EPT=[
WikiLeaks releases 911 text messages - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
=[ | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17254 Posts
On November 26 2009 14:30 GTR wrote: aw i thought this was about funny 911 phone calls. Got me there too  | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:39 jello_biafra wrote: He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it. Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?. | ||
|
Mori600
Japan311 Posts
| ||
|
liosama
Australia843 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/527/notfunnye.png) | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:40 Conquest101 wrote: What was the point of this post? You're bringing in semantics and the fact that President Obama believes in god as your arguments? Very convincing. + Show Spoiler + Obama believes in God! You know who else believes in God? Muslims. You know what a lot of Muslims are? Terrorists. Thus, Obama = Terrorist. QED Also, you are correct. The 90000L of jet fuel burning at 700 degrees celsius probably didn't do anything. You compeletely missed the point, watch any of Bushes pre-Iraq rallying speeches and maybe you´ll see: the man is a prophet. My point is that to American people God and Country have enough meaning that with those you can cover pretty much anything else. I think it´s insane to let that kind of pure manipulation to happen, but then again I´m not part of that culture and so I´m not sure if that kind of speech has so much importance there. Saying God wants Saddam dead to boost your support is wrong in pretty much any possible way IMO. Hardly acceptable way to lead any country. Religion itself has nothing to do with anything nor do I have anything against anyone for any reasons anyway, just to be on the safe side. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:26 vGl-CoW wrote: Are you trolling? They're actually debating verifiable facts. If one side was saying that you get HIV by having sex with an infected person and the other side was saying that you get HIV by, say, overexposure to mercury, would you just go "hmm well these both sound about equally plausible, I'm just gonna randomly decide which one is right"? Of course, you would not. You would compare both sides' arguments and counterarguments and then decide what makes the most sense. If you actually did your research, you would find that the counter-conspiracists are to refute pretty much every conspiracist argument. If the conspiracists say that the explosion and fires wouldn't have caused a high enough temperature to cause the steel girders to melt in order to allow a collapse, and then you have the counter-conspiracists stating that, while the temperature indeed was not high enough to cause steel to melt, it was high enough to cause loss of structural integrity to a sufficient degree to allow for the girders to collapse (which is a simple, physical fact), then there's simply nothing more to say. Argument destroyed, counter-conspiracists win, GG. I`m not trolling (it sucks that nowadays every second post on tl.net is considered trolling) on topic. Yes, what you say is true. But from what I`ve read (on conspiratory sites ofc) and seen (on cnn) very big part of the jet fuel actually burned out of the building (the big explosion you see when the plane hit the wtc) and according to the conspiracy theoirsts there was not enough fuel left in the building to actually cause structural damage. I am not saying this is true ofcourse. But this is something that makes sense. And when I looked on anti-conspiracy sites to see evidence that this is wrong, they were saying that actually there was enough fuel left in the building to melt the support beams. Both statements cannot be proven. What does not makes sense to me and "raises question" is the things that came after 9/11 : The war on terrorism, causing wars in Afganistan and in Iraq (and very possibly in Iran), leading to unhuman ammount of money going to US companies making weapons. US companies winning contracts for the Iraq oil etc. and 9/11 is the perfect excuse for these things. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
To all the people who say the Jet fuel has melted the steel frames and therefore caused the collapse of the building... Common sense people.... | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:26 vGl-CoW wrote: What I don't understand is how many, many people fail to follow a path of reason when it comes to 9/11. This is how it should go: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. I guess it could possibly have been an inside job. This merits further attention. Let's see if there are any counterarguments. Oh, there are. *reads* Hm, those actually did a fantastic job of rebutting the conspiracy arguments. Let's see what the conspiracists have to say to that. Oh, nothing at all. Case closed then, the counter-conspiracists are right. This is how it actually goes: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. Must have been an inside job. Case closed then, the conspiracists are right. Then, they like to think that they're open-minded and Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions, when really they're close-minded for skipping the last few crucial steps. Uh, while your accusing others of not being open minded, it is funny that you make some completely false portrayal of them in the most convenient way. Most so called "conspiracy theorist" simply think there should be more investigation, rather than believe a certain side. Your line of reasoning: there are conspiracy and non-conspiracy explanations for 9/11, so assume the non-conspiracy. The problem with that is the explanations are incomplete, so you are basically saying just because a conspiracy cannot be proved the entire incident should be ignored beyond the official story. That's like if there is a death and it could have been a natural medical problem or it could have been poisoning, let's just assume it was a natural death and not investigate completely. The problem with the official story is they never did a complete investigation. And there is absolutely zero excuse not too. For one of one thousand examples, iirc, a 9/11 commission was interviewed on public radio and he was asked, why was not the proper procedure followed for military jet intercept? Answer: "I really want to know but I couldn't find out" (can't remember exact words by now). Everything should have been investigated in complete detail. Not only did 3000 people die the incident had a profound influence in the future. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:37 Mindcrime wrote: No, you weren't paying attention. As far as Afghanistan was concerned, Obama was, by far, the most hawkish viable candidate in the race. I thought it wasn´t war in Afghanistan, more like anti-terroris-world-police-work. Well he was against war in Iraq atleast. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:48 1tym wrote: Son, you must understand that the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. To use jet fuel to melt steel would be an unprecedented phenomenon. As I have highlighted, there is no precedence of any modern sky scrappers that use steel frames collapsing due to fire, however severe it was. Even coupled with impact from the plane hit, it is not enough to force the collapse of multiple steel core columns the way it did. Can you imagine supposedly undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would?. Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down. The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On November 27 2009 01:03 jello_biafra wrote: Well if you say so, but from reading the official FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) of the incident somehow I think the combined force of the impact and the large amount of burning jet fuel were enough to take the building down. The building was designed with the impact of a Boeing 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (low on fuel) hitting at 180 MPH in mind, the actual plane that hit was 274,000 lbs and travelling at over 500 MPH with plently of fuel on board. Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds. The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet. The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet. The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel. The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel. The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s. So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster. In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision. The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules). The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules). From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767. In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767. So what can be said about the actual impacts? The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s. The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s. The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174 = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules). This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall? The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules). This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall. It has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit. *I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
2001-09-11 08:00:31 Metrocall [002472733] D ALPHA It's that time Someone is busted, go hang him. You can thank me later. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
So, we get fire yes? Clearly seen, jet fuel and hmm, wonder if there was anything else to burn in that building, like i dont know... floors, celinings, people, office materials... things like that. Then you have the old damaged fireproofing, not cement clad, further damaged by an aircraft. Now then, I admit steel not melting at jet fuel burning point is a bit disheartening and in favour of the conspiracy theologists, I sure hope I could comeup with an explanation. How would you go about making steel give like that? sigh, I wish I knew if people in the medieval age melted steel for armor or if they prefered to heat it up and hammer it into form. Strange, they did like the hammering bit, how the frack can you deform non melted steel with just a hammer thats not even possible. Gee, I wonder how much easier steel is to deform at 700C, I wonder what happens if you takeout 50% of steels structural integrity with that much pushing down, at a 1000 its 10% Come on guys, ask yourselfs the tough questions and open your eyes to science. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On November 27 2009 01:43 Superiorwolf wrote: I like the "counter-conspiracy rebuttals" that make no sense at all. Fire melting steel? Ridiculous. When I apply Cow's example to myself of examining both sides of the arguments, the theories against the official statements are far stronger. The rebuttals are complete bullshit. *I earlier took a less convicted position but I've looked at both sides of the arguments in this thread and in many outside sources and I find the theories about what really happened much more believable. I love how you guys are still completely ignoring every post that counters your asinine claims. The fire didn't melt the steal. The fire weakened the steal. This is what happens when you heat steal. Combined with the impact from the plane, the structural integrity of the building near the impact point was no longer sufficient to hold the weight above it. You can tell who in this thread doesn't have a degree in engineering. | ||
|
InDaHouse
Sweden956 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:59 1tym wrote: Sigh.. To all the people who say the Jet fuel has melted the steel frames and therefore caused the collapse of the building... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYTEjXc2S1Y Common sense people.... lol do you think a tiny experiment can prove anything? If one scientist say it is so it DOESN'T mean it is de facto standard. That fucking Danish alcoholic scientist which the Truth Movement reffering to is rejected by all other high knowledge scientists in Europe. There were some interesting documentaries about the Truth Movement here in Sweden. Conclusion is that they are a bunch of idiots and it is a pity people believe in there lame theories. | ||
| ||
