Anabolic Member
I know you've all probably seen this and the like, but the more I see these types of things, the more I wonder....I was a proud patriot too, but seeing this stuff, it seems pretty obvious that something is rotten...
We stopped looking for Osama, Afghanistan is a faded memory, yet somehow we are in the middle east pushing an agenda.....what reason did we have to enact this agenda??? 9/11...watch below!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...14675910247150
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Doesnt want to load for me. But is it the one that claims wtc was brought down by explosives??
Associate Member
When did we stop looking for Osama, didnt Bush just say not more than a week or so ago that the hunt continued?
Anabolic Member
I was under the impression that military actions regarding the hunt for Osama bin Laden have been ceased.Originally Posted by kdawg21
I don't believe a word Bush says about what's going on over there. He is a good man but he is just mouthing words he is being told to say...
Anabolic Member
Yes, and it has a physicist going into great detail about it....creepy stuff.
Anabolic Member
Yes unfortunatley people are dumber each day.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
We usualy lock threads like this because of the sensitive nature and it can be offensive to the people that where involved.
I havent seen the video so I can comment on whats in it. But I do know one thing. The overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering comunity accept that the towers collapsed because of the crash. Not any controlled demolition.
I know one of the main arguments for demolition is that the towers went straight down. I used to also think that its strange until I heard a engineer talk about it. The simple truth is a building that high and heavy cant go anywhere else but straight down. Its so obviously true when thinking about it. There is no possible way for it to sheer or tip over. All it can do is go straight down. No need for elaborate placing of explosives to acomplish that.
For those that think that explanation is lacking. I just ask this question back. What possible force would be present that is strong enough to make the towers deviate from falling straight down?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
this article explains most things in a very good manner http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y
Member
Dident you Know!!
BUCH say Osama can be every whare..
He is now in USA an cut you neighbors grass and watering the flower in garden ..!!
Anabolic Member
No other skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has fallen down due to fires. There was even an example of a skyscraper that burned for over 30 hours over 20 floors and did not collapse, but the strongest skyscrapers ever built fall down from a 10 story fire in under 5 hours?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
There has never been a skyscraper hit by a jumbo jet before either...
Im just saying that the finest mind in structural engineering and material science has studied this in detail and find it implausible that there was a controlled demolition. I cant claim to have any expertise about this kind of thing. But I tend to agree with the majority in cases like this...
Anabolic Member
The heat from the jet fuel caused extreme heat stress to the structure. Besides if there were explosives as you contrive unsucessfully, there certainly would be forensic evidence to support your wild claim. Weak
buildings pancake all the time whe under construction.
Anabolic Member
Kerosene burns at 2800 degrees F, steel and iron melt at 3200 degrees after exposure for lengthy periods of time. Explain to me how the jet fuel would weaken the structural integrity of a building that was designed to withstand planes being flown into it, especially when the flames created are not hot enough to melt the steel holding the building in place...
Also, 120 story buildings do not freefall pancake "all the time". This is not my "wild claim", I put the link up there as an interesting alternative for educated minds, unlike yourself, to have a look at.
There is evidence for explosives, did you watch the movie or just assume you know everything?
Last edited by Phreak101; 07-24-2006 at 01:20 PM.
Anabolic Member
The WTC was designed to be protected against the exact event of a plane crashing into it. And what about tower 7? It just imploded out of nowhere, funny how that tower just happened to have all the archives of major wall street investigations involving the U.S. government and business ventures sponsored by the gov't. Hmmm...
Im not saying I believe all this, but I do like entertaining the idea of it. No one has any exact answers for the questions raised by this video, so it's fun to see different sides of the story no?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Dont confuse melting temperature with the temperature required to weaken a building. A material can lose most of its strenght even if the temp is just half what is required to melt.
At 600 c(around 1100 f) steel has lost half its tensile strenght. Increase to 2800 f and Im sure its ALOT less. So 2800 f seems more than plenty to me to weaken the steel enough.
well a building that large and heavy have nowhere else to go than straight down. It realy doesnt have to be more complex than that.
Controlled demolitions has to be done so carefully to limit how the debries will spread. But not as much to get the building to fall straight down. Simply because there is nothing that can make the building not fall straight down.
No they where acctualy built to withstand impact from a smaller jumbo jet(source wikipeda) traveling at much lower speed(regular landing speeds). Remember that kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed.
If I remember right the speed they where suposed to be able to handle was less than half of the speed those planes had. So that means the impact was at a minimum 4 times harder than what the towers where built to handle.
I seem to remember that tower 7 had imense ammounts of diesel or kerosene or something like that in its basement that could be a plausible cause for the collaps?
Well the official FEMA report goes some way in explaining the things. The link I pasted does aswellHave you read it yet?
Conspiracy theories can be very entertaining I agree with that. But I dont think this one is realistic. I just go by what the majority of experts think since I lack the education to make any claim on my own.
IMO when in doubt thats the best way to do. Becauyse there is no way to get all those experts to shut up if they thought something was fishy.
the best way to tackle conspiracy theories is to realy check what both sides have to say. Spend some time searching for articles debunking the claims to get the view from both sides.
Anabolic Member
I can't get to your links posted here (99% of websites at my job are blocked, luckily this one is not!), but I look forward to reading over them.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
its very good. Let me know what you think after you have read it
Associate Member
This is all great, but still nothing can explain the Pentagon.
Anabolic Member
Ive seen countless videos, documentaries, read numerous interviews ...... all these conspiracy theories are nothing but left wing bullshit
Try telling a person that lost someone close to them in the WTC (i did as well as numerous people that i know) , that it was a US initiated controlled demolition ........ fvck that bullshit ....... more liberal bullshit
just my .02
Anabolic Member
My mother's cousin was an accountant on floor 93 of tower 2, his name was Joseph Callandrillo. She was very close to him when she was growing up in Belrose, Queens, and was devistated when he was killed. He was at work for a promotion on 9/11 and was killed.Ive seen countless videos, documentaries, read numerous interviews ...... all these conspiracy theories are nothing but left wing bullshit
Try telling a person that lost someone close to them in the WTC (i did as well as numerous people that i know) , that it was a US initiated controlled demolition ........ fvck that bullshit ....... more liberal bullshit
I'm not saying I believe all this conspiracy stuff, but the fact that so many questions can be debated makes me curious, and I question b/c I care.
Last edited by Phreak101; 07-25-2006 at 09:52 AM.
Anabolic Member
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening proximal beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.
Last edited by Phreak101; 07-25-2006 at 09:50 AM.
Anabolic Member
Jet Fuel (JP-4) will burn with out air. Burns hot! They would use kerosene ifKerosene burns at 2800 degrees F, steel and iron melt at 3200 degrees after exposure for lengthy periods of time. Explain to me how the jet fuel would weaken the structural integrity of a building that was designed to withstand planes being flown into it, especially when the flames created are not hot enough to melt the steel holding the building in place...
Also, 120 story buildings do not freefall pancake "all the time". This is not my "wild claim", I put the link up there as an interesting alternative for educated minds, unlike yourself, to have a look at.
There is evidence for explosives, did you watch the movie or just assume you know everything?
it had a hot burn. Can't believe you think it was done by explosives and
covered up by FBI. This is middle east bunk.
Anabolic Member
I do, and I have
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Anabolic Member
I don't get what you are saying, kerosene is jet fuel. And who said it was covered up by the FBI? Please don't respond or contribute to this thread if you're going to post nonsense and unfounded bs.
Anabolic Member
You are just parroting a bunch of bunk. You state the jet could not do it.
Are you a thread cop. Don't respond unless you have something other than
spam you cut and paste.
Anabolic Member
I started the thread you douchebag, go away.
Associate Member
Phreak101, im with you bro. Ive seen the videos and read up on it. The evidence is right there in front of your face. People who say its a bunch of shit are being extremely narrowed minded. Once you see the video and actually take in everything you are learning, how can you not say the government was behind it all. They show various flashes of light and windows blowing out all throughout the building away from the burning floors. Just a coincidence that the bomb sniffing dogs were taken out of the WTC a week before it happened? Just a coincidence a new lease was taken out on the WTC with terrorist insurance that included being hit by a plane? There is soooo much I could go on and on, but if you havent seen the evidence than you need to. But most people are narrowed minded and will believe what they want to believe no matter how much evidence is put in front of their face. And as far as the Pentagon goes....are you kidding me??? A plane hit it right? A plane that is 150' wide (est) hits the Pentagon and leaves a hole 16' wide in it. No marks where the wings hit or anything. And the plane makes it through 9' feet of concrete. Do you know how much 9' of concrete can withstand?!?! What hit the Pentagon....can you say missle...I know you can. Anyways...watch the video with an open mind and then share an educated opinion.
Anabolic Member
Thanks for the support! I'm glad to see that others out there can be open minded without immediately callign this left wing commy bullshit. Again, I don't believe all of this per se, however, as you stated, there is a lot of shit involved that can be questioned!
Do you read me Ufa?? IT CAN BE QUESTIONED WITHOUT BEING ACCEPTED!
Associate Member
I just feel like ranting now. Back to the Pentagon....there were no skid marks on the grass whrere the plane apparently slid into the Pentagon. The grass a was perfect. Flight 93...the one that apparently went down over eastern PA. Never went down. That plane is still in use today. All you nay-sayers can verify that for yourself through the FAA. Its public knowledge. Flight 93 made an emergency landing in Cleveland, Ohio. The flights that hit the WTC were only 25% capacity. When does a x-country flight coming out of Boston only have 25% of the plane full...come on now? Flight 93...its virtually impossible to make a cell phone call from the elevation the plane was at. I think it was something like .000038% chance that a call can be completed. Cell phone towers point down...not up. Also, in the one recording of a man calling his mother his call his mother and says, mom, its me "john smith" using his first and last name. When if ever have you talked to your mom and said its you by your first and last name. He then told her they were being hi-jacked and he repeadetly asked her if she belived him. In the next year or so (02-03) airlines spent millions on phone systems in planes that actually work. So, if you could complete all these calls...like Flight 93 did....why would airlines spend millions of dollars to now be able to make calls. Also, what happened to the black boxes? The FBI said they were destroyed. YEAH...right...they are made of the strongest materials on earth. I dont think any black box has ever been destroyed. And...according to the FBI and passport of one of the terrorist survived the crash. So a piece of paper makes it, but the indestructable black boxes are nowhere to be seen. A NYC firefighter actually took FBI agents around ground zero to pick up the black boxes. He says he found 3 of 4, but the FBI says they found zero, 0, nil. And why did Bush, Rumsfeld and the government do this? Gold. The WTC held billions and billions of dollars of gold beneath it. I think the figure was something like 160 billion dollars worth of gold. Guess what....most of that is gone now. Where do you think it went....hmmmm
"Rancid Protein Powder Mastermind Technician"
[QUOTE=johan]I seem to remember that tower 7 had imense ammounts of diesel or kerosene or something like that in its basement that could be a plausible cause for the collaps?
Im just kind of sitting back, observing, and not taking sides
But why the **** would a building with archives and documents have immense amounts of diesel or kereosine in the basement???
just making an ovservation
Associate Member
BTW....July 2001....Osama Bin Laden was hospitalized in an American hospital and was not apprehended but was visited by CIA and FBI agents. America can get anyone they want. If they wanted Bin Laden that bad they would have had him already. Its not about Bin Laden...its about oil. O I L
Anabolic Member
Getting a little personal. Loosing ground. Why are you promotingI started the thread you douchebag, go away.
this theory?
Associate Member
Tower 7 went down because it was holding records that were being invested by the Federal Trade Commission or some group. I cant honestly remember who was investigating them.
Anabolic Member
[QUOTE=IronReload04]I don't recall where it mentioned that Tower 7 had kerosene in it. The whole thing behind it that we are arguing is that it fell at freefall speed with little or know influence. Sure debris was falling on it, but it was a ways away from both towers, and it's collapse look controlled. It should be noted that Tower 7 had all the archives concerning numerous legal proceedings involving Wall St and the gov't.
AR Biggerologist
Yeah, and no one has been on the moon either!!
Associate Member
IMO, the moon was a big hoax as well. Since when the hell did space have wind to blow the flag? There is no atmosphere, things just float...they wouldnt flap in the wind one direction or the other. It was all political. A race with the USSR to see who could get their first. Just like the government didnt kill JFK. It was one shooter on the grassy knoll....come on now...use your brain and think for yourself...dont let what the government says be the end all be all.
Anabolic Member
I'm not promoting anything dude. I'm playing mental ping pong with the opposition having an educated dicussion. When people like you come in ere and start bashing my point of view without any cause or credibility, it's starts turning shit into an argument and people begin to abandon the thread. Why do you think the political forum was shut down?
Why don't you post something that you feel presents an opposition to my opinion and what I have posted here, or just stop reading this thread? I don't really see a point to any posts you have made here other than to bash what I have said or incite arguments...
If you'd like to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, I suggest you walk up to the nearest person around you and ask for a good
Anabolic Member
Then you would agree that the suicide bombers are burning in hell!I'm not promoting anything dude. I'm playing mental ping pong with the opposition having an educated dicussion. When people like you come in ere and start bashing my point of view without any cause or credibility, it's starts turning shit into an argument and people begin to abandon the thread. Why do you think the political forum was shut down?
Why don't you post something that you feel presents an opposition to my opinion and what I have posted here, or just stop reading this thread? I don't really see a point to any posts you have made here other than to bash what I have said or incite arguments...
If you'd like to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, I suggest you walk up to the nearest person around you and ask for a good
Anabolic Member
The moon and JFK CT's have both been debunked by modern science. What happened, actually happened.
WTC has a lot of unanswered questions that are propogated by the current actions of the U.S..ie why suddenyl Iraq and Iran, why not Afghanistan or Syria? Where is Osama? Why Sadamm? Etc......
Anabolic Member
Hell, or whatever awaits people who use their life malevolently.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote