|
On March 02 2006 09:38 NewbSaibot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2006 23:12 rpf289 wrote:
The metal uses in the WTC was rated to withstand a plane hitting it. No, it was not rated to just withstand any ole plane hitting it, it was rated to withstand the largest plane at the time, something like a 717 or 727, a much smaller version of what really did hit it. The 757 did not even exist at the time of the buildings design or creation. Show nested quote +Plus, the jet fuel exploded, which is why there was a huge fireball when the planes hit. The amount of fuel still left in the building wouldn't have been enough to do any structural damage past what the plane itself did. Well that's what we keep hearing, but as the video points out, experts on both sides of the argument disaggree. One says that titanium cannot melt at less than 3000 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees, end of story. But this wasnt just jet fuel burning in the air, it was an oven of jet fuel, reheating itself. Now they say they "recorded temperatures" as high as 2200 or something, not quite sure how they could have recorded any such thing. Show nested quote +The building does not collapse on itself; it implodes. The building was in free-fall, which means the building did not collapse from the top floors where the planes hit, but rather from the base. This part confused me, if the building was in free fall, then it would not have collapsed from the top, but that is exactly what we all observed with our own eye's. The building did not begin to disintegrate at the bottom and drop strait to the earth, which is what a building in free fall does. The entire base was completely stationary. In not one controlled demolition video do we see a building fall from the top to the bottom. They all shift and waver about in the air as the bottom drops and the whole thing being an inward collapse. While i find it highly strange a building like the WTC could collapse the way it did from jets hitting it, i definately dont think it would collapse like that from explosives. Plus, there are aerial videos which show the tv antenna on the 1st tower drop strait into the building as the top begins to crumble. The obvious and even scientific explanation for the buildings unusually clean destruction is that the weight above collapsing on the building beneath caused a chain reaction of destruction. As more and more of the building began to topple in on itself it just aided it's own collapse that much more easily. Imagine you take your jenga set, put your hand strait on top of it, and push down, as you begin to bust it up, add weights to your arm, now you are pushing down even harder, and harder, and harder, the thing didnt have a chance. Finally, if the goverment wanted a "realistic" demolition of the building, why make it controlled at all? Why not just let the fucker tip over sidways and smash down accross half the city? Who gives a fuck? Youre killing thousands of your own people anyway, so what if the building crashes down on 5 others in its path, why this need to make a nice neat tidy little controlled crash, especially when it's obvious people will doubt the believability of it. Show nested quote +Take a Jenga set, build it up really high, now take some pieces out of the top. It falls over, right? It takes longer than if you just pull out the corner piece on the bottom. Take a jenga set, and ram your fist through it, then light it on fire. Bad example rpf. Show nested quote +The WTC was imploded. It's been proven. Jet fuel in the top 20 floors doesn't cause the base to give way. The metal would not have melted anyhow. It was fireproofed and rated to withstand those temperatures for hours on end. Twenty minutes and it causes the structural integrity of the towers to give out entirely? I don't think so. They say the impact of the plane blew all the fireproofing material off of the metal, because again, they did not even conceive of a plane of that size hitting it at that speed. It was even admitted during a previous fire that a decision was made to add sprinklers. What kind of building doesnt have sprinklers? They dropped the ball during design, cut costs, etc. This is exactly their expalantion towards the fire proofing not working worth a shit, poorly built. Show nested quote +The towers imploded, with the planes being used as a mere diversion. There's more than enough evidence to prove other detonations took place. The seismic activity caused by those detonations, shown with the tripod of the video used to tape the collapse of the first tower shows that it wasn't a steel beam buckling because the beams wouldn't have snapped anyhow. They were rated to withstand such conditions. A beam snapping wouldn't have caused that kind of shockwave, but a bomb would have. The tripod thing is the worst science ever. Sound travels slower than the speed of light, yes? So if explosions caused the building to collapse, and a shockwave from the explosions caused her camera to shake, we would have seen the building collapse BEFORE the blast was felt by the camera, not the other way around. Not to mention the fact it could have been a gust of wind, or if any explosions like that took place everyone and their grandma would claim they heard it, windows would be shattered for blocks, etc etc. Wow, you made some good points. Sorry for the confusion--I wrote that at like, 3 a.m. Anyways, as far as the building collapses goes, I do not believe it collapsed because a plane hit it. You can see te explosion. The big red fireball is presumably a large portion of the jet fuel onboard at the time. And yes, I understand that it can turn into an over because of the way buildings are designed. But, you're going to tell me the core of the building began to collapse and caused a chain reaction when the first tower to collapse was hit on the corner of the building? It didn't even go into the center of the building. It hit the corner, it blew up, a lot of people died (God bless their souls), and it caught the building on fire.
Then a firefighter went up to the 78th floor or something, and was able to start putting fires out. Doesn't seem to me like it was any hotter than any old house fire. If jet fuel was burning, I wouldn't be able to put it out. Not to mention that 18 minutes of it burning still isn't hot enough to cause steel rated to withstand such temperatures for hours on end to snap, buckle, melt, or in any way, shape, or form change state. If there really was enough jet fuel up there to melt the steel, a firefighter couldn't get anywhere near it, now could he? But he did. End of story.
The fact that the TV tower collapses first is very important. It shows that the core of the building went first, allowing the building to implode on itself. So a plane hits the corner of the building, doesn't cause fires hot enough to melt the steel used (not to mention it was fireproofed), and then the core of the building gives out under the immense heat that isn't in the core of the building. It makes sense! *sarcasm*
You're right, though, about the tripod thing. However, the tripod isn't that far away from the building, not to mention that in a controlled implosion, the building doesn't fall directly after the first charges blow. It takes a few seconds. Watch the video again, and pay attention to the stadium being demolished. It takes a few seconds to go down. That accounts for the fact that you feel the explosion before you see it.
Oh, and about all of the secondary explosions--they happened. I don't think there's any reasons for hundreds and hundreds of people who were there to lie about hearing explosions they didn't hear. Not to mention that reporters heard them, too. I know, not the greatest evidence, but the world operates on popular opinion.
|
"Then a firefighter went up to the 78th floor or something"
They used the stairs right? that... sux...
|
I'm sure there are several reasons the window panes were blown out.
-Air from the top floors could not escape fast enough and went straight down the stair wells, creating enough pressure to blow them out.
-The walls were under too much pressure and the weakest parts (windows) crumbled before the rest
The people interviewed that I had problems with were also the ones who said things like, "The plane had a blue logo on the front", "It definitely wasn't a commercial plane", "It didn't look like it was from around here" etc.
|
I'm sure there are several reasons the window panes were blown out.
-Air from the top floors could not escape fast enough and went straight down the stair wells, creating enough pressure to blow them out.
-The walls were under too much pressure and the weakest parts (windows) crumbled before the rest
The people interviewed that I had problems with were also the ones who said things like, "The plane had a blue logo on the front", "It definitely wasn't a commercial plane", "It didn't look like it was from around here" etc.
|
im at school and dont have time to write a big essay about this but everything i want to say has pretty much been summed up by blueshift
very well put
|
4492 Posts
On March 02 2006 09:58 -_- wrote:... I hate it when people try giving a bunch of links because it makes them look they posted something worthwhile, but in reality their stuff is shit. The onion is a better source for news than the crap you gave me.
Hey -_-, buddy, why not tone it down a bit? Either start making sense along with civilized responses or just bail like the matamata guy.
Most of us know it's impossible to get thru to someone who's convinced otherwise on this topic, not even enough to make them *watch* the evidence presented before them, so I'm not even gonna start on it. Why not take it to the media you say? Coz they know you people quite well too. If you are to dismiss everything we say to you now by never even giving a chance to go watch what we suggest, then how on Earth do you suppose any media outlet to want to go thru with it? Wouldn't you honestly just switch the channel if you ever saw anything of this on the TV? Also, these things are *quite* complicated. The world of politics just is. That's a fact. People don't like complicated, and what people don't like media won't show. Believing that you're under attack by a bad guy who envies your fr33dom seems to be perfectly enough for you. Hell, it doesn't go any simpler as that. It's the jews! It's the slant-eyes! It's the arabs! ... OK?
But just one example; as the movie Syriana came out a couple months ago, it was widely viewed/reviewed by the general public as boring. Boring, just like that. The simple answer to this phenomenon lies in the product's complexity. It just doesn't get thru to people (headache -> hamburger, etc.).
However, as time goes by, more and more people will be willing to shake the moss and face the obvious. These people will find a factual and well-opinionated discussion on this forum useful, and those who can, will be willing to help them by providing the necessary information.
And this is where you can do a part: either try and discuss matters in an appropriate manner (because right now both you and matamata were causing more harm than good to your own viewpoints, due to the rampant and incoherent manner of your tone), or just wait your turn, give yourself some time, and check back on the topic later, when you are ready and willing to know more on the matter.
-Mynock
|
On March 02 2006 10:21 EntertainMe wrote:
"Then a firefighter went up to the 78th floor or something"
They used the stairs right? that... sux... Yes. My point is that a firefighter was able to walk right up to the burning level, which is something you couldn't do if it was pure jet fuel burning. Therefore, it wasn't heat that melted the steel of the building. It was rated to withstand those temperatures for hours, and the buildings came down in less than half of one hour.
|
On March 01 2006 04:23 Mynock wrote:Download the whole thing in good DivX quality here-Mynock
I loved the video. Is there anyone who is kind enough to upload the video with non-torrent program?
I would love your forever. Thx in advance. >.<
|
What's funny is that we have all these people on this forum who frequently criticize (and rightly so) the way of thinking of creationists and religious people in general. They do it with a lot of confidence and a very noticeable feeling of superiority.
But then this kind of subject comes along and they start reasoning the *exact same way* as creationists do. They'll constantly point out insignificant details, bring up quotes taken out of context and focus on small elements that haven't been fully explained yet to construct these big, absurd, useless theories because they refuse to see the big picture for some reason.
I mean, just as the theory of evolution is obviously correct because of mounting evidence from fossils, genetics, etc the fact that America was attacked by Al Qaida on 9/11 is obvious since Al Qaida itself claimed responsability for the hijackings, people who boarded those planes never returned home, a conspiracy of this magnitude could never, ever be kept under wrap considering the number of people trying to get at the Bush administration by any mean necessary, etc.
Some people arguing here need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
|
4492 Posts
Funny, I see it as exactly the opposite - as simple as every creationist would ever like the world to be - it is not. As simple as every religious zealot/atheist would like the world to be - it is not. As simple a response of blaiming a terrorist group some people would like it to be - it is not.
-Mynock
|
4492 Posts
Oh, and on the topic of "3 easy steps to make a complete fool out the US population in order to make a gazillion bucks in the process", you might find this one interesting: Enron - The Smartest Guys in the Room
The movie is about Enron - the rise, the downfall, the aftermath. (Nominated best documentary this year's Oscar's.)
Might help gain a new perspective on what one can and cannot do with the american public (well, public in general, xcept residing in the land of the free really helps).
-Mynock
|
Just thought i'd mention a last couple of things that keep buggin me:
1) People saying they didnt see passenger windows on the planes. Ok, most everyone who saw the planes hit saw it from the same angles we did through a camera, on the ground. The plane was travelling 500-600mph, and several hundred feet high. I dont think i have ever recalled seeing windows on a plane landing at an airport. I see planes flying over my freeway all the time as i drive past an airport, and they are travelling at about 150-200mph on approach for landing, at normal angles, in the clear blue sky, and i still cant make out shit for details on them. How in the hell did these goomba's feel they saw anything at all on a screeching tilted at a 30 degree angle? It's just shit like this that makes me doubt anything they public says at all, explosions, small carter jets, strange faceless military aircraft hovering above, etc etc.
2) Melting steel. If the steel was designed to survive temperatures for hours upon hours at those heats (dont really believe they tested them at jet fuel burning heats, but rather the heat created from someone burning documents in a trash can and lighting their office on fire), why fireproof it at all? Fireproofing is done for a reason. Maybe it's just to prolongue the exposed temperatures for just that much more, i dunno. But they fireproof to protect the metal, and i think they actually have photos from the building rubble that shows fireproof material fully intact, and splattered against pieces of wall, because it just flew right off when the plane smashed into it. So now the metal is being exposed to heat likely higher than was ever tested, and without the vital fireproof compound.
3) Firefighter on the same floor as the wreckage. Maybe he was an idiot and not on the floor he was talking about, i'd like to see a full transcript of that discussion he had where he claims he might be able to put it out. Then again, there is supposedly video evidence showing people leaning out the gaping hole in the building directly where the plane crashed into it, in 2000 degree heat, wearing plain clothes. If somehow they survived the plane crashing right into their corner office, they surely shouldn't have been able to walk around up there.
4) Explosions. Again, from all the demo videos we see, it takes dozens and dozens, maybe even hundreds of explosions to start a collapse, and these are for just 10-20 storie buildings. The WTC's were 110 stories, this would require a symphony of explosions half a minute long to begin the fall. Not only are these explosions painfully evident, as dust and debris is seen flying out every window and very bright flashes, but the accounts would have included such a description. Instead we just hear statements like "i heard a couple of booms". They should have said "it sounded like july 4th!"
Also, do you realise the sheer evil it would take to pull this off? History has shown man can do far worse to his brother, but usually only under hysterical blindness and brainwashing (hitler). Killing a few thousand people is easy for a few men, but the agencies they would have to procure, the people planting the bombs, the stock traders, and phony jet evacuations, etc etc. These all require so many different people from so many different walks of life, i cant see how the goverment could convince such a large and diverse group of individuals to commit one of the most heinous acts of our time, and all remain absolutely speechless about it.
|
Mynock, am I going to read a book on holocaust denial to try and understand the other side? No.
Likewise, I only gave the loose change video a cursory look, because the whole thing is based on half truths and coincidences. The video says that no wreckage was found at the pentagon of an airplane, which simply isn't true. The stocks being sold short was acctually recommended by a business magazine, the timing was just coincidence. All the security threat stuff just makes sense. Terrorism existed before 9/11 and the government kept a good eye on it, they knew shit was about to hit the fan but they didn't realize that it was going to be what it was.
On September 11th, 2002, the winning lottery numbers in NEW YORK CITY were 9-1-1. Does that mean there's some sort of conspiracy? No.
Everything mentioned about the Physics of the tower collapse is half truths or just stupid, NoobSaibot pointed out a lot of it on his own.
The Pentagon thing, likewise, has been widely shown to acctually be a plane hitting. The people in Washington DC who saw the plane hitting the Pentagon would like to here that theory too by the way.
The only thing about the video even remotely compelling is the flight 93 part, which I'm sure could be easily rebuffed by a quick Google search.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
But Bush = Hitler, sorry.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
yo man "-_-"
ur a nerd& an idiot, shut the fuck up
|
What do you guys belive could be the reason that the tower that got hit second, and even higher up, collapsed earlier than the first one?
And another question is
Even if it all melted up there, even the titanium, and all that shit I dont even belive this would have enough weight/Whatever to make the tower collapse considering u had like 80 floors of intact tower...dunno
|
On March 02 2006 07:37 -_- wrote:
You have facts that this was faked? Undisputable facts? Even things which could be facts? Some believable eyewitnesses? SEND THEM TO THE MEDIA IN YOUR COUNTRY. They'll be all too happy to believe that it was a big hoax. And even if they're just believable rumors, they'll get air time, and print space, and coverage. And if it's true, YOU'LL BE FUCKING FAMOUS. Probably rich too. SO DO IT.
That is so incredibly naive it confuses me how you can be so insistent on it when you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
|
On March 02 2006 12:12 MyLostTemple wrote:
yo man "-_-"
ur a nerd& an idiot, shut the fuck up
yo man, -_-, you didn't even try to refute the argument i made.
EDIt: just in case you're referring to the poster "-_-" if he's such an idiot than his argument should be pretty easy to refute, so why not do it.
|
Elvis is alive
he flew the first UFO, and tupac flew the second
|
On March 02 2006 12:19 lil.sis wrote:
Elvis is alive
he flew the first UFO, and tupac flew the second
Do you have a video to prove that too?
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 02 2006 12:15 DTDominion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2006 12:12 MyLostTemple wrote:
yo man "-_-"
ur a nerd& an idiot, shut the fuck up yo man, -_-, you didn't even try to refute the argument i made. EDIt: just in case you're referring to the poster "-_-" if he's such an idiot than his argument should be pretty easy to refute, so why not do it.
i was referring ot the poster smart guy, why else would i put -_- in quotes. and have u seen this kids post? its obv hes a retarded ignorant close-minded tool, why would i debate w/ that dicknose fucktard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
