Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: sandycoosworth on January 07, 2007, 04:56:06 PM
-
i challange anyone here to watch this clip with a frame by frame capable player and not see individual expolsions happening all over the corner of the south tower at every stage of the collapse
&search=wtc%20close%20up%20collapse
youll need to extract the video and get a frame by frame capable player, but it will be well worth it ... you can see fire and what looks like molten metal shooting out all over, not just up where the floors were burning and you can see white flashes all over the place followed by huge gaseous expolsions and metal/concrete being blown apart
-
That's dripping molten metal unless I'm looking something different. There is other films that show that as molten metal pouring out right there, which is suspect as hell too.
-
i challange anyone here to watch this clip with a frame by frame capable player and not see individual expolsions happening all over the corner of the south tower at every stage of the collapse
&search=wtc%20close%20up%20collapse
youll need to extract the video and get a frame by frame capable player, but it will be well worth it ... you can see fire and what looks like molten metal shooting out all over, not just up where the floors were burning and you can see white flashes all over the place followed by huge gaseous expolsions and metal/concrete being blown apart
You don't know what it is ? It is the air, bursting out to the collapsing building. Most of the rooms were intact, and when floors above start to collapse, air pressure inside of the building rises, and some of the windows couldn't hold it. Window cracks, and some smoke/dust/fire comes out in burst. All ventilation were on roof of the towers, so there wasn't any airway left in that direction.
-
air bursting out of the building wouldnt cause steel to melt
nor would it cause white flashes (which are followed by gaseous explosions)
nor would it blow out windows 100's of feet away
nor would it cause 300 000 lbs of steel to embed itself in a building 400 feet away
nor would it cause they pyroclastic flows seen after the collapse of all 3 towers
watch the video and do a frame by frame analysis before you open your mouth again >:(
-
air bursting out of the building wouldnt cause steel to melt
How many other things would or could cause steel to melt?
What are some of the things occuring in the building that could cause steel to melt besides deliberate sabotage?
How many other metals were present int he building that could have melted?
Do we know everything that was happening in the building at the time of the explosions?
Do we have the expertese and or the education to make a determination about what should and what should not melt based on a video?
nor would it cause white flashes (which are followed by gaseous explosions)
From what credible stand point outside amature speculation and conjecture can we make definate statement such as this?
Are there things in the building on those floors that could have exploded based on pressure or heat that would cause the white flashes?
Have you researched every that was in the biulding including maintenence equipment, chemicals, tanks etc...?
nor would it blow out windows 100's of feet away
What standard are we using that duplicates the conditions around a 100+ story building falling that says the energy displacment isn't great enough to blow windows out?
How much eneergy would each of those floor colapsing on each other generate?
Do you know how to figure this out?
Do you have the knowedge or the know how to figure this out?
Again, From what credible stand point outside amature speculation and conjecture can we make definate statement such as this?
How many pounds of steel were used to build the WTC's? (you should be able to answer this)
Have you measured the force created by the collapse?
Do you even know how to do that?
nor would it cause they pyroclastic flows seen after the collapse of all 3 towers
Do we have a degree in vocanology also?
Do you have a degree in structual engineering?
Do you have a degree in physics?
Do you have a degree in chemistry?
watch the video and do a frame by frame analysis before you open your mouth again >:(
I suggest that maybe you gather more facts and get more educated before you open your mouth again and make a determination based on just a video without the education or the back ground to have an opinion that has any merit outside of amature speculation.
Nice attempt at making an airtight arguement ;)
-
ill post it again and bold the important part to save you another hour of typing dipshit...
air bursting out of the building wouldnt cause steel to melt
nor would it cause white flashes (which are followed by gaseous explosions)
nor would it blow out windows 100's of feet away
nor would it cause 300 000 lbs of steel to embed itself in a building 400 feet away
nor would it cause they pyroclastic flows seen after the collapse of all 3 towers
watch the video and do a frame by frame analysis before you open your mouth again >:(
but that was a nice attempt at making an airtight argument ::)
-
good lord ozmo..
http://members.aol.com/profchm/charles.html
http://members.aol.com/profchm/boyle.html
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel <read the max burning temp and corrolate it to the melting point of steel>
THERE..read..Science..
-
ill post it again and bold the important part to save you another hour of typing dipshit...
but that was a nice attempt at making an airtight argument ::)
did you even read the questions? no.
But then again that's your M.O. in finding the truth.
-
How many other things would or could cause steel to melt?
What are some of the things occuring in the building that could cause steel to melt besides deliberate sabotage?
How many other metals were present int he building that could have melted?
Do we know everything that was happening in the building at the time of the explosions?
Do we have the expertese and or the education to make a determination about what should and what should not melt based on a video?
Obviously you've decided that you have the back ground to answer these questions and give concrete answers sandy.
so what's your next great feat of investagating genius going be?
-
ill post it again and bold the important part to save you another hour of typing dipshit...
but that was a nice attempt at making an airtight argument ::)
More evidence you can't have a simple debate without insults.... BTW it took me about 10 minutes.
-
How many other things would or could cause steel to melt?
melting would ONLY be caused by a temperature increase..THATS IT!
How many other metals were present int he building that could have melted
most file cabnets r metal...i mean the structure of a building is all reinforced steel..
-
melting would ONLY be caused by a temperature increase..THATS IT!
most file cabnets r metal...i mean the structure of a building is all reinforced steel..
So metal file cabinets are the only other larger letal objects besides the steel frame?
-
Becuase this whole thread is about implying that the WTC's were brought down by planted explosives not structual failure due to heat caused by jet fuel right?
-
So metal file cabinets are the only other larger letal objects besides the steel frame?
other metal being present would have nothing to do with material the buildings were built with...why does this matter?
metalstaplers sitting on someones deak for example r a moot point.. :-\
-
other metal being present would have nothing to do with material the buildings were built with...why does this matter?
metalstaplers sitting on someones deak for example r a moot point.. :-\
Well you have piping, desks, copper from wire, etc.. all of which could have pooled from the heat and then spilled as the building went down.
also, the heat could have increased as the fire raged on. Much like stoking a furnace.
-
Well you have piping, desks, copper from wire, etc.. all of which could have pooled from the heat and then spilled as the building went down.
also, the heat could have increased as the fire raged on. Much like stoking a furnace.
plausable..but not probable enough to increase the temp from 980 degrees to 1500degrees.. :-\
thats almost 2ice the increase..
a few hundred degrees yes..but not THAT much...a furnace is closed..with insulation...
plus most of the jetfuel exploded on impact..
-
plausable..but not probable enough to increase the temp from 980 degrees to 1500degrees.. :-\
thats almost 2ice the increase..
a few hundred degrees yes..but not THAT much...a furnace is closed..with insulation...
plus most of the jetfuel exploded on impact..
Good points... I wonder what someone with a background and education in these things would say.
-
take an hour and watch kevin ryan discuss the 911 commission report and NIST ..... he doesnt say what happened, just shows how deceptive their testing was in pain staking detail:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/kevin_ryan_new_standard_for_deception.htm
-
Good points... I wonder what someone with a background and education in these things would say.
THEY DID lol..in MANY of the vids 240 posted...
no one watched em...if you had..ya wouldn't be having this conversation...hell they even talked to the manager of the place where the steel came from in one vid..and he said nooo friggin way it coulda melted..and then a month later..retracted his statement..hmmm
now take the time to watch what jim here is posting..
-
take an hour and watch kevin ryan discuss the 911 commission report and NIST ..... he doesnt say what happened, just shows how deceptive their testing was in pain staking detail:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/kevin_ryan_new_standard_for_deception.htm
Ok i'll watch it later on when i have time.
My problem is, is why doesn't more people in these fields speak up? I would think that if the temperature thing is that blatant 1000's of scientists would be saying something.
-
Ok i'll watch it later on when i have time.
My problem is, is why doesn't more people in these fields speak up? I would think that if the temperature thing is that blatant 1000's of scientists would be saying something.
originally the story was that the steel melted, alot of people spoke up and said this wasnt anywhere near possible with jet fuel and uncontrolled hydro carbon fires
then the story changed to the steel being heated and therefore reduced to half its strength ... however, kevin ryan shows that even without fireproofing the temperatures wouldnt be hot enough for this, nor did they burn long enough
not to say that it had to be explosives (but i strongly suspect it was) rather the point is for whatever reason the sotry NIST and the 911 commission gave us is not true
aside from all that, the fact the commission was headed by a close friend of many key players in this story should be a red flag to everyone ... impartiality was completely out the window and that zalicow prick had discretion over which issues were looked into
-
Ok i'll watch it later on when i have time.
My problem is, is why doesn't more people in these fields speak up? I would think that if the temperature thing is that blatant 1000's of scientists would be saying something.
ok i ask you..why dont more moderate muslims speak up against terrorism?
they r and they do in both cases...
1) most people set in their ideas wont listen...i mean 240s been screaming for how long now bro? lol
2) with the storng "being anti bush = you r anti america " propaganda...most r just afraid...plain n simple..when you have a family to support..you dont wanna open your mouth and lose your job..
-
ok i ask you..why dont more moderate muslims speak up against terrorism?
they r and they do in both cases...
1) most people set in their ideas wont listen...i mean 240s been screaming for how long now bro? lol
2) with the storng "being anti bush = you r anti america " propaganda...most r just afraid...plain n simple..when you have a family to support..you dont wanna open your mouth and lose your job..
On point #1: I've been listening to 240 for 4 months now. Initially i looked at all his stuff with a very opened mind. But in the end, for me most of his theories didn't make sense in the overall picture.
Now 240 speaking out is far different from people with credentials in fields related to the science of the matter speaking out. That's what i'm talking about.
Regarding #2: that's true in the military but not in the civilian sector. There are many scientists who could make lots of noise and have little to lose.
Also:
Moderate Muslims speaking out is a politcal issue. While scientists speaking out is not. Remember the base personality of the majority of scientists is the pursuit of the truth.
As a cisco guy you should relate somewhat to this. ;)
-
On point #1: I've been listening to 240 for 4 months now. Initially i looked at all his stuff with a very opened mind. But in the end, for me most of his theories didn't make sense in the overall picture.
Now 240 speaking out is far different from people with credentials in fields related to the science of the matter speaking out. That's what i'm talking about.
Regarding #2: that's true in the military but not in the civilian sector. There are many scientists who could make lots of noise and have little to lose.
Also:
Moderate Muslims speaking out is a politcal issue. While scientists speaking out is not. Remember the base personality of the majority of scientists is the pursuit of the truth.
As a cisco guy you should relate somewhat to this. ;)
1) 240 not being an expert doesnt mean 240 is wrong
2) those scientists have their funding and reputations to lose ... thas a big motivator to keep your mouth shut
-
2) those scientists have their funding and reputations to lose ... thas a big motivator to keep your mouth shut
Ozmo..hes got a point here man...
-
originally the story was that the steel melted, alot of people spoke up and said this wasnt anywhere near possible with jet fuel and uncontrolled hydro carbon fires
then the story changed to the steel being heated and therefore reduced to half its strength ... however, kevin ryan shows that even without fireproofing the temperatures wouldnt be hot enough for this, nor did they burn long enough
not to say that it had to be explosives (but i strongly suspect it was) rather the point is for whatever reason the sotry NIST and the 911 commission gave us is not true
aside from all that, the fact the commission was headed by a close friend of many key players in this story should be a red flag to everyone ... impartiality was completely out the window and that zalicow prick had discretion over which issues were looked into
Is there anyway it was metals from the plane melting? Aluminum and shit? I believe it was an inside job so I'm not trying to shoot down that but if there is any explanation for things it should probably be looked at. Playing devil's advocate here ;D
-
1) 240 not being an expert doesnt mean 240 is wrong
2) those scientists have their funding and reputations to lose ... thas a big motivator to keep your mouth shut
RE: #1, no certainly not. But i was refering to people with a background in realted fields. 240 doesn't have that so his theories are specualtion based on lack of expertese in the realted fields therefore it's not credibile.
RE: #2, Yes and no. I would think if it's as plain as day that certain things reported are just impossible liek the temperature of steel melting that more scientists would speak up. They wouldn't have to say its a scam, all they'd have to say its the finding is wrong or based on impossible physics. Doing that wouldn't jeprodize their reps. What would jepordize their reps would be to say it was what the CT'ers are saying.
-
didn't they find mohammad attas passport in the rubble?
it made it thru a fire that melted a building and magically didn't burn.. ;D
-
Ozmo this is a 5 min video...
will you take the time to watch this?
if not..then u r just refusing to look at the evidence..
i'd like your opinion on this..
-
Is there anyway it was metals from the plane melting? Aluminum and shit? I believe it was an inside job so I'm not trying to shoot down that but if there is any explanation for things it should probably be looked at. Playing devil's advocate here ;D
im sure some of the metal melting would be somehthing other than steel ... however the hardened metal that was found on the columns was tested by professor jones and turned out to be iron (or iron sulfate) which is the end result of an incredibly hot chemical reaction, namely thermite or thermate and steel
-
im sure some of the metal melting would be somehthing other than steel ... however the hardened metal that was found on the columns was tested by professor jones and turned out to be iron (or iron sulfate) which is the end result of an incredibly hot chemical reaction, namely thermite or thermate and steel
Can't argue that!!!!
-
RE: #1, no certainly not. But i was refering to people with a background in realted fields. 240 doesn't have that so his theories are specualtion based on lack of expertese in the realted fields therefore it's not credibile.
RE: #2, Yes and no. I would think if it's as plain as day that certain things reported are just impossible liek the temperature of steel melting that more scientists would speak up. They wouldn't have to say its a scam, all they'd have to say its the finding is wrong or based on impossible physics. Doing that wouldn't jeprodize their reps. What would jepordize their reps would be to say it was what the CT'ers are saying.
there have been many academics speaking up ... im sure rob could link us to the 911 schollars page
problem is the mainstream media doesnt listen, and the only acknowledgement they ever get is negative ... take a look at steven jones on MSNBC for a good example
-
more blast eye witness accounts ...