Hello Guest, please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Login with username, password and session length.

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: World Trade Center  (Read 4652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2006, 01:01:27 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Have you read this: it is a conspiracy that the conspiracy is a conspiracy.  Believe it!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

I look at all points of view, so I like to bring up other information to balance sides or arguments.  I think the 9/11 movie is going to be bad though; I just do not like films that make money on tragedy.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2006, 01:10:21 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Did you even go to the source that I posted?  I know your conspiracy theories, but do you know things explaned from another scientific perspective. 
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2006, 01:11:11 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6206
I believe 9/11 was an inside job. I believe, with supported evidence, that the 2 towers were brought down by thermite charges, aka explosive devices, planted on or near the structural steel (supports) of the building. (Controlled Demolition)
It is not a theory, it is proven by video footage of the building showing spiffs and thermite dripping, the very fact that the fires were short lived and not hot enough to melt the steel, the manner in which the buildings collapsed (free-fall speed, into its own foot print),
examination of the steel showing ingredients of thermite present, a huge cloud of very fine dust, and most importantly the eye witnesses and media said they heard, felt, or saw explosions. So they must be present in the movie to be accurate. If the movie is not accurate, it is bad. So I hope that the movie acknowledges explosives going off in the building just before and during the collapse.
I believe that too!
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2006, 01:12:25 am »
  • Why am I so indisicive?
  • *
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 179
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UAMX_LmeDnQ&mode=related&search=
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1539581909023898390&q=demolition

See the dust cloud?


Now look at World Trade Center 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=demolition

It is not publicly admitted that building 7 was demolished. The funny thing is, it takes weeks to set up the explosive devices for a controlled demolition.

Building 7, not hit by any airplane, and had no building fall on it, had developed 2 small fires on floors 3 and 12, and it collapsed in 6.5 seconds, 6 seconds being free-fall speed.
This collapsed of building 7 is considered a work of art in the industry of controlled demolition. Compare the perfect demolition of building 7 to the demolition of this http://youtube.com/watch?v=UAMX_LmeDnQ&mode=related&search=

Watch this video. One of many great videos.
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
In the footage notice how there are horizontal ejections as the building comes down. This requires a large force of energy, the same amount of energy needed to create that fine dust. Just a simple collapse will not pulverize concrete. Explosives will.

I have no clue what your talking about. Seriously, I don't.   ???
Logged
Meghan <3 Lederhosen!

Soy un perdedor. I???m a loser baby, so why don???t you kill me?


<('.'<)<)<)<)<)
  • deviant
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2006, 02:16:36 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
From Popular Mechanics

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Logged

Limey

Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2006, 02:20:39 am »
I'm not talking about the year 1993.

your more paranoid then I am. Seriously, that's not a good thing.

Except he's right.  There is a really great movie about it called 'Loose Change' Which you should see.  Fuckin' great movie.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2006, 02:45:23 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Steel when heated looses structural integrity, and that is a fact obviously.  It does not have to melt to lose its strength.  When steel is heated up, especially in a building structure, the steel heats up and expands; this results in a vertical beam being pushed out because it has nowhere else to go.  This means that the floor on top of it, the thing it supports individually and as a whole structure, does not have as much support.  This leads to a small section getting hurt having more weight put on top of it that is moving down due to gravity.  Each individual floor then goes down nice and smooth; more weight gets moving on top of stable lesser weight.

I am assuming that the writer of the article means that by pancaking, that the floors "stack" on each other.  If the beams were bent to look like concave surfaces from the outside, then the steel would go back and pancaking would still happen.  I do not know which direction the beams went, but that really does not matter.  They still have a little connection to the building itself, they just sag to the point of no support.

A lot of the concrete is being pounded down, but besides that, the concrete in the structure was either: at the bottom where the final fall went to, near the support structures that broke, destroyed by the plane itself, etc.  I am pretty sure that some concrete was still there.

They were not that strong of buildings anyway, and a lot of things came together for the terrorists.  I do not remember those other buildings getting hit by big planes at high speeds though, and if they were, then there design must have been different, of course.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2006, 03:13:32 am »
  • =/
  • *
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2284
Are the blueprints printed out for it anywhere on the internet? You guys got me really intrested in this.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2006, 03:37:40 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
The fires had a conduit to get through the building on multiple layers and there are other things besides the fuel of the plane that burned: carpets, rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper.  We saw people mainly on the other side of the building waving or people that came to the other side to see what had just happened.  There was still fire in the building, and that can be accounted by the people who fled from the building.  I would logically think small fires could continue to burn while the big fires following the jet fuel could burn longer.  The fires are also not going to burn as much on the outside because the jet fuel made it in farther and the outside was damaged by the impact of the plane going through it. 

The pancake theory is not stupid and is very similar to the explosions theory.  In both, the supporting floors are blown out and the structure collapses on itself.  You seem to be forgetting that each floor of the World Trade Center had a large concentration of air, just like other buildings.  The demolition expert named Romero who was the first to suggest explosions later took back what he said.  In fact, he said that he thought that they were explosions, which is something else entirely.  He believes in the pancaking the theory and he started all the crap that made people think there was an explosion caused by detonated bombs. 

The buildings in there strongest areas could have supported the planes, but the way the force of the plane was distributed on the WTC, it was enough.  Do not overly exaggerate, saying multiple jumbo jets could have hit it and it would have survived.  Perhaps if they all hit the top, then the weight of the building would not be a factor now would it?  Way to assume I know nothing about the building.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2006, 03:49:03 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1635
Looks good to me - I have a feeling its gross value will spike because it's touching a touchy subject. Just like Brokeback Mountain sucked, but everyone saw it because it was "different", or "preaching a message and morals" - but it wasn't, it just sucked.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2006, 04:03:51 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
You unknowingly just screwed yourself.

I am going to post evidence from my sources that explain things better than I ever could: because they were written by a science magazine and plenty of experts in the field and not some scared witness who is not one of those experts, and also because it is obvious that you did not even look at my source that I showed you.

No Stand-Down Order

CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
      




HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77???s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon???s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 

Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."



Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2006, 04:10:40 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Of course I am citing the site and I have because it has a good reputation unlike a lot of things that you posted.  I even said in my last post that I was posting from a source, and implying that yes I was taking information from it.  I do understand a lot of it because a lot of it is not hard to understand.  I was posting it here though because you are avoiding the one site that I am using for my argument.  I took the time to go through your sources and I did see the Loose Change movie, but your contempt for passing over my information, regardless of your opinion on it, is clearly dodging the issue.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2006, 04:38:59 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Technically it is not the official information, it is information gathered and conclusions based on a third party investigation.  I think that you are skipping past it because you think that it is the official and it is not.  Conclusions formed by someone other than the government will not always conflict the government, and nor should they be always expected to.  What really happened?  Please.  The scientific evidence of what you are showing is made to fit what would happen under ideal conditions and for something to fall in the most ideal way.  Where does the plane fit into their models?  Is it just a diversion or something they probably thought.  Do you honestly think that Bush is smart enough to think of plans like that anyway, and if there was a plan, he would probably be left out of the loop.  His mannerisms and stupidity would shine through if he knew; he would feel important and act even more stupid. 

Also, if there were a lot of explosives, the people in the building woud have seen them prior to the event taking place, and by prior I mean a few hours earlier.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that if you can prove some parts wrong, the grandness of the scheme is revealed and everything becomes obvious.  NORDAC was a problem in itself, the system could not find the plane because it turned its transponder off, and there are other things that conspiracists claim that is just borderline weird.

I will ask you though?  What was the white plane over Shanksville doing?  Did it shoot them down or was it a secret.  I would really like to know that!

Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2006, 04:55:26 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Planes moving at high velocities will often have parts that go far and they often leave light debris that can be carried by the wind.  I also remember it going downhill too.  Besided that though, the white plane was reported for and belonged to an apparel company that sells Wranglers.  They were told to go lower to check it out and they were near landing anyway.

You would not happen to have a copy of the blueprints to the WTC would you?  I would like to examine it better.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2006, 05:04:10 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
Well, it was more or less an open field and when a plane is going 500 mph or more, that is like 700-800 ft. per second.  Going three hundred yards would not take it that long.  That is the distance from the crash site to the basin.  There will of course be light fragments scattered over a space like that though, and that is to be expected.  Large amounts can be spread over a big space, but the things that fill that space are small.

Blueprints though?  I really want to look at them.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2006, 05:21:08 am »
  • *
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6604
I am going to stop posting in this thread.  It is obvious to myself that I have not studied enough of all the aspects to have a definitive understanding.  So, yes, you did get your points across better.  I am going to look up more rather than drag myself through the mud with sloppy logic that I am trying to accumulate. 

You win. I lose.
Logged
Re: World Trade Center
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2006, 05:10:58 pm »
  • Who's your favorite possum?
  • *
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1378
Quote
I believe 9/11 was an inside job.
That's disgusting.  And that would make this government equivalent to evil people like Saddam.

Besides, your theory on explosives doesn't mean it had to be an inside job.

Regardless, I'm locking this thread: it has now become a waste of time.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up

 


Contact Us | Legal | Advertise Here
2013 © ZFGC, All Rights Reserved



Page created in 0.272 seconds with 68 queries.