Yeah, and no one has been on the moon either!!
AR Biggerologist
Yeah, and no one has been on the moon either!!
Member
About what Johan said "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?"
Im not too sure what to think really. I know that is highly unlikley for both buildings to fall, maybe they were flawed or summin.
The WTC had an exsoskelatal structure which basically means it will only fall in on its self as all the buildings strength is in the exterior walls.
I cant see how the collapse of a few floors from an air liner hitting it will cause this.
I would have imagined the floor area to be extremely vast inside.
By the looks on the plane going in, it was actually dwarfed by the width of the building.
As for the fire etc i dont belive there would have been a raging inferno in those given floors on either tower due to fire precautions etc.
Not saying it was'nt hot in their but people have the misconception about sprinklers.
They are not designed to put fires out, they are there to minimise fire spread.
All materials would have have some fire resistance so i canot see how fire spread through the upper floors to allow the actual floor area to fail and fall on the ones below it resulting in a collapse.
Most building collapses these days are from buildings that are made out of brick with steel beams. once the beams reach a certain tempreature they expand and push out the exterior walls resulting in a collapse to one side. this clearly didnt happen.
I can not actually see how the building fell.
If the heat was that intense im am sure the it would have made the top portion of the building tilt to the weaker side before collapsing.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
My quote was simply regarding the acctualy fall of the buildings. Not what made them fall. If a building that heavy and large starts to fall it will go straight down. Regardless of what caused it to collaps in the first place. So those people claiming it must have been a controlled demolition because the building collapsed so "controlled" is just pulling that out of the air.Originally Posted by stee
The fire protection on the steel beems where in many places probably ripped of the the plane during the impact. So the steel beems where fully exposed to the fire and like I wrote in a earlier post the strenght of steel goes down dramaticly at temps as low as 600 c.
Well one of the towers did start like that. The entire upper part of the building was collapsing at a tilt at first.
Member
im not arguing with you or trying to pose questions about your beliefs, i doubt very much that the plane had damaged the fire protection on every supporting column in the building enough so much so, that is caused the whole stucture to fail.
Maybe it did maybe it didnt.
I could understand the structure above failing to a degree but not the ones below.
I seriously doubt fire was the main cause of the collapse as i said about fire protection.
The sprinkler system in the building would have minimised the intensity of the actual fire.
The fire would'nt have had to break through to the upper floor/s for the sprinkler heads to actuate. The tempreture would have risen enough for the mercury tube to burst which would have also aided in the preservation of the structure above the floor where the plane crashed.
One thing that made me think pretty early was that smoke ignites at tempretures above 500 c.
If the actual tempreture in the floors where the fire was above 500 c, the smoke would have been ignighting where the fresh air met the smoke layer.
As you can clearly see the pulsating smoke is not ignighting, which tells me the temp was below 500 c. (i know it sounds like im arguing with you now, but im not im just saying what i know)
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Nothing wrong with some argumentsand Im certanly not trying to claim I am a expert on this. But the fire protection wouldnt have to be pealed of all over. A few places weakening enough would be catastropic.
Its plausible that the crash destroyed parts of the sprinkler systems on those floors. I dont know what the official report has to say about the sprinkles to be honest.
But there is still a possibility for hotspots. For all smoke to be ignited the entire air temperature all over the floor would have to be above 500. But the only thing important was the temperature in the imidiet souroding(damn I can never spell that word) of the beems.
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
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
Don't worry, in case you don't watch TV we have a proxy war going on.
Syria is next and we are sending bunker busters to Israel as we speak.
Now I wonder what they will be used for. answer: nuclear reactor.
Anabolic Member
I try to avoid TV as a source of news.
Sources to your claims would be nice.....
Last edited by Phreak101; 07-25-2006 at 11:14 AM.
Anabolic Member
Funny Guy! No TV. What do you do in the evenings?
Anabolic Member
So you admit to your source being National Enquirer and
reliable Muslim colums at Aljazeera. No TV. rolflmao
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Are you acctualy telling me you belive the conspiracy theories that claim america never went to the moon?? Seriously??
The flag "flapped" because the astronaut moved the damn pole for christ sake. The flag was rigged to be extended(otherwise it would have just hung down) and the movement of the pole caused ripples on the flag.
If you acctualy truly belive the moon conspiracy theories I dont know what to say. The moon conspiracy theories are probably the easiest of them all to debunk.
btw things dont "float" on the moon. They fall straight down.
Last edited by Kärnfysikern; 07-25-2006 at 12:52 PM.
Associate Member
I can believe the JFK and moon theories both ways. They could be the way the government says it was or they could not be. IMO there isnt enough evidence to convince me one way or the other. But I tend to believe more along the lines of the CTs. There is actually a book written by an ex FBI or CIA agent, not sure which one. Called the Pale Horse...or something like that. Basically details how the government was behind the JFK assassination. Anyways...after he wrote the book, he was killed. Not sure by who or why....but IMO that raises eyebrows.
"AR's Pretty Boy"
Just watched the whole thing at work and there are some really interesting points brought up.
Anabolic Member
And you can see why I hate these threads more than anything. Shows how truly gullible and stupid people are. Enjoy the plate of bullshit that sits on your table.
Member
There is no reason to lock a thread like this, whether you agree or do not. If you lock any consperacy threads then you should lock the "patriotic" pro war ones to. And if these kind of things offend you, go jump off a bridge soiciety doenst need your whiny ass.
Anabolic Member
I didn't start this thread to start a pissing match, I started this thread because the prospect of conspiracy among the WTC disaster is interesting, especially with the points brought up in the link I posted.
Forget the moon landing and JFK, that's old news. I'm just looking for pro/con opinions on the topics proposed in the video I posted. If you have any nonsense/bullshit to add (need an example? See all of Ufa's posts), please refrain.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Not pissing on you at all because you are one of the few that are willing to look at both sides. Most people that start these kinds of threads are not interested in the other sides views. They just want to preach there own belifes.
Thats why I havent closed this thread because I know your smart enough to look at all sides.
Anabolic Member
I appreciate the compliment, and am glad to have you contributing!
Anabolic Member
Well since nobody here has talked about how the towers were constructed I will tell you. I didnt watch them being built but I did watch them come down live and not on tv. The towers were supported by an inner core. This is 4 steel beams that held the bulk of the towers up. The outter walls were not steel but were actually more pliable metal so to sway in storms and high winds. When the planes hit the towers all 4 steel supports columns were totally severed leaving the bulk of the weight on the outter shell of the building. The towers were constructed this way so they cannot FALLLLLLL over because of the inner core beams. As johan stated they were also built to withstand a 707 on a landing desent. This LARGER plane hit the building going well over 500mph...in fact I believe they estimated the plane travelling at around 650 mph....passed max velocity of that sized plane. Now Mr. Minoru Yamasaki the lone designer of the WTC states that it was designed that the building would do something called an "umbrella implosion." Meaning that the way it was designed if it ever needed to be demolished or taken down it would pancake in place as opposed to just falling down on top of a bunch of other buildings from a "suitable height." (Nova) You can see the "umbrella" part because when it collapsed it went outward like an umbrella. This is from the man who built the WTC in the 1970's.
Now if that's not enough here is some food for thought. To bring down a building of that magnitude do you understand how many months of preperation it takes to being down a 10 story building. The entire building must first be gutted so only structural steel and concrete support columns remain. Each column on each floor must be drilled into or welded apart and packed with explosives. Now for those with a brain you'd have to think that how can gov't agents walk into the WTC, weld steel, jackhammer into concrete columns over the course of YEARS (since there are 110 floors in each building) bring in about 100 tons of explosives, wire it up and connect every fuse on all floors at every section of the floor without any person at any time seeing them EVER. I'm sure the daily maintanence crew who is in charge of maintaining two 110 story buildings wouldnt have seen a thing among the 100,000 people who work in the towers. Not to mention that if the towers failed to implode at even one level all those pretty explosives would be sitting there for all to see. Without forgetting to mention that explosive residue would COVER EVERYTHING and its impossible to conceal that. Explosive residue must corrode over time and cannot be washed off or bleached or put into a furnace to melt off. Even the Louazeau family who are the most popular stuctural demolition family in the nation has had several failures with minor structures including explosives that misfired or did not fire at all. And actually this family has more gov't contracts than anyone...and please refrain from saying that this family was part of it. Then I can see you're just reaching for straws.
Last edited by USfighterFC; 07-25-2006 at 01:19 PM.
Senior Member
This and Johan's posts are the only sensible comments in this thread. The moon landing was staged? Come on bro
Member
i didnt really think it was a plausable reason really. but what gets me is where they were located. they were in the same area of the building almost uniformly. maybe there was a pressurised firefighting shaft there that cause it. but i doubt it. thats teh only explanation i could offer for it really.
I also thought that the fireprotection would have been that much of a high standard that they would have virtualy sealed the building, intumecent strips on the firedoors etc.
The floors would be air tight or as near as damn it.
If the downward pressure of the floors above failing was that great, which i would have imagined it would have been.
I would have invisaged it would have blown out nearly all of the windows and the plumes would'nt have been localised such as they were in the footage.
Associate Member
Loose Change 911 2nd edition is like 1hr 30mins long. Not sure if thats the one you saw or not, but that one has loads of info. That one also zooms in and pinpoints all of the windows blowing out along with a flash of light before each one. But I know, I know...that wasnt controlled detonation yada yada yada...
Associate Member
Johan, the Pentagon is the easiest one to dissprove. Like I said the jet is 150' wide. The hole in the Pentagon was 9' wide. There was no other damage except the hole. Dont you think the wings and everything else would have done some kind of damage? Also, the lawn wasnt even scratched. I would tend to think that a 747 sliding along the grass would tear up at least a few blades of grass....no?? There are also witnesses that say they saw a helicopter fire a missle at the Pentagon.
Anabolic Member
Here we go again. Will this silly stuff ever end.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
the wingspan is totaly irrelevant. The wings wouldnt do any damange whatsoever to the concrete structure. They are so structuraly weak.
What about the plane debries found on the site? Where they planted while noe one was looking?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
this is a quote from the article I linked to in my second post in this thread
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.
Anabolic Member
Mr. Phreak,
Maybe the space people are some how involved.
Member
there is probably a handfull of reasons why, whoever done this did what they did.
i doubt it will ever come out. well the whole truth anyway. But untill it does there will be a billion and one speculations on the reasons why and who was to blame.
Still doesnt dismiss the facts that there, and are clearly there for all to see.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
more
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Associate Member
this could go back and forth forever. everyone believes their own ideas on the issue. the only thing im saying is look at everything you can and then make your decision. its narrow minded to rule out either that it was a CT or actually how the government said it was. after watching the movies and reading the reports no matter what you believe the other idea is at the very least plausible and definetly deserves some consideration. and with that, im done with this topic................................for now
Junior Member
I'm glad to see there's still some thinker's out there. If you really step back and look at the evidence then you can't deny it was an inside job.
From the missing gold to building 7 and everything in between.
And do some research on THERMITE, which btw traces of HAVE been found
by independent researchers and physicists. Check out www.prisonplanettv.com and www.infowars.com and dig around in there.
I've known Alex Jones for quite awhile and he's SERIOUS about the truth,
and he's not some weirdo either. That dude can't even sleep cause of how much he's uncovered. Anyway, don't let the sheep discourage you, keep looking, cause it goes deep!
Anabolic Member
Good hopefully is life will waste away a little faster now that he's not sleeping.
Member
the only thing that will make argument like this go back n forth are the fact that people are all too hapy to believe what they are told. The facts are the facts.
You cannot dismiss the fact that a plane flew in to each tower.
You cannot say the buildings never fell down
Anything between them two is pure speculation.
You cannot investigate the cause of collapse 100% because the steps are impossible to follow.
The only real thing that lies between are cold hard scientific facts.
The series of events etc.
If people dont wanna believe what is fact then its their problem, ive made my mind up how the buillding did'nt fall, but i dont know how it did and doubt i ever will truthfully know.
For those who think it was becasue of the plane and fire caused by, then all i can say is more fool you.
like the age old adage: in the land of the blind the one eye'd man is king.
Anabolic Member
Do you know what is absolutely pathetic....the way you conspiracy theorists are ABSOLUTELY SO SURE that it was an inside job with nothing but pure speculation. No matter how many thousands saw it and experienced it, no matter how many physicists, scientists, engineers, and witnesses tell you otherwise you will believe one man with horse shit evidence that has been debunked countless times. And you have nerve to call everyone else "narrow minded" when it is you who refuse to hear anything except what you want to hear. Out of all the evidence given to you showing you otherwise you all debunk NOTHING...you will pick at something that you think is weak and do a piss poor job explaining anything. You're only response is "Watch the video man." Please do not think for a second that you're thinking outside the box because you're doing nothing of the sort.
Last edited by USfighterFC; 07-25-2006 at 06:16 PM.
Member
problem is US, too many people talk about things they no nothing about. they only know from what they have seen on the TV and that falls for both conspiracy theorists and the people who believe everything they hear in the news.
I have no doubts that the facts are there, deep enough, because i just do not belive that an impact of that size nor fire of that calibre is enough to fell a building of that size let alone 2 in the space of minutes.
Ive seen loads of building fires and ive seen loads fall. but no 2 were ever the same. and ive a garden shed take more time to fall than those towers.
I read a report in the national geographic some time ago. their expert was claiming it was down to the ferocity of the fire. Bollox. any firefighter who knows anythign about how fire burns and how fire protection slows fire spread will tell you that that building did not fall because of fire.
If that is an experts opinion and im speaking from experience, whos wrong?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
But where are all those firefighters telling the world the expert is full of shit? If the official explanation is so full of holes experts all over the world would scream.
The hardest thing in the world is to get scientists to shut up
Member
Never a truer word spoken.
Member
At the end of the day thought.
The expert will say what he is told to say.
"So some people say anyway".
I will say what i know.
Anabolic Member
I dont agree with that at all. An expert is just that because he is NOT told what to say and does the research on his own. Right there is how a conspiracy theory starts. What makes you think that an expert hasnt experienced something 10,000 times more than you have?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote