/04 11:37 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said: Although I would deem it perfectly possible that the twin towers collapsed from the plane impacts (but then, I'm no expert), you've got to be honest with yourself and carefully watch that WTC 7 footage. There's absolutely no way a building could accidentally collapse in such a neat and clean way. To obtain such a flawless collapse, you just have to have a simultaneous explosion in every single one of the main foundation points. No way a bunch of diesel (!) tanks on fire could achieve the same result.
Will someone address this issue here?
I agree with those who think WTC7 is the most blatant piece of evidence that there was some kind of inside job on 9/11. I must admit the Pentagon attack is not bad either though. And then there are all those fantastical official stories: Atta's passport found quite intact among the smoking ruins of the towers, Atta trying to secure a government loan to buy a crop-duster plane, disclosing his 9/11 plans to the office clerk (do a search on "atta bryant", this story is too ridiculous), etc. etc. Face it, there's a lot of "evidence" that's obviously been planted after the facts.
Unfortunately, the truth is too much of a shock for people to see it.
im glad to see some people are going and doing their own research and not taking what the main stream feeds you. i was so against beleiving these ideas, but after reading talking to experts and seeing videos ( it was part of a project i am working on) i can in no way beleive sept 11th happened the way most of the people in this county think it did. and its sad how history can repeat its self so easly. guys look in the history books when you go and say this is just too hard to beleive. look at the fake terrorism created by nero hitler and even america in the past , just to manipulate the peoples minds.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2892325 - 07/15/04 04:03 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:I do not think WTC 7 was demolished by explosives...
I'm very sorry, but this is not about what you think or don't think, there are facts to be addressed here. Fact: the FEMA investigation commission has no clue as to what might have caused such a neat demolition. Fact: After the FEMA report, the owner of the place says it was taken down by FDNY. Fact: Taken together, the two facts above make no sense (FEMA could not have ignored this).Quote:
but I have yet to look for links about it.
Yes, that's the best thing to do, and make sure to watch the videos of that textbook controlled demolition. Look here, and here and here, and add some research of your own.Quote:
I do not see what the big conspiracy is concerning WTC 7. It was gonna' fall. Perhaps they decided to controll the fall, perhaps they didn't, perhaps it was discussed and people got confused in the big mess.
Well, again, the 'strange' thing is that the demolition was controlled, that such a controlled demolition can in no way be quick improvisation, especially not under 9/11 circumstances, and that people lied about it. Read my above posts for more details.
And I will repeat these facts until someone comes up with a logical explanation.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2892436 - 07/15/04 06:03 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry Suess, couldn't let this one slip past. Obviously you didn't play with enough fireworks as a kid. If you throw explosives into a fire, they will definitely detonate as intended 99% of the time.
Fireworks for the most part are not explosives... they do not detonate. Flash powder is the one exception, which can detonate if contained or if a lot is burned at once.
I worked for a semester in an explosives research lab in college testing the detonation velocity of new glycol based explosives for the military...
Even pure nitroglycerine will burn with a light blue flame... though it will also detonate if you aren't very careful. Most modern day explosives are designed to be very safe, which means they are designed to be very difficult to detonate. Large blasting caps and boosters are required in many cases.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2892488 - 07/15/04 06:32 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
explain the video of the fireworks factory exploding?
|
shriek
*********

Registered: 12/13/03
Posts: 3,274
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2892493 - 07/15/04 06:37 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
thats easy. storage of diffrent substances alone and combined with other stored in big amounts can easy go bang you know if there is a fire. that doesnt mean that you can mix these together and get a safe mix like seuss tells and wich is true. but a combination of things and things that havent yet been combined can be the reason for a huge explotion at a _factory. seuss is very correct when he talks about fireworks. they are not made to detonate.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: shriek]
#2892497 - 07/15/04 06:41 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I never claimed they were MADE to detonate, but that doesnt mean they DONT.
all it takes is the right air pressure, in a tight enough container to make something non explosive go boom.
We used to a blow a lot of shit up in my chem classes (smart teacher, knew how to make it 'fun' for us to want to learn) and I can safely say we blew up a lot of things that are considered 'non explosive' or 'non-flammable' It only takes the right conditions.
A skyscraper filled with air, with burning jet fuel, etc and god knows what kind of chemicals/materials inside it, could EASILY be explosive.
|
shriek
*********

Registered: 12/13/03
Posts: 3,274
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2892513 - 07/15/04 06:55 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mndfreeze said: A skyscraper filled with air, with burning jet fuel, etc and god knows what kind of chemicals/materials inside it, could EASILY be explosive.
yes i agree with that. thats what i mean, combinations of things, chemical reactions. i dont think they will be able to computer stimulate it either there are too many unknown and extreme factors, but i dont see it unlogical at all that the buildings went straight down. but saying it would be impossible is just a unlogical statement not based on anything else than speculation. in the world of physics and math its completly possible that the wtc collapsed the way it did
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2892586 - 07/15/04 07:38 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> explain the video of the fireworks factory exploding?
An explosion is not a detonation... they have very different definitions. In any case, I already did...
> Flash powder is the one exception, which can detonate if contained or if a lot is burned at once.
> I never claimed they were MADE to detonate, but that doesnt mean they DONT.
Actually, it does. Black powder, which is used in most fireworks, will not detonate. It can explode when burned while confined, but not detonate. As I said before, flash powder (a mix of KCl03 and Al), is one of the few exceptions. Because of this, flash powder is used with great care in fireworks.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2892664 - 07/15/04 08:01 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
On a side note, obviously this man was an attempted murder by our government. Because toilets just DONT EXPLODE.
derrrrrrrrrrduhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
------------------------------------
BLACKSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - Warning: smoking in the toilet can be dangerous. A portable toilet exploded Tuesday after a man who was inside it lit a cigarette.
Emergency workers said the man was not severely injured and drove himself to Clay-Battelle Community Health Center. He was later transferred to Ruby Memorial Hospital. His name and condition were not available Wednesday.
The explosion, which occurred in Blacksville, resulted from a buildup of methane gas inside the portable toilet. The methane did not "take too kindly" to the lit cigarette, said a spokeswoman for Monongalia Emergency Medical Services.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2892847 - 07/15/04 09:00 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BLACKSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - Warning: smoking in the toilet can be dangerous. A portable toilet exploded Tuesday after a man who was inside it lit a cigarette. Emergency workers said the man was not severely injured and drove himself to Clay-Battelle Community Health Center. He was later transferred to Ruby Memorial Hospital. His name and condition were not available Wednesday. The explosion, which occurred in Blacksville, resulted from a buildup of methane gas inside the portable toilet. The methane did not "take too kindly" to the lit cigarette, said a spokeswoman for Monongalia Emergency Medical Services.
When I was in high school, one of the other students stole a golfball sized chunk of sodium metal from the chemistry lab. Between classes he tossed it into a toilet to show a friend how it burned in water. As the sodium reacts with the water, large volumes of hydrogen gas are released and a lot of heat is generated. The guy paniced, and flushed the toilet to get rid of the evidence... big mistake... sodium floats on water. The toilet flushed and the chunk of sodium floated back up and got stuck under the flapper trapping the hydrogen gas and still giving off a lot of thermal energy... BOOM! The guys had run from the bathroom just seconds before the detonation (hydrogen tends to detonate rather than explode). Going back to the WTC stuff... nothing I have seen, or read, would lead me to believe that explosives were used. If explosives had been used, I would expect stories to leak out from the people that were monitoring the contamination caused by the site... they would have detected trace amounts of the explosives.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2892917 - 07/15/04 09:30 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
9:52 a.m.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."
"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way." .....
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2892933 - 07/15/04 09:38 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Another good point, all high explosives manufactured today have identifying markers in them that can be traces after detonation. Ampho may be an exception but it is not manufacture per say but usually mixed on site because of it's volatility.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2892938 - 07/15/04 09:43 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think the most damning piece of evidence to suggest some level of complacency, is the ridiculous air force response times.
Payne Stewart's private jet is intercepted about 21 minutes after it deviates from its course, yet 4 jumbo jets can fly around willy nilly for close to an hour before any fighters are scrambled, in the most watched area of airspace in the world.
.................
All four of the hijacked planes were scheduled to take off within several minutes of 8:00 a.m., though Flight 93 was delayed on the runway for 40 minutes. Flight 11 from Boston was the first plane to get hijacked. Edited transcripts of the cockpit transmissions show that the last routine communication between Flight 11 and Boston's air traffic control was at 8:13 a.m. and 47 seconds. [New York Times, 10/16/01 (C)] The loss of communication was quickly noticed - flight controllers can be heard discussing it at 8:15. Furthermore, "just moments" after the radio contact was lost, the transponder was turned off as well. [MSNBC, 9/15/01] The transponder is the electronic device that identifies the jet on the controller's screen, gives its exact location and altitude, and also allows a four-digit emergency hijack code to be sent. Boston air traffic manager Glenn Michael later said, "We considered [Flight 11] at that time to be a possible hijacking." [AP, 8/12/02]
Normally, pilots press the ELT (emergency locator transmitter) button as soon as they suspect a hijacking is in progress. This button is within easy reach. However, the pilot of Flight 11, Captain John Ogonowski, did not press this button, and nor did the pilots on Flights 77 and 93. There has been speculation that this may have been because hijackers were already in the cockpits when the hijackings began, posing as a guest pilot sitting in the cockpit's extra seat. [Fox News, 9/24/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] This would explain, for instance, why Flight 11's radio contact and transponder signal were both lost at about 8:14, while two stewardesses calling from the flight indicated the hijackers in the passenger section didn't get out of their seats until about 8:21. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, ABC News, 7/18/02] But Captain Ogonowski was clever. He began turning the talk-back button off and on, which enabled flight controllers to hear what was being said, and also showed them that something was wrong. One controller said, "The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York," and continued until about 8:38, so he must have started not long after 8:14. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01, MSNBC, 9/15/01]
Flight controllers suspected something was wrong, but perhaps were confused because the ELT button had not been activated. But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01], and the plane also was clearly off course by that time (see adjacent flight path map). As a result, at "about 8:20" Boston flight control decided that Flight 11 had probably been hijacked. [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 9/15/01 (C)] However, it did not notify NORAD or anyone else of a possible problem.
This is when the failure of America's air defense system began. FAA regulations in force at the time state, "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft." [FAA regulations] They also state, "If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." [FAA regulations] Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is "considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour" and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01] But, as ABC News later put it, around 8:20, "There doesn't seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There's a gap there that will have to be investigated." [ABC News, 9/14/01]
If there still was any doubt Flight 11 had been hijacked, that doubt was removed at 8:24. Because Captain Ogonowski was periodically holding down the talk-back button, beginning at 8:24 and 38 seconds, Boston flight controllers heard the hijackers in the cockpit broadcasting a message to the passengers: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport." A flight controller responded, ''Who's trying to call me?'' The hijacker continued, "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 (C)] A Boston flight controller later said that immediately after hearing this voice, he "knew right then that he was working a hijack." [Village Voice, 9/13/01] At 8:25 exactly, seconds after hearing this message, Boston flight control notified other flight control centers of the hijacking. But, supposedly, once again it did not notify NORAD. Incredibly, NORAD asserts that it wasn't told of the hijacking until 8:40 - a full 15 minutes later! [NORAD, 9/18/01]
Larry Arnold, NORAD Commander on 9/11, testifying before the 9/11 Commission. [C-SPAN] These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let's say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, "Go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later" [ABC News, 9/11/02], so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
|
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, "Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD." [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, "This looks like the real thing." Duffy later said, "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way." A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us." Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster - far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, "The pilots flew 'like a scalded ape,' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner." [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2892942 - 07/15/04 09:44 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> Ampho
Anfo... amonium nitrate/fuel oil...
> all high explosives manufactured today have identifying markers in them
Is this true? I haven't been in the industry for over ten years, but I remember it was a huge debate back when I was... the companies were complaining about the extra costs, lack of need, side effects, etc... From what I remember, it wasn't going anywhere at the time, but a lot can change in ten years...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2892950 - 07/15/04 09:48 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mndfreeze said: A skyscraper filled with air, with burning jet fuel, etc and god knows what kind of chemicals/materials inside it, could EASILY be explosive.
except that none of those buildings exploded....
they all just kind of crumbled in on themselves, and in quite an orderly fashion at that.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
|
What is NORAD hiding with these conflicting notification times, and absurd "scalded ape" statements? Remarkably, it is possible that the story of fighters scrambling from Otis could be a complete fabrication. Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers was the acting head of the US military on 9/11 because the Chairman was out of contact on an international flight. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Two days after 9/11, under oath and in front of a Congressional committee, Myers was asked when the order to scramble planes was first given. He responded, "That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck [at 9:37]." [Myers Senate Confirmation Hearing, 9/13/01] If true, the claim that fighters were ordered scrambled at 8:46 is incorrect by almost one hour! This idea was not simply Myers's confused recollection. The next day, NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed that no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. Only then did the military realize the scope of the attack and order fighters into the air. [Boston Globe, 9/15/01 (D)] NORAD's current story of two fighters being scrambled at 8:46 was first reported on CBS Evening News on September 14, hours after Snyder agreed with Myers's assertions. [CBS, 9/14/01] But even after that, in early October 2001, NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart stated, "We did not anticipate this threat would take off from inside the United States and it would be a matter of double-digit minutes" to respond. [AP, 10/7/01] So in other words, even though NORAD fighters were supposed to be able to take to the sky within 15 minutes of being ordered to do so, NORAD claimed it was unable to respond unless it was warned more than an hour (or does he mean 99 minutes?) in advance!
There is much more here http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essayairdefense.html
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2892987 - 07/15/04 09:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.
?I am not a metallurgist,? Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2893025 - 07/15/04 10:09 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't think that looked right. I guess a lot of people misspell it because it turns up plenty of links. Anyway, maybe not all explosive manufacturers, but The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 requires detection agents for plastic explosives. These are based on isotope labeling. Other tagging options as suggested by The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) are discussed. These include multicolored, multilayered plastic particles, rare-earth elements, isotopically labeled trace components, inert chemicals identifiable by specific antibodies, polymeric microbeads, and slow release microcapsules containing perfluorodimethylcyclohexane or perfluoromethylcyclohexane to enhance detectability. But even still a thorough chemical evaluation can point to a specific manufacturer or process. If explosives were used there would be some sort of residue that could be traced. The intelligence community closely tracks worldwide manufacturers and the chemical composition of their product. If there is a bombing anywhere in the world that the CIA didn't orchestrate them they will do everything they can to get the who's and how's of it.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: afoaf]
#2893028 - 07/15/04 10:10 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said:
Quote:
mndfreeze said: A skyscraper filled with air, with burning jet fuel, etc and god knows what kind of chemicals/materials inside it, could EASILY be explosive.
except that none of those buildings exploded....
they all just kind of crumbled in on themselves, and in quite an orderly fashion at that.
well that just rules out the above theory that we purposly blew them up doesnt it?
skyscrapers are designed to fall straight down. I'm pretty sure it was discovery that did a special on skyscrapers, I think in one of their series about mankinds uber acomplishments or something. I saw it maybe 5 or 6 years ago. Unless of course, that was all part of a huge disinformation plot to set the stage for wtc!
</tinfoil>
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
FrankieJustTrypt said: While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.
?I am not a metallurgist,? Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.
I bet Mr. Moore (or any number of groups pushing the constiracy theory) did some testing. If not then why didn't they? There was plenty of time to get samples. I suspect they knew they would not find anything. If I suspected something, a chemical analysis whould be one of the first things to do. Forensics rock!
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2893114 - 07/15/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:I do not think WTC 7 was demolished by explosives...
I'm very sorry, but this is not about what you think or don't think, there are facts to be addressed here. Fact: the FEMA investigation commission has no clue as to what might have caused such a neat demolition. Fact: After the FEMA report, the owner of the place says it was taken down by FDNY. Fact: Taken together, the two facts above make no sense (FEMA could not have ignored this).Quote:
but I have yet to look for links about it.
Yes, that's the best thing to do, and make sure to watch the videos of that textbook controlled demolition. Look here, and here and here, and add some research of your own.Quote:
I do not see what the big conspiracy is concerning WTC 7. It was gonna' fall. Perhaps they decided to controll the fall, perhaps they didn't, perhaps it was discussed and people got confused in the big mess.
Well, again, the 'strange' thing is that the demolition was controlled, that such a controlled demolition can in no way be quick improvisation, especially not under 9/11 circumstances, and that people lied about it. Read my above posts for more details. And I will repeat these facts until someone comes up with a logical explanation.
Wow, for a public forum, you sure seem to know a lot about what I can and can not say. A political forum no less... where opinions are often given in high doses. Here's the most rediculious thing I have ever heard: Airplanes knocked down the WTC towers so WTC 7 could be secretely demolished in a controled explosion. You want links, you want facts, but you do not want media links... so I am limited to conspiracy links that are sooo loony I won't surf through them (I lived too close to the WTC when it fell to surf through all the conspiracy links... they can piss me off quickly. Not saying I believe Bush's side either, but I call bullshit when I smell it.). I have looked at the links you presented. So... if I can't use news links, and I won't use conspiracy links... I am only left with tools like common sense and logic... which you said you wanted. Here goes. I will repeat my logic from earlier posts, and perhaps you will address my points this time instead of bitching that I am not playing by the rules. 1. The WTC towers fell from airplanes... they towers fell from above. From the top down. 2. The towers caused fire and damage to most of the surrounding buildings. That only one other skyscraper fell in the aftermath is AMAZING considering how many buildings were near and how much damage was done. 3. Considering this is the only event of this type in history, why are we all suddenly experts about how a skyscraper should fall? 4. There was good reason to take the building down in a controled fassion if it was going to fall anyway. So a controled demolition is certainly understandible. But it would have been a danger to the demolition workers. It probably WAS discussed on 9-11. It probably never happened. This is how rumors can start. 5. Why would someone risk a controlled detonation if the building they were going to take down was going to be destroyed anyway? 6. Ground zero on 9-11 was very confusing. Many people were saying stuff that wasn't true. Many were confused. It was a LOUD and scary day. Communication channels were stressed to their limits. At the time, over 10,000 people were suspected dead. At the time, people didn't know for sure who attacked us. At the time, finding survivors was the primary goal. At the time FIREMEN, POLICE, EMT and INDEPENDANT CONTRACTORS and VOLUNTEERS were the majority of the people on the scene. The FEDS weren't even close to being in control of the situation at the time... FEDS were spread thin because their HEADQUARTERS in DC was also attacked that day... and even governmental flights were restricted. Do you really think the Police, Firemen, EMT's and independant contractor/volunteers would have kept information secret... especially if it helped uncover who was responsible that day? ESPECIALLY since people would pay good $$$ for such information! 7. Since WTC 7 fell from the bottom up, it looked like it could have been demolished with explosives... but that is how big buildings fall when their bottom support gives out. I remember the moment WTC 7 fell, phones went out for three months in my hood... because the phone company offices were in that building. 8. Demolished or not, WTC 7 would have come down... just like the rest of the WTC site.... either from the terrorist attacks, or during the clean up afterwards. 9. If terrorists, or spooks intended to demolish WTC 7 with explosives... Why were workers given plenty of notice to get out of the area before it came down? BIG CONSPIRACY. Everybody knew it was coming down. The news reported it. Everybody cleared the area. WTC 7 toppled. Nobody (else) was hurt. So if it was a big secret that WTC was gonna' fall in a controled detonation, WHY DID EVERYONE KNOW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? Who cares if it fell from damage or was demolished? It is obvious people knew it was going to fall... they had a good idea when it was going to fall. The only issue is WHAT caused it to fall. Either damage from the towers which caused a fire, or from a controled demolition set off to bring down an already doomed structure. 10. Where's the conspiracy? There. Please adress some of these issues... instead of casting them all aside because I don't play by your rules.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2893519 - 07/15/04 01:30 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Wow, you really don't understand my point, do you?
I'll try to spell it out for you even more clearly. I will write the facts and plain logic in normal text, and the 'conspiracy afterthoughts' between square brackets.
There's no debate about what caused the collapse: it WAS controlled demolition. The owner said so, and it is absolutely evident from the footage. OK, that's established, there's no argument here. (That's why I said this is not a matter of 'I think...'. Don't take it personally.)
BUT... there are a few problems.
1. Agreed, 9/11 was a hectic day, very confusing. That's why, after events like that, they appoint official investigation committees to sort things out. They have all the time in the world, and supposedly, access to all the evidence they wish. Despite that, FEMA could not find a logical (and acceptable) reason for the collapse. They just didn't know, after months of investigation. [Of course, you don't need to be an expert to see that the collapse was obviously controlled, but for more than a year, the official stance was that the collapse was spontaneous, despite the admitted low probability. Later on, when more people started to notice the absurdity, the owner changed the official truth.] Surely, if the FDNY had 'pulled' the building, FEMA would have known. The FDNY is hardly an obscure and elusive source, they would be the first to tell FEMA. But there's nothing of the sort in the FEMA report. [Surely if the FDNY was responsible, firefighters would have shown up by now to testify they gave the order to tear down the building, but I have seen none.]
2. After more than a year, the owner of the building changes the story. The FDNY took down the building, he says, because it was going to fall anyway. There you have it, you would think, an explanation at last. But did FEMA pick up that version? Not that I know of. Why? Because they know it's not realistic to claim that the FDNY sent firefighters into a building whose base was allegedly so much on fire that it threatened to collapse, to strap explosives to the deepest basement foundations in order to secure controlled demolition. Access was probably near impossible, as would have been the improvised planning of the demolition. [And still, if it was possible, they would have found the firefighters who did the job or ordered it done, but where are they?] Furthermore, where was the emergency? The area was cleared, and nearby buildings were extremely damaged anyway. They could have done it in the next few days or just let it go down by itself.
So we're left with two versions: the official one ("a mysterious, nearly impossible collapse"), and the owner's ("controlled demolition planned after the WTC attack because of the damage"). Neither is really possible. [There is a third version, actually. The explosives were placed beforehand, and the controlled demolition was planned in advance, hopefully to go unnoticed as such in the midst of all the events.]
Quote:
Airplanes knocked down the WTC towers so WTC 7 could be secretely demolished in a controled explosion.
No, WTC7 was not the main aim (as the subsequent oil wars have shown), but a welcome side target.
Quote:
The WTC towers fell from airplanes... they towers fell from above. From the top down.
I fully agree with that. Never said anything different.
Quote:
That only one other skyscraper fell in the aftermath is AMAZING considering how many buildings were near and how much damage was done.
The opposite is true. The amazing thing is WTC7 went down from just fire. Read some specialized firefighters' websites.
Quote:
Ground zero on 9-11 was very confusing.
Exactly, that's one reason why planning controlled demolition (which happened) on the spot was impossible. But confusion on the day itself doesn't prevent an investigation committee to determine what happened that day, specially if it has unlimited access and time.
Quote:
I remember the moment WTC 7 fell, phones went out for three months in my hood... because the phone company offices were in that building.
I really wonder what this is supposed to show us.
Quote:
If terrorists, or spooks intended to demolish WTC 7 with explosives... Why were workers given plenty of notice to get out of the area before it came down?
Apparently, the intent was not to kill even more people, but to wipe out sensitive contents of the building. Anyway, it's not because it's obvious something looks suspicious that I can tell you exactly why and how everything happened. All I can say is the official truth is too flawed to be true truth. I'm ready to accept any logical explanation, and certainly one that doesn't involve any conspiracy. But it does have to be logical...
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2893670 - 07/15/04 02:27 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Now we're getting on the same page. Yes, there was a lot of Top secret stuff in the building. High tech equiptment... The phone company was in there too (not relevant to you, but it was to me... that is when I lost the internet for three months). Because of WTC 7's proximity to the rubble of the twin towers, and because of the level of destruction, it may have been in the government's best interest to take the building down, or risk a security breach. All kinds of criminal evidence from federal cases went up in smoke that day. There was forensic evidence, confiscated drugs, unused firearms and amunition (some unused ammo was already exploding before WTC 7's collapse. I imagine more went off during and after)... the city's brand new high tech crisis center was inside WTC 7. It would be days, weeks... months before WTC 7 could be safely secured. So there were many logical reasons to take WTC 7 down in a hurry. There are many reasons to keep it seceret as well. It is best if you do not have to admit what top secret information was lost that day. Keeps things top secret. As for FEMA, I had to deal with them in the aftermath. IMO they were unhelpful twats. That said, it is not their job to take down buildings, I am not surprised they don't have more info... it doesn't seem to be their job (nor is it their area of expertice). They are the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They put things back together, they don't take them apart. At least that's what they want you to think... I'd tend to believe the firefighter's version... although "Impending collapse," does sound a little fishy to me... I believe the FDNY did it. Of all people, NYPD Firemen would not have a reason to lie or cover up the events of that day. It is simply not in their best interest. They were hit the hardest. They were in the most control of Ground Zero on that day. They have the ability to demolish buildings. They know when buildings are likely to fall from structural damage.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2893679 - 07/15/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mntlfngrs said:
Quote:
FrankieJustTrypt said: While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.
?I am not a metallurgist,? Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.
I bet Mr. Moore (or any number of groups pushing the constiracy theory) did some testing. If not then why didn't they? There was plenty of time to get samples. I suspect they knew they would not find anything. If I suspected something, a chemical analysis whould be one of the first things to do. Forensics rock!
First off, Mr. Moore expresses the viewpoint that the towers were brought down by Osama Bin Laden and his airplanes.
Secondly, what are you talking about "there was plenty of time to get samples"??? Was FEMA handing out free samples?
In this particular case, steel from the subterranean levels of the building would be required, which was buried at the bottom of the rubble. I really don't think after weeks of FEMA controlled clean-up someone would be able to waltz in and carry off a (probably hundreds and hundreds of pounds at the smallest) hunk of steel. If you believe that to be probable I don't know what to tell you. Like stated above, FEMA sold basically all of the steel before testing it. Who knows what steal was sold and what was tested(and what those test results said). If you can find actual test results using FOIA or what not, please share.
------------------------
I'm going to review real quick:
Unprecedented incompetence regarding aerial response time to 4 hijacked planes.. more than a few contradictions as well.
Towers were built to withstand being hit by commercial airliners.
"we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor"
Huge seismic spikes recorded at University of Columbia,
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.
?The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,? the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of ?literally molten steel? at the World Trade Center.
FEMA quickly gets rid of the steel, releases no data from the tests done on few remaining samples.
--------------
I just can't, in good conscience, believe the "official" story. There are too many highly unprobable, unproven, and "coincidental" factors.
Also, this story is coming from members of the habitual liars club - The US gov't.
Other things to consider:
US/World economy faltering
Oil production peaking. Starting to get less abundant and more expensive.
Is it too much to believe that the worlds best businessmen would make a 3000 live/2 skyscraper investment, to ensure the survival of an entire countries way of life. To make sure that your children can live as comfortably as you did? This is real life. This isn't TV media wonderland. Its RISK, its chess... Realpolitik.
Whether you are sick of the oil argument or not. It is important as hell to the survival of our current way of life. Nothing can replace it. And right now we are at the top of the oil-production bell curve, its only going to get more expensive. When oil gets more expensive, everything does, as basically everything in our society and economy is dependent on oil in some form.
We have some oil in our and our allies territory, but the jackpot is in the mid-east. If that oil falls out our sphere of influence we can kiss our economic domination goodbye along with our decadent and comfortable way of life. We need to westernize that territory above those oil wells, to ensure that the western economy can utilize that oil.
I don't care if you agree or not, but I can tell you, this isn't the fun-and-easy fairy tale the gov't/media has painted for you to make it easier to accept. This is power politics(the only politics that matter) and this is the way things are done.
If enjoy your cushy job, stocked supermarkets, and endless entertainment, you'll understand.
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2893728 - 07/15/04 02:55 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So there were many logical reasons to take WTC 7 down in a hurry.
Explain how this would be done. The building was on fire, and it takes much longer to plan.Quote:
That said, it is not their job to take down buildings, I am not surprised they don't have more info...
Read what I wrote. I never said FEMA took it down, the FDNY allegedly did. I AM surprised they don't have more info, since they were in charge of the investigation. (I'm writing all this for, like, the FOURTH time, please pay attention.)Quote:
I'd tend to believe the firefighter's version... [...] I believe the FDNY did it.
Believe what you will, but don't dress up your beliefs as arguments. Quote:
Of all people, NYPD Firemen would not have a reason to lie or cover up the events of that day.
Exactly, that's why they would have admitted to it if they had done it, but I have seen no such admission, just the landlord's allegation.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2893754 - 07/15/04 03:04 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
because there was no obvious EXPLOSION does not mean, per se, that their destruction wasn't *helped* along.
when buildings are purposely destroyed, they don't explode either, they just kind of crumble in on themselves similar to WTC 1, 2 and 7.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2893781 - 07/15/04 03:18 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Jesus Christ dude. I see what you are trying to say... and every time I attempt to answer you, you ignore everything I say. Not only that, you insult me in the process.
The firefighters have no reason to lie about what they did. They all lost friends that day. They were in charge of ground zero at the time. Why would they lie? What good would it do them or their dead friends? It doesn't make sense.
Please read my post again if you must and take your own advice. Calm down.
Please stop telling me not to dress my beliefs as arguments. This, being the P & A forum, is exactly the place to do just that. Dressing up beliefs as arguments is all you are doing in this case as well. Connecting the dots... that's what we do in here. Stop insulting my right to do that. It makes your argument look weak.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
|
Alright Moore doesn't push conspiracy but look at the footage and materials he manages to get his hands on. I don't know how he gets his hands on that stuff either. There were plenty of construction workes there who actually did the work. Don't tell me that with a little money that someone couldn't have gotten a few samples. If there was real suspicion then they could track that rubble to India if need be and get some. Unless you tell me that every worker was a loyal FEMA emplooyee and there were loyal FEMA armed guards on evey truck that carried shit away from the site, I have to think that samples were available to anyone with a will to test them. A few lawyers could have done the trick too I bet.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2893822 - 07/15/04 03:37 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This really looks like a dialogue between deaf people...Quote:
The firefighters have no reason to lie about what they did. They all lost friends that day. They were in charge of ground zero at the time. Why would they lie? What good would it do them or their dead friends? It doesn't make sense.
I KNOW, that's what I said, for heaven's sake. They never lied. They never said they took the building down, because no-one ever asked and they didn't do it in the first place. THEY NEVER LIED. We agree about that.
Agreed about beliefs-arguments. I take that back.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2894211 - 07/15/04 05:24 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
OK... then this begs an obvious question... If we are in agreement, what the hell are you arguing about? I don't understand the BIG issue. What does this have to do with terrorism? What does this have to do with oil? FEMA? Don't get your panties in a wad just yet. I think we can discuss this with civility.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2895987 - 07/16/04 02:55 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What I'm saying is the only logical explanation I can find, is that the explosives for the controlled demolition of WTC7 were placed there before the attack, which at least suggests some kind of inside job. FEMA covered this up in their investigation report. That's all I'm saying.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: afoaf]
#2896012 - 07/16/04 03:30 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said: because there was no obvious EXPLOSION does not mean, per se, that their destruction wasn't *helped* along.
when buildings are purposely destroyed, they don't explode either, they just kind of crumble in on themselves similar to WTC 1, 2 and 7.
discovery also has a nice series on this company that does controlled demolition. Every single building I watched them drop contained a pretty obvious explosion.
|
st0nedphucker
Rogue State

Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Towers were built to withstand being hit by commercial airliners.
I recall seeing a documentary about the collapse of the Twin Towers last year, the name escapes me but it did quite a good job at explaining how and why the towers collapsed.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
The towers were built to withstand the impact of the biggest airliner of the time... the Boeing 707. Since then, much bigger airliners have been built.
A 707 is very small compared to the boeing 757's that ultimately took the towers down.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2896579 - 07/16/04 10:24 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said: What I'm saying is the only logical explanation I can find, is that the explosives for the controlled demolition of WTC7 were placed there before the attack, which at least suggests some kind of inside job. FEMA covered this up in their investigation report. That's all I'm saying.
This is not the conspiracy you are looking for... move along.
If it was a secret, inside job, why did everyone know when it was coming down?
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2898747 - 07/16/04 11:58 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said: The towers were built to withstand the impact of the biggest airliner of the time... the Boeing 707. Since then, much bigger airliners have been built.
A 707 is very small compared to the boeing 757's that ultimately took the towers down.
you cant trust the friggin media. its sad that what ever is in a documentry or the news is always fact. lazy scumy american bastards do your own research
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2899131 - 07/17/04 03:09 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
With your valuable research, please prove the above mentioned point wrong.
Discovery is overall, pretty good about not selling bullshit in its documentaries. The one I saw on skyscrapers, I think called modern marvels, or something similar, was done WAY before 9/11.
But thats right, its all some conspiracy.
I mean, its just not logical that when designing a multi billion dollar building that is ranked in the tallest in the world, in a busy air traffic area, that a plane might just fly into it. They also dont take that into account when building other super tall structures. you know, like radio towers with the nice blinky lights on them so PLANES CAN SEE THEM.
tinfoil, seek it.
|
Fungushead
Carnivore

Registered: 03/04/04
Posts: 243
Loc: Washington State
Last seen: 15 years, 2 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2899259 - 07/17/04 06:35 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I haven't made *whatever* for a long time. I remember the shards of glass in my face
-------------------- 2004: The year telemarketing started to shrivel up like a cold pair of nuts.
Edited by pinksharkmark (07/19/04 03:04 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Barbi]
#2899454 - 07/17/04 09:21 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mndfreeze said:
Quote:
afoaf said: because there was no obvious EXPLOSION does not mean, per se, that their destruction wasn't *helped* along.
when buildings are purposely destroyed, they don't explode either, they just kind of crumble in on themselves similar to WTC 1, 2 and 7.
discovery also has a nice series on this company that does controlled demolition. Every single building I watched them drop contained a pretty obvious explosion.
Could it be because they used explosives?
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Fungushead]
#2899805 - 07/17/04 01:12 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> I haven't made *whatever* for a long time. You probably have never made *whatever*. If anything, you made *edited by pinky* *Completely off-topic and likely to attract unwanted federal attention.*
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
Edited by pinksharkmark (07/19/04 03:03 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2899983 - 07/17/04 02:36 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
which can be set of with the touch of a feather when dry, but it is fairly stable when wet
The exact opposite of my lady...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2900626 - 07/17/04 06:44 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
o yeah and why the hell did the spire on the secound tower vaporize as the building came down. i t was clear to see on all the videos it went from steal to dust and the media didnt even mention it . fuck them. man they used some fucked up unknown technoligie to make that happen
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2900635 - 07/17/04 06:47 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
man they used some fucked up unknown technoligie to make that happen
Wow. Not much else to say.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Psilygirl
cyan goddess


Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2900656 - 07/17/04 06:57 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
who's to say you're media "sources" aren't a conspiracy either? 
some people just love controversy, huh. no wonder we cant ever get anywhere in important issues--all sorts of bullshit gets in the way, from all parties. blah.
-------------------- "Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows." Puget Sound Mycological Society
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Psilygirl]
#2900668 - 07/17/04 07:01 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly. People who trust independent media sources are no smarter than people who trust CNN.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2900890 - 07/17/04 09:00 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I haven't made *whatever* for a long time. You probably have never made *whatever*. If anything, you made *edited by pinky*
Combine it with a lil *edited*
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
Edited by pinksharkmark (07/19/04 03:06 PM)
|
daba
Stranger


Registered: 12/30/02
Posts: 3,881
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2903983 - 07/18/04 10:36 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This tug-of-war debate just drives me insane. What is wrong with this world...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: d33p]
#2904674 - 07/19/04 06:48 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Combine it with *whatever*
That is stupid. If I put jet fuel in your car, do you think it can fly? You have to use *edit by seuss: look it up yourself*, not *whatever*... what you are almost describing was a *different whatever* used by the Germans during WWII. What you are recommending people do would detonate on contact, potentially killing somebody. The emulsion you described is completely inert (from an explosives standpoint) without the addition of *edit by seuss: look yourself*. Explosives are dangerous. I see no difference in what you are telling people and telling somebody that it is safe to shoot up 10grams of heroin. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation! *note from pinky* This is ridiculous. None of this little side conversation has any political implications relevant to the topic of this thread. Time to move on -- pinky
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
Edited by pinksharkmark (07/19/04 03:10 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2905784 - 07/19/04 03:29 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This is ridiculous. None of this little side conversation has any political implications relevant to the topic of this thread. Time to move on -- pinky
I agree... and my apologies. I tend to miss the big picture when I see misinformation that might be deadly to others.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: d33p]
#2906528 - 07/19/04 07:42 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, i was only being 50% serious. I just expected the members of this forum to be responsible enough to handle my post. My mistake.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2906699 - 07/19/04 08:57 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
just face it the overnment took down the Oklahoma fedral building , they burned allot of people up in wayco for no good reson and after 2 tries they killed thousands in the world trade center. when you look at the facts and do some research with a full opened mind the facts will amaze you, but the fear will keep you from believing it until you relise their is no need for fear and revolutions are always possible
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2906788 - 07/19/04 09:40 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Serriously Zombi all of us at The Shroomery are getting worried about you.
Stop drinking the crazy juice.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: d33p]
#2906799 - 07/19/04 09:50 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
remember my freind truth isnt measured in mass apeal
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2906823 - 07/19/04 10:06 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately your "truths" have been made with a few too many cups of crazy.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2906833 - 07/19/04 10:09 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Here's your problem: You question mainstream information(good), but you accept as gospel ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated nonsense(bad). The sooner you learn to question EVERYTHING, the better off you will be.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: d33p]
#2906850 - 07/19/04 10:16 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i have learned to accept that my beleifs may end up having me labeled as crazy but i will go with my inner feelings and my own knowledge and will not let others opinions and personal desisions conform me to one side or the other on any desision. i will make my own path in life
|
John
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2907074 - 07/19/04 11:34 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
just wanted to mention that molten steal proves absolutly nothing. even if NASA's AVIRUS only recorded tempatures of around 1,300F+ and the steals melting point was 2,500F+. See it ignores the defention of tempature. You are measuring the AVERAGE heat. I dunno if you've had any college physics courses but to simplfly it, you have all these molocules scattering about, they move faster the hotter they get. They bump into each other during this process, when that happens you can have one come to almost a complete stop while another absorbs all of it's energy because it transfered it's energy. similar to those rows of 5 balls that hang and when the outer one hits it only moves the outer one on the otherside. Therefore it's perfectly resonable that actual heat rose above 2,500F if you have anysort of education which kinda makes the orginal writer of that artice look pretty ignorant to me.
If you don't believe me think of this; All the oceans of the world never get hotter than 35C (actually i don't even think it's that high) water boils at 100C right? So how do billions of gallons evaporate everyday from the ocean if water absolutly cannot turn into vapor until heated to 100C (and actually takes more energy than that to break the hydrogen bonds) ???
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2907529 - 07/20/04 02:50 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying that although the average temperature was 1300F it jumped occasionally to 2,500F which was enough to cause the steel to melt?
As for water in the ocean, the reason it evaporates is due to the vapour pressure of water.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2907557 - 07/20/04 03:30 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well i have posted this same post on anumber of boards on the net and i have to say i have learned. i sold the people of america short, i thought almost everyone was with medias veiw of things and way beyond seeing or even considering the facts as they truely are. well with your and others debates it has shown me truth always has a way of getting though to the truely open and enlightened ones
|
John
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: GazzBut]
#2907763 - 07/20/04 08:21 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Are you saying that although the average temperature was 1300F it jumped occasionally to 2,500F which was enough to cause the steel to melt?
something like that, not that the entire area jumped to 2,500F+ that a number of molocules could have easily and eventually (couple days/weeks) made a big ole puddle of molten steel.
Quote:
As for water in the ocean, the reason it evaporates is due to the vapour pressure of water.
Vapor Pressure? The water from the ocean evaporates because molocules of water rise to and above 100C, you can have a few other molocules at like 10C and it will make the tempature reading somewhere around 30C in the tropics during summer, from there it takes 540 calories to break the hydrogen bonds, when the water condenses it's engery is trasferred to power things such as lightning, hurricanes, wind, and various other weather stuff. also water evaporates from kitchen floors when mopped and your skin when you sweat all because some of the molocules reach their vapor point (100C) and got the nessary other 540 calories from solar energy to break the hydrogen bonds
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2907783 - 07/20/04 08:38 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Im sorry but I think you are wrong. Here is an explanation I found of why water evaporates outside: "There's an awful lot of room for water molecules in the air. Any that happen to fly up in the air are very unlikely to return once they wander a bit away from the starting place. Unless there are already a lot of water molecules in the air, the flow will be one way, from the liquid to the gas. In order to keep there from being net evaporation, there miust be a flow back from the air to the water. The concentration of water molecules in the air is often given by the relative humidity. At 100% relative humidity, the flow of molecules from a cup of water into the air will just balance the flow from the air to the cup, if they're both at the same temperature. It's true that the rate at which the water molecules leaves goes up quickly as the water gets hotter and the rate at which the molecules returns only goes up a little as the air gets hotter. So the evaporation is much faster when the water is hotter, and 100 % relative humidity means a higher concentration of water in the air when it's hot than when it's cold. So that's probably where the impression arises that water shouldn't evaporate when it's cold."
According to this explanation water will evaporate quicker at higher temps but certainly does not need to reach 100c.
Im afraid I find it very hard to believe your explanation regarding molten steel if you dont even know how water evaporates!! To be fair, I only knew by doing a quick google
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2908018 - 07/20/04 09:57 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What caused the heat to rise so high? I've been trying to make steel melt all morning using kerosene, paper, and rugs in an oxygen poor environment, with no luck...
I think I'll try thermite next.
-------------------- If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
trendal
Jâ™


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2908093 - 07/20/04 10:38 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Talking about a "few molecules" happening to randomly bump themselves up in temperature is far different than talking about pools of molten steel...
Have you ever seen water boil on its own through random increases in the temperature of single molecules?
Then what makes yout think that steel would melt because of a few random increases in temperature?
Also: note that the increase in this manner has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the average or total temperature of the mass itself (other than evaporating water...which actually cools down the remaining liquid water)...so there is no way that over a few weeks time steel could increase it's temperature in the way you suggest.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: GazzBut]
#2908594 - 07/20/04 01:18 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I have to agree. Consider that sometimes it rains but the water never reaches the ground. The water vapor in the air that is the source of rain is not 100c+. Water can evap at any temp between the dewpoint and boiling as long as relative humidity is below 100%. At 100% RH evaporation does not stop but the rate of evaporation equals the rate of condensation.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
John
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: GazzBut]
#2908993 - 07/20/04 03:01 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sorry but I know you are wrong 
All that expalins is what happens after water becomes vaporized not what caused it to be vaporized.
Each water molocule is hydrogen-bonded to adjacent molocules, heat energy is required to break those bonds and allow the molocule to fly away from the surface, it dosn't just happen because the air dosn't have a RH of 100%. Simple example of hydrogen bonds, Surface tension: small bugs can walk on the surface of the water, try it with anything else (ammonia, tolouene ect.) they will sink; why? Hydrogen bonds. Put a glass of water in the low-humidity drawer in your fridge and get back to me when it has evaporated. It will take years because the fridge slows the molocules, therefore reducing the number that reach 100C. The hydrogen bonds MUST be broken in order for water (liquid) to turn to vapor. This takes a total of about 780 calories per gram of water.
Calorie = the amount of heat required to rase the tempature of 1 gram of pure water by 1C. This is where you come in trendal 
Quote:
Have you ever seen water boil on its own through random increases in the temperature of single molecules?
Okay now i said a calorie is the amount to heat 1g of water 1C, so why is it that i also said water wouldn't turn to a vapor until about 780 calories (per g water)? shouldn't the water be 780C if 780 calories of energy were used to heat it? hmm, seems strange. I guess those hydrogen bonds are coming into play again eh? It's called the latent heat of vaporazation and water's is extraordanly high, way higher than steels. That's why water dosn't boil on it's own. Plus as you say it dosn't change the tempature, but tempature is a measure of the average heat. you can have water vapor at 140C and liquid at 35C and the tempature would be ~87.5C not hot enough to boil if you had another pan above it in an enclosed area it would boil the water there... how can 87.5C water boil more water when it itself isn't boiling? Well the tempature of the vapor is above the boiling point and when water condenses all that energy you used to break the hydrogen bonds is released (ala lightning, hurricanes, wind, ect.)
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2911582 - 07/21/04 08:19 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ha! You could be right you know!! One thing though - if the Average temperature of the steel was 1300 isnt it highly unlikely that enough molecules would have reached the required temperature to reduce the steel to a puddle? Doesnt the reaction slow every time one of these molecules escapes? And as the required temperature is so far above the average isnt it unlikely that enough molecules would have reached that temperature to allow the steel to melt?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (07/21/04 08:26 AM)
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2911894 - 07/21/04 10:19 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sorry but you are wrong. evaporation is a surface phenomenon - some molecules have enough kinetic energy to escape. Since the molecular kinetic energy is greater at higher temperature, more molecules can escape the surface. 100c is boiling at SEA LEVEL but boiling at a higher altitude is less than 100c. Therefore evaporation is not a function of temperature. How does your fruiting chamber reach 90%RH when it is well below 100c? When you PC your jars water does not boil in there at 100c.
Evap directly relates to molecular kinetic energy an indirectly to temp. There is a degree of separation there.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
John
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2912887 - 07/21/04 03:55 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Each water molocule is hydrogen-bonded to adjacent molocules, heat energy is required to break those bonds and allow the molocule to fly away from the surface. Period. Of course if you change the pressure the boiling point will go up or down, what was that susposed to prove? Re fruiting chamber: the same way water evaporates for the ocean when it never goes above 35C. I'm not going to contine this arguement, it is after all a political forum (my fault, i know). My Physics professor (Ph.D.) tends to disagree with you though...
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: John]
#2912952 - 07/21/04 04:23 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You specifically said "The water from the ocean evaporates because molocules of water rise to and above 100C".
And that specifically is not true.
It is true that it takes a certain amount of energy to break the bond but you must use the correct energy measure (which you did when you dropped temp and started using calories.
peace.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 11 years, 3 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2912957 - 07/21/04 04:25 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mntlfngrs said: I'm sorry but you are wrong. evaporation is a surface phenomenon - some molecules have enough kinetic energy to escape. Since the molecular kinetic energy is greater at higher temperature, more molecules can escape the surface. 100c is boiling at SEA LEVEL but boiling at a higher altitude is less than 100c. Therefore evaporation is not a function of temperature. How does your fruiting chamber reach 90%RH when it is well below 100c? When you PC your jars water does not boil in there at 100c. Evap directly relates to molecular kinetic energy an indirectly to temp. There is a degree of separation there.
Wow yall is dumb. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy. So basically John is right but he explanned it using the wrong term. Each particle that escapes technically could be described as being 100C beacuse it has that ammount of KE but it cant be measured really. Its kind of a strech, not something a scientist would say.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
Edited by d33p (07/21/04 04:30 PM)
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: d33p]
#2912989 - 07/21/04 04:37 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said: Wow yall is dumb. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy. So basically John is right but he explanned it used the wrong term. Each particle that escapes technically could be described as being 100C beacuse it has that ammount of KE but it cant be measured really. Its kind of a strech, not something a scientist would say.
Don't you mean "technically should not be described as being" Technically he is part right and and so are the rest of us. Evap doesn't happen because water = 100c=+. There is more to it. otherwise wouldn't boiling point be 100c regardless of altitude?
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
Edited by mntlfngrs (07/21/04 04:39 PM)
|
|