Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cap on February 02, 2007, 08:15:19 PM
-
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
-
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
OUTSTANDING!!!
Cap, you're the man.
Keep em coming while I send this to all the CT trash I know.
-
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
-
Lol dracula is gonna have a bowel movement when he sees this, I bet he's gonna turn all red and shit and start posting more stupid links to try and prove his crackpot theories.
-
crackpot theories.
And I thought it was just me. :) Definitely crackpot theories.
-
And I thought it was just me. :) Definitely crackpot theories.
The funniest part about all of this is how indignant these would-be conspirators act when someone points out the absurdity of their claims. Mock them, I say.
-
We bungle a war but pull off the most spectacular attack in history. These guys can't have it both ways....Humans cannot keep their mouths shut. 240 don't bother responding we all know what u'll say. This thread could go on for days...it would become an epic tome if 240 went to war on this.
-
The funniest part about all of this is how indignant these would-be conspirators act when someone points out the absurdity of their claims. Mock them, I say.
I agree and have made that same comment more than once on this board. Bad enough that a person believes in some wild theory that most reasonable people consider a fairy tale, but to get angry and insult people who DON'T believe this nonsense is comical.
-
We bungle a war but pull off the most spectacular attack in history. These guys can't have it both ways....Humans cannot keep their mouths shut.
Two of the reasons why this makes no sense. Literally impossible for the hundreds of co-conspirators to keep quiet.
Then there are the missing planes and bodies.
-
good stuff cap
-
We need to stop..the utter stupidity of some this is legendary. Even some of 240's later argumenst..the dissapearing wing deal and then he posted much later about the debris on some of th floors including wing and plane parts. Anyway its nuts. But what drives me nuts is we're all called blind. I'm not blind. I'm sure uncle sam wasn't 100% honest about all the details. They did some ass covering...it always happens.
-
wack each other off, fellas.
Then, tell me how building 7 fell.
Thanks!
-
i'll start by saying vibrations was like a earthquacke, and subway was collapsing...... :-\
-
i'll start by saying vibrations was like a earthquacke, and subway was collapsing...... :-\
Huh?
-
wack each other off, fellas.
Then, tell me how building 7 fell.
Thanks!
Care to refute any of the facts in the reports provided?
-
wasn't there a subway under that building and the wtc? or underground stores or something?
also could the vibration from the two building falling contributed to that?
or maybe bomb we're install inside the building days before ::)
-
wasn't there a subway under that building and the wtc? or underground stores or something?
also could the vibration from the two building falling contributed to that?
or maybe bomb we're install inside the building days before ::)
No. The only attempted reason so far is "asymmetrical fires in parts of it caused it to fall symmetrically".
I'll attach a pic of it. It's a 47 story building that converts itself to powder in 7 seconds.
Vaporized. All 47 of the floors lose structural integrity at once, and the two central columns implode too.
it's been almost 6 years, and the white house/NIST keep putting off the WTC7 report.
it is the smoking gun of 9/11. you don't have to look at any other building. There was no subway, they admit the fuel tank never broke. hell, most of the windows were still intact.
The building was vaporized. Here is a 8-second google clip of the collapse. it is a controlled demolition.
BACK VIEW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en
FRONT VIEW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872&q=wtc7+collapse+new&hl=en
-
wack each other off, fellas.
Then, tell me how building 7 fell.
Thanks!
What he said.
:)
-
I know when steel weakens, I've cut steel with an Oxy Acetylene Torch...
All I'd like to know is why/how they fell faster than the speed of gravity?
-
I know when steel weakens, I've cut steel with an Oxy Acetylene Torch...
All I'd like to know is why/how they fell faster than the speed of gravity?
Scientists will tell you it's because the air resistance was removed. This happened because the explosives removed oxygen from the equation and the remnants fell in a vacuum.
"Official story-ers" will tell you it's because 19 arabs have magical powers and can vaporize buildings they don't even hit with planes.
-
wasn't there a subway under that building and the wtc? or underground stores or something?
also could the vibration from the two building falling contributed to that?
or maybe bomb we're install inside the building days before ::)
PATH train. It has since been rebuilt. Driving through there is a somber sight.
-
the dollar bill made me a believer.
-
the dollar bill made me a believer.
lol. :D
-
the dollar bill made me a believer.
i know your joking! ..... right?
-
No. The only attempted reason so far is "asymmetrical fires in parts of it caused it to fall symmetrically".
I'll attach a pic of it. It's a 47 story building that converts itself to powder in 7 seconds.
Vaporized. All 47 of the floors lose structural integrity at once, and the two central columns implode too.
it's been almost 6 years, and the white house/NIST keep putting off the WTC7 report.
it is the smoking gun of 9/11. you don't have to look at any other building. There was no subway, they admit the fuel tank never broke. hell, most of the windows were still intact.
The building was vaporized. Here is a 8-second google clip of the collapse. it is a controlled demolition.
BACK VIEW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en
FRONT VIEW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872&q=wtc7+collapse+new&hl=en
ya it was explosives tht brought it down you putz,, show me a video where you here explosions.. something that sounds like this except 5x as loud
-
ya it was explosives tht brought it down you putz,, show me a video where you here explosions.. something that sounds like this except 5x as loud
This video shows a bunch of Ground Zero rescuers hearing two faint explosions and commenting about the WTC 7:
Rescuer 1: "It's blowin' boy. Did you hear that?"
Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon."
Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
Rescuer 4: "Move it back here. Alright guys? Sorry."
Rescuer 3: "We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."
These explosions are the same ones caught on this video showing police talking on a pay phone, only the explosions are much louder. You can also see the same "striped" building @ :09 on the lefthand side:
"WTC rescuers at pay phone hear loud explosion"
I await your response.
-
For those unfamiliar, here is World Trade 7, a building which vaporized from a few small fires after NOT being his by any plane, on 9/11.
-
From the person who tried to convince everyone the planes that crashed into the WTC's were holograms..........
he asks people to explain how WTC7 fell?
priceless!
-
For those unfamiliar, here is World Trade 7, a building which vaporized from a few small fires after NOT being his by any plane, on 9/11.
more spin dribble ............
speculation and conjecture run a mock! lol
-
do you have a pic of the front of the building 240????????????
well?
because until you do............... you have nothing but speculation
-
From the person who tried to convince everyone the planes that crashed into the WTC's were holograms..........
he asks people to explain how WTC7 fell?
priceless!
Holograms? Hahaha, that's the best one yet! He didn't, did he?
-
Well look at the skeptic circle jerk I just found :D I hope you all clean your mess up...
-
Honestly, looking a video that can be cut to show you just one thing isn't going to solve the problem. Looking at the building collapse does not show a building that I would think was detonated. Did that building have a center support or outer supports like the WTC 1 and 2? If so, an explosion is not plausible.
-
i know your joking! ..... right?
Do you have a explanation? I sure as hell don't.
-
the picture of the dollard bill was made long before the wtc existed, can you explain this?
-
Honestly, looking a video that can be cut to show you just one thing isn't going to solve the problem. Looking at the building collapse does not show a building that I would think was detonated. Did that building have a center support or outer supports like the WTC 1 and 2? If so, an explosion is not plausible.
a controlled demolition is. You would hit every third floor with cutter charges and you would take out the central columns just before (you can see the penthouse falling 7 seconds before the tower falls, as the middle of the building loses all structural integrity and the outside falls in.
I want a written apology from each idiot here who mocks something they haven't researched or uses past discussions on WTC 1/2 to in any way influence this discussion. No, I want a blowjob from each of you. And I'm not even gay.
-
a controlled demolition is. You would hit every third floor with cutter charges and you would take out the central columns just before (you can see the penthouse falling 7 seconds before the tower falls, as the middle of the building loses all structural integrity and the outside falls in.
I want a written apology from each idiot here who mocks something they haven't researched or uses past discussions on WTC 1/2 to in any way influence this discussion. No, I want a blowjob from each of you. And I'm not even gay.
I know how controlled demo works but if the building had an outer support like the towers I don't think it would have gone like that. You would see the blasts on the outer part of the building. The Towers were meant to have a center support but did not, that is one reason why they feel so easily.
-
I know how controlled demo works but if the building had an outer support like the towers I don't think it would have gone like that. You would see the blasts on the outer part of the building.
You do see blasts - from the CBS front view, top right, there are a series of ejections which occur on the top 10 floors just before the collapse succession begins. Also the classic "kink" in the penthouse is a DEAD giveaway of explosives being used to remove integrity of central column. I'm not flaming you cap86- there has been a lot of analysis on WTC7, and the govt has repeatedly skipped its own deadlines for telling us why it fell.
The Towers were meant to have a center support but did not, that is one reason why they feel so easily.
Wrong, boss. download the movie of them being built. 47 central columns. You can view them standing last after both towers, then they fall last. Tall light colored sets of beams. This was a common misconception of the 911 Commission's Version 1 - which was then debunked (the pancake theory). The initial report said the center was hollow (and the WTC blueprints were classified instantly, oddly ;) ) Then, the films from the 70s emerged and the incredibly strong concrete/steel central columns become known. NIST then changed their story - the pancake theory became implausable and impossible then.
-
In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.
The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1
THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html (i just pulled out some important facts but you can read some more)
-
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
-
Sorry, that has since been disproven. You are pasting the old beliefs. And it completely ignores the fact the South Tower fire was nearly out, and doesn't explain the pools of molten steel. And it sure doesn't explain the pulverization - NOTHING can powderize every ounce of concrete in a 110 story building, except explosives. I don't like it, it's scary and sad, but it's true.
WTC7 is easier to argue, as (no offense to anyone) if a group will blow up towers with 3000 people inside, they'll have no problem putting disinformation out there. Yes, murderers will put lies on the web. Due to teh WTC 1/2 complexity, we should stick to WTC7, as this one will disintegrate into us trading physics formulas we don't understand and cannot conceptualize from each of our websites.
-
do you have a pic of the front of the building 240?HuhHuhHuh??
well?
because until you do............... you have nothing but speculation
LET's avoid the most logical question and dive right into arguing points in a vacuum
-
I find it so amazing people dismiss points so easily. Personal bias really seems to take hold on this one. I have many fire fighter friends 240, one in particular who is an expert in building integrity and has studied the Towers and other tall buildings (in places such as LA and Chicago) so i guess he's a moron and has no credibility. Put aside your feelings for the administration and look at facts. You claim that facts disseminated by the government are false yet conspiracy thoeries posted on the web by a bunch of internet nerds contain credibility? A building that tall collapsing would bring the structure down easily. The fire burned hot enough to weaken that structure to collapse and once the weight of the top came down so did the rest. Deal with it. As far as WTC 7, I wasn't there and neither were you. There could have been a number of structural issues that caused that, none of which we know. Watching a Youtube video does not make evidence solid.
-
I find it so amazing people dismiss points so easily. Personal bias really seems to take hold on this one. I have many fire fighter friends 240, one in particular who is an expert in building integrity and has studied the Towers and other tall buildings (in places such as LA and Chicago) so i guess he's a moron and has no credibility. Put aside your feelings for the administration and look at facts. You claim that facts disseminated by the government are false yet conspiracy thoeries posted on the web by a bunch of internet nerds contain credibility? A building that tall collapsing would bring the structure down easily. The fire burned hot enough to weaken that structure to collapse and once the weight of the top came down so did the rest. Deal with it. As far as WTC 7, I wasn't there and neither were you. There could have been a number of structural issues that caused that, none of which we know. Watching a Youtube video does not make evidence solid.
Wow, logic and reason soon to be ignored.
-
Wow, logic and reason soon to be ignored.
So you are telling me that so amount of interior damage capable of collapsing a building could have been caused by damage and collapse to the WTC 1 and 2 and the underground structures (PATH train) could have weakened a building enough to collaspe? I'm not saying one way or the other because I haven't researched enough but do they have any evidence besides...
"Well 240 said..."
"I read on the internet..."
"This one person said they heard..."
"The government sucks and...."
-
do you have a pic of the front of the building 240?HuhHuhHuh??
well?
because until you do............... you have nothing but speculation
LET's avoid the most logical question and dive right into arguing points in a vacuum
Huh? There are many pics from both the front and the back. one side was clean. One side was smoky. It fell completely symmetirically.
Ozmo, we're not scoring points here. What's the most 'logical question'?
-
I have many fire fighter friends 240, one in particular who is an expert in building integrity and has studied the Towers and other tall buildings (in places such as LA and Chicago) so i guess he's a moron and has no credibility. Put aside your feelings for the administration and look at facts. You claim that facts disseminated by the government are false yet conspiracy thoeries posted on the web by a bunch of internet nerds contain credibility? A building that tall collapsing would bring the structure down easily. The fire burned hot enough to weaken that structure to collapse and once the weight of the top came down so did the rest. Deal with it. As far as WTC 7, I wasn't there and neither were you. There could have been a number of structural issues that caused that, none of which we know. Watching a Youtube video does not make evidence solid.
"Deal with it"?
LOL... okay.
I could spend my sunday arguing with you on this one, but it's clear you aren't aware of the firefighters who have called for a new investigation, and it's clear you're still stuck on the "steel bent" issue when ignoring the giant pools of molten steel underneath.
So have a great super bowl sunday. 911 was an inside job. This is a fact. You believe what you want, I will believe what I do.
-
Huh? There are many pics from both the front and the back. one side was clean. One side was smoky. It fell completely symmetirically.
Ozmo, we're not scoring points here. What's the most 'logical question'?
ok, i'll ask it again:
Do you have a picture of every side of the building YES or NO?
If yes: post pics of all sides.
If no, your position is even weaker.
p.s. you haven't scored a single point ever, all you have is speculation and conjecture based on naive conclusions and incomplete facts.
-
So true Ozmo, he really just posts conjecture and states it as fact.
"Deal with it"?
LOL... okay.
I could spend my sunday arguing with you on this one, but it's clear you aren't aware of the firefighters who have called for a new investigation, and it's clear you're still stuck on the "steel bent" issue when ignoring the giant pools of molten steel underneath.
So have a great super bowl sunday. 911 was an inside job. This is a fact. You believe what you want, I will believe what I do.
With all due respect, even every 911 post aside, there is little chance you are a Republican dude. Your hatred with the Bush Administration goes far beyond any 9/11 issue. How you can believe a conspiracy this large could be pulled off is beyond me. As far as the steel issue, you must be pretty dense to not understand how heat affects steel when it is presented to to in big bold letters. Honestly, if the entire structure is weakened to half it's strength and cannot sustain the weight of the floors, they will collapse. The weight becomes too heavy to sustain.
-
With all due respect, even every 911 post aside, there is little chance you are a Republican dude. Your hatred with the Bush Administration goes far beyond any 9/11 issue. How you can believe a conspiracy this large could be pulled off is beyond me. As far as the steel issue, you must be pretty dense to not understand how heat affects steel when it is presented to to in big bold letters. Honestly, if the entire structure is weakened to half it's strength and cannot sustain the weight of the floors, they will collapse. The weight becomes too heavy to sustain.
I like this angle where you underestimate their ability
Let's see...
The govt is capable of running the following things with no problem>
---a nation of 300 million
---all power, energy, water, finance, police, growth, information, education, labor, food, and other aspects life to death, for those 300 million people
---several overseas conflicts as the worlds only superpower
Yet you believe they wouldn't be able to pull off making 4 planes go away and putting 3 projectiles into 3 buildings and bringing 3 down and keep a team of less than 1000 quiet?
I'm not sure your logistics are all there. it wouldn't be that hard to have a team of overseas mercs (who believed in what they were doing) come in for 6 weeks, work like hell, then drop their planes into the sea on teh way home. Shit man, they can run a nation but not one military op? nahhhhh
-
I am a moderate republican. I voted for Bush twice and even converted some dems. Remember when he ran on the conservative, isolationist platform, talking "we're not about nation building".
So much for that. The new neoconservative element has taken over and they are NOT representative of all republicans. You can see that on the news every night as more and more Repubs split from Bush on issues like the war.
-
I like this angle where you underestimate their ability
Let's see...
The govt is capable of running the following things with no problem>
---a nation of 300 million
---all power, energy, water, finance, police, growth, information, education, labor, food, and other aspects life to death, for those 300 million people
---several overseas conflicts as the worlds only superpower
Yet you believe they wouldn't be able to pull off making 4 planes go away and putting 3 projectiles into 3 buildings and bringing 3 down and keep a team of less than 1000 quiet?
I'm not sure your logistics are all there. it wouldn't be that hard to have a team of overseas mercs (who believed in what they were doing) come in for 6 weeks, work like hell, then drop their planes into the sea on teh way home. Shit man, they can run a nation but not one military op? nahhhhh
It would not be a military op. No soldier would do that. Running a country and running an op like this are different. We would not need to kill that many people to justify going to war. if they wanted to do that they could have done something similar to the original WTC attacks and not killed people like what happened that day. You think nobody would notice explosives being placed in these buildings?
Mercs don't believe in anything but money. Hope that helps.
-
Certain coincedental pictures are on all dollar bills when folded. Important to remember is that "Novus Ordo Seclorum" or New World Order is seen on them when folded. coincedence? I think not
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml)
-
It would not be a military op. No soldier would do that. Running a country and running an op like this are different. We would not need to kill that many people to justify going to war. if they wanted to do that they could have done something similar to the original WTC attacks and not killed people like what happened that day. You think nobody would notice explosives being placed in these buildings?
1. Pakistan's CIA (the ISI) sent $100k to Atta a few days before the attacks. You could have had a team of 200 (very willing!) paki special operatives arrive 6 weeks before, worked nights and weekends, and got the job done. There were reports of odd power downs. The elevators were down. Weird drills right before. people found concrete powder all over. Loud machinery on several floors which were supposedly vacant. Teams of people in jumpsuits that last weekend with huge spools of cable "upgrading the internet".
This is all documented in 911 Mysteries (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en)
Here's your justification, plain and simple:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124362.msg1777314#msg1777314
-
I am a moderate republican.
You said you were a libertarian.
-
I like this angle where you underestimate their ability
You like this angle because it's a topic that is easily argued without facts.
-
And 240 is jumping topic again !
stick to the WTC7, 240..................or has facts and logic prevented you again?
Answer my question 240, or are you ducking it once again?
-
And 240 is jumping topic again !
stick to the WTC7, 240..................or has facts and logic prevented you again?
Answer my question 240, or are you ducking it once again?
You're being a prick. I already said I'll debate what you wish on WTC7. It fell symmetrically from unsymmetrical fires. it's a load of shit, but ozmo and cap aren't going to do anything but defend their entrenched positions *which their own govt won't even defend!*, so hell, let's talk the logistical issues.
-
1. Pakistan's CIA (the ISI) sent $100k to Atta a few days before the attacks. You could have had a team of 200 (very willing!) paki special operatives arrive 6 weeks before, worked nights and weekends, and got the job done. There were reports of odd power downs. The elevators were down. Weird drills right before. people found concrete powder all over. Loud machinery on several floors which were supposedly vacant. Teams of people in jumpsuits that last weekend with huge spools of cable "upgrading the internet".
This is all documented in 911 Mysteries (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en)
Here's your justification, plain and simple:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124362.msg1777314#msg1777314
Once again, Mercs do not equal Soldiers, period. They only value money. That is why they would be great in Iraq but no SOLDIER would do this kind of job.
-
You're being a prick. I already said I'll debate what you wish on WTC7. It fell symmetrically from unsymmetrical fires. it's a load of shit, but ozmo and cap aren't going to do anything but defend their entrenched positions *which their own govt won't even defend!*, so hell, let's talk the logistical issues.
now you are getting pissed because you can't answer a logical question?
so instead you jump issues.
You are such a big fucking cry baby.
grow up.
You are making claims based on incomplete facts and you can't even answer simple questions.
when you can handle a REAL debate on REAL facts then come back.
-
The bottom line is you have no facts on WTC 7 and neither do I so I would look pretty stupid arguing a point on which I have no knowledge. All I am saying is there are possibilities that some people wish to ignore and say:
"Demolition for sure."
"You're right 240"
"Damn government."
I really hope you all never experience a bad earthquake because God knows if some structural damage is done to a building and the building next to it collapses, the government will certainly be involved. You see one side of the building, hardly enough evidence to make the great leaps some are willing to make.
-
Oh another thing.....
excuse the fuck out of me for letting you know just how full shit you are 240 on this 9/11 bull crap.
-
Once again, Mercs do not equal Soldiers, period. They only value money. That is why they would be great in Iraq but no SOLDIER would do this kind of job.
???
A team of 200 men from pakistan's military/ISI could have carried out the 3 building wirings in 6 weeks.
I don't think the guilt would have kept them up at night ;)
And with the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, something tells me they could afford it.
-
excuse the f**k out of me for letting you know just how full shit you are 240 on this 9/11 bull crap.
You believe Bush knew and let it happen, don't you?
Sooooo *letting* 3000 die could happen...
but *making* 3000 die is an impossibility.
MMmmmmmkey.
-
You believe Bush knew and let it happen, don't you?
Sooooo *letting* 3000 die could happen...
but *making* 3000 die is an impossibility.
MMmmmmmkey.
yes, because i don't let fantasy get in the way of common sense and facts..........but you do don't you?
which brings us back to the original question of the point you brought up.
do you have pics of all sides of wct7?
-
???
A team of 200 men from pakistan's military/ISI could have carried out the 3 building wirings in 6 weeks.
I don't think the guilt would have kept them up at night ;)
And with the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, something tells me they could afford it.
yeah, ok, we secured transportation and logistics for 200 paki's to wire 3 buildings with explosives in down town NYC so that we could crash 2 airplanes into them and make the american public believe the planes brought them down?
OMFG......another one for the "hologram" category.
-
???
A team of 200 men from pakistan's military/ISI could have carried out the 3 building wirings in 6 weeks.
I don't think the guilt would have kept them up at night ;)
And with the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, something tells me they could afford it.
Could have does not equal "Did". I'm sure nobody would miss a bunch of Arab looking assholes sneaking around buildings 240. this discussion is really old. You sound very jaded at this point. All points aside, you act like this is the first administration to ever get into a war that people stopped believing in. Maybe if the American public had some backbone for the long haul we would accomplish something. Maybe if queer baits stopped bitching and realize that we cannot conquer a country in a week and then leave with no loss of life. That is the American mindset in a nut shell.
Keep ignoring basic science in terms of these collapses and I'll calling you out on them.
-
yeah, ok, we secured transportation and logistics for 200 paki's to wire 3 buildings with explosives in down town NYC so that we could crash 2 airplanes into them and make the american public believe the planes brought them down?
I am only presenting a possible scenario for getting a team to wire a building without the details of chatty Americans with a conscience doing it.
-
Could have does not equal "Did". I'm sure nobody would miss a bunch of Arab looking assholes sneaking around buildings 240. this discussion is really old. You sound very jaded at this point. All points aside, you act like this is the first administration to ever get into a war that people stopped believing in. Maybe if the American public had some backbone for the long haul we would accomplish something. Maybe if queer baits stopped bitching and realize that we cannot conquer a country in a week and then leave with no loss of life. That is the American mindset in a nut shell.
If you watched 911 Mysteries you would see many employees discussing the odd teams of men in jumpsuits, the arabs with passes to the basement, etc.
Keep ignoring basic science in terms of these collapses and I'll calling you out on them.
The laws of physics were violated 3 times on 911. jeez it's like you haven't studied this stuff.
911 Power Hour - Very well reasoned case with undeniable facts (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1324784989021694087&q=911+power+hour&hl=en)
911 Mysteries - Focused upon why the towers fell, best case for controlled demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en)
-
I do have a life and reading conspiracy bullshit on the internet is not one of them.
these are actually decent budget movies. 911 mysteries cost over $100k to produce and it's free to watch online.
watch interviews with employees. they speak of the concrete powder, the machinery, the teams of men in jumpsuits with cables.
see the info on all the power downs, and how the teams spent so much time in the elevator shafts, coincidenally the place where the firefighters said the blasts originated.
You don't have to watch it. but you won't be armed to capably debate until you know the facts. understand that CNN has no motivation to show you how the top 20 stories violated physics laws by changing direction.
-
I am only presenting a possible scenario for getting a team to wire a building without the details of chatty Americans with a conscience doing it.
It's not a possible scenario anymore than the planes being holograms.
Think in complete pictures.
-
It's not a possible scenario anymore than the planes being holograms.
Think in complete pictures.
The ISI has dont the CIA's bidding for a long time. The ISI's top General (who had breakfast with Goass and Graham on the morning of 9/11) sent $100k to Atta right before 9/11.
Please tell me why it isn't reasonable or even possible that a group of agents could be borrowed to carry out a mission deemed important for national longterm interests.
-
The ISI has dont the CIA's bidding for a long time. The ISI's top General (who had breakfast with Goass and Graham on the morning of 9/11) sent $100k to Atta right before 9/11.
Please tell me why it isn't reasonable or even possible that a group of agents could be borrowed to carry out a mission deemed important for national longterm interests.
Not until you man up and answer the question i asked you first AND the question or 2 that will result from your answer.
Because, unlike you i don't run from questions by switching topics.
-
Not until you man up and answer the question i asked you first AND the question or 2 that will result from your answer.
link? i lost em.
(also i'm starting to detect a very clear emotional involvement in this argument. That's how I was at first, too. even with my degree in history (where I learned about false flag ops) and business (where I learned the afghan invasion saved our economy) it STILL took me a year to see the facts on 9/11. before then, I would read them, and just call them "nonsense". You're like a little ME :)
-
link? i lost em.
(also i'm starting to detect a very clear emotional involvement in this argument. That's how I was at first, too. even with my degree in history (where I learned about false flag ops) and business (where I learned the afghan invasion saved our economy) it STILL took me a year to see the facts on 9/11. before then, I would read them, and just call them "nonsense". You're like a little ME :)
blah blah blah
you know what i'm talking about, scroll up.
-
For someone with a degree in history I think you should look to the past and Clinton who disregarded advice from Oliver North to kill that rag head Osama. Clinton could have taken this operation out years ago but didn't. The same could have been done with Saddam when HW was in office but nobody wanted that so the administration stopped. We could have rolled over their asses easily.
-
blah blah blah
you know what i'm talking about, scroll up.
i seriously don't. I'm blasting 'ride the lightning', cooking oatmeal, and building a pic gallery and there are 4 pages here. headache, man.
-
For someone with a degree in history I think you should look to the past and Clinton who disregarded advice from Oliver North to kill that rag head Osama. Clinton could have taken this operation out years ago but didn't. The same could have been done with Saddam when HW was in office but nobody wanted that so the administration stopped. We could have rolled over their asses easily.
Clinton fucked up, this is absolutely true. I never denied that. I can't stand clinton. I voted against him twice :)
I don't see how this affects the Bush discussion. If I get caught in bed with 2 strippers, I can't tell my woman "hey, hitler killed 6 million people! banging 2 broads is nothing compared to that!"
-
i seriously don't. I'm blasting 'ride the lightning', cooking oatmeal, and building a pic gallery and there are 4 pages here. headache, man.
Do you have a picture of every side of the building YES or NO?
If yes: post pics of all sides.
If no, your position is even weaker.
-
Clinton fucked up, this is absolutely true. I never denied that. I can't stand clinton. I voted against him twice :)
I don't see how this affects the Bush discussion. If I get caught in bed with 2 strippers, I can't tell my woman "hey, hitler killed 6 million people! banging 2 broads is nothing compared to that!"
Hmmmmm. Clinton kills Osama. Al Qeada leadership weakened and easily defeated. Any plans in Afghanistan much easier, conspiracy or not. Hmmmm.....
-
Do you have a picture of every side of the building YES or NO?
If yes: post pics of all sides.
If no, your position is even weaker.
This photo shows the north face of Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. (It is the tall building behind lighter-colored buildings to either side.) There are no signs of damage to this face, such as broken windows, but fires are visible inside the building.
-
[
Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.
-
does the pic conclusively show "all" the damage to the building?
-
smoke was coming out of the back pretty heavily. here you also see the penthouse kink (as you would with a controlled demo) first.
(http://killtown.911review.org/video/wtc7/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif)
-
(http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/3073tower.JPG)
(http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/2606tower.JPG)
(http://newtonnjd.net/extra/Other/wtc7smoke/04.jpg)
-
[
Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.
the body and design of a bumble bee suggests it shouldn't fly. but it does.
With the absence of the facts, single issues such as streamers do not close the case that it was a demolition.
-
does the pic conclusively show "all" the damage to the building?
gee whiz, doc. we have one side with bad smoke but no flames showing. We have 2 sides with small fires and barely any smoke. we have one side looking pretty good.
I can show you many buildings built same way, same size, same era, which burned much higher, hotter and longer, and never fell. And certainly didn't fall in 6.5 seconds into powder.
Ozmo, seriously bro... do you believe the concrete and steel from the entire building framework just vaporized in 6.5 seconds?
-
the body and design of a bumble bee suggests it shouldn't fly. but it does.
With the absence of the facts, single issues such as streamers do not close the case that it was a demolition.
streamers.
classic kink.
explosions caught on videotape.
firefighters, police, reporters, residents all told it was about to come down.
visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this.
silverstein saying 'we made the decision to pull it'.
ejection jets top right corner
building falling into its own basement
pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event.
should i go on? streamers alone, no. but all this?
-
streamers.
classic kink.
explosions caught on videotape.
firefighters, police, reporters, residents all told it was about to come down.
visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this.
silverstein saying 'we made the decision to pull it'.
ejection jets top right corner
building falling into its own basement
pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event.
should i go on? streamers alone, no. but all this?
Looks more like you're seeing what you WANT to see. During the chaos that would've happened inside any of these buildings during thier collapse I'm sure all kinds of interesting and unanticipated reactions would occur. You're desperately trying to ascribe great meaning to things that could've happened for any number or reasons. You just WANT to believe there's some massive cover up and in the process your rationality went out the window.
You should really stop these attempts to convince people. You're only hurting your case (however outlandish and unsupported it is) and making yourself look like anyone else with an agenda to large it clouds your reason.
-
Looks more like you're seeing what you WANT to see. During the chaos that would've happened inside any of these buildings during thier collapse I'm sure all kinds of interesting and unanticipated reactions would occur. You're desperately trying to ascribe great meaning to things that could've happened for any number or reasons. You just WANT to believe there's some massive cover up and in the process your rationality went out the window.
oh wait... so you're "sure" that all kinds of interesting things happened. Oh, okay. I guess we can ignore physics (faster than freefall speed ignoring all resistance), firefighting history (much larger fires have never brought down a building), witnesses and video/audio (explosions, warnings), and all the other good stuff.
We don't need this pile of clue which point to a controlled demoluition. no. We have the "sure" unfounded beliefs of a guy who hasn't researched it. Prob solved!
You should really stop these attempts to convince people. You're only hurting your case (however outlandish and unsupported it is) and making yourself look like anyone else with an agenda to large it clouds your reason.
actually, the 911 funboys started this one, to bash the skeptics. after them tugging each other off for 10 posts, i chimed in with facts. Sorry if you don't like em. tell your friends to stop making threads like these, and I'll quit responding.
-
gee whiz, doc. we have one side with bad smoke but no flames showing. We have 2 sides with small fires and barely any smoke. we have one side looking pretty good.
I can show you many buildings built same way, same size, same era, which burned much higher, hotter and longer, and never fell. And certainly didn't fall in 6.5 seconds into powder.
Ozmo, seriously bro... do you believe the concrete and steel from the entire building framework just vaporized in 6.5 seconds?
first off, the building didn't vaporize, it collapsed (more spin dribble)
secondly: only a someone who easily manipulated into jumping to conclusions, would conclude from pics showing partial views of the sides of building that that was all the things going with the building.
-
first off, the building didn't vaporize, it collapsed (more spin dribble)
No.
a 500+ foot building would form more than a 20 foot pile of debris. And that giant cloud you see rolling a mile into the sea- that is composed of all the concrete in the building. That's where it all went. And THAT is the key - Oz.
If you look at a pancake collapse of buildings, they look like books stacked. Look at that s. american nightclub. What you see at WTC7 is the conversion of all the concrete in the building to a uniform, fine powder, which is what composes that cloud. The cloud isn't dust, man!
-
streamers.
classic kink.
explosions caught on videotape.
firefighters, police, reporters, residents all told it was about to come down.
visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this.
silverstein saying 'we made the decision to pull it'.
ejection jets top right corner
building falling into its own basement
pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event.
should i go on? streamers alone, no. but all this?
- There are explosions but you don;t what they are caused by (actual explosions or explosions from things in the building like boilers, transformers etc...) - therefore inconclusive
- the people that said it was about to come down, it doesn't take much to think that in the context of what was going on a the time, but what does that prove? nothing. - therefore inconclusive
- visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this? so there are never things that happen everyday that baffle scientist? doesn't prove a demolition becuase of the way it fell - therefore inconclusive
- Silverstien: this has been explained. now if he said we blew the building of blow it then it woul dhave been a different story - therefore inconclusive
- ejection jets top right corner??? explain please
- building falling into its own basement? make total sense to me. these buildings aren't like wooden blocks- therefore inconclusive
- pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event, how many other events to we have buildings collapse? - therefore inconclusive
try again 240.
-
No.
a 500+ foot building would form more than a 20 foot pile of debris. And that giant cloud you see rolling a mile into the sea- that is composed of all the concrete in the building. That's where it all went. And THAT is the key - Oz.
If you look at a pancake collapse of buildings, they look like books stacked. Look at that s. american nightclub. What you see at WTC7 is the conversion of all the concrete in the building to a uniform, fine powder, which is what composes that cloud. The cloud isn't dust, man!
considering 2 things:
1. it fell into it's basement
2. The size of the pile from the WTC's
these 2 explain the 20ft pile.
-
- There are explosions but you don;t what they are caused by (actual explosions or explosions from things in the building like boilers, transformers etc...) - therefore inconclusive
- the people that said it was about to come down, it doesn't take much to think that in the context of what was going on a the time, but what does that prove? nothing. - therefore inconclusive
- visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this? so there are never things that happen everyday that baffle scientist? doesn't prove a demolition becuase of the way it fell - therefore inconclusive
- Silverstien: this has been explained. now if he said we blew the building of blow it then it woul dhave been a different story - therefore inconclusive
- ejection jets top right corner??? explain please
- building falling into its own basement? make total sense to me. these buildings aren't like wooden blocks- therefore inconclusive
- pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event, how many other events to we have buildings collapse? - therefore inconclusive
try again 240.
You know, with all those "inconclusives", it's awfully weird the 911 commission ignored WTC7, and NIST refused to test any of the debris for bomb residue. ;)
- ejection jets top right corner??? explain please
I'll dig up a pic. From the CBS angle, top right, you see about the top 10 stories eject smoke simultaneously as if explosives were used. You'll say inconclusive, which is fine. but aside from Silversteins' PBS confession, we're not going to get a written confession. *unless you order the PBS transcript
The clouds should be the key:
3) Almost all of the non-steel building materials and contents were pulverized into talcum powdersize (sub 100 micron) dust particles. This took the form of the dense churning dust clouds thatexpanded to enormous size as they raced down the surrounding streets at tremendous velocity andwith clearly defined boundaries, depositing most of the mass of the buildings outside of the perimeterof their original footprints.
-
considering 2 things:
1. it fell into it's basement
2. The size of the pile from the WTC's
these 2 explain the 20ft pile.
The steel remained. All non-steel was powderized as i said above. it's reasonable to believe that 500 feet of building contains 20 to 40 feet of metal when stacked.
it's also reasonable to expect to see a few stories of concrete, etc, right?
Think about it. 47 stories converted to 2 stories. How DOES this happen?
-
No.
a 500+ foot building would form more than a 20 foot pile of debris. And that giant cloud you see rolling a mile into the sea- that is composed of all the concrete in the building. That's where it all went. And THAT is the key - Oz.
If you look at a pancake collapse of buildings, they look like books stacked. Look at that s. american nightclub. What you see at WTC7 is the conversion of all the concrete in the building to a uniform, fine powder, which is what composes that cloud. The cloud isn't dust, man!
Again dismissing evidence. Stuff I posted showed that the inside of the WTC was mostly air. They likened it to an egg crate, thus accounting for the 20 ft pile. 240 dismissing evidence once again.
-
Again dismissing evidence. Stuff I posted showed that the inside of the WTC was mostly air. They likened it to an egg crate, thus accounting for the 20 ft pile. 240 dismissing evidence once again.
cap86,
for the record,
1) what was in the giant cloud that rolled to the sea?
-
From the looks of the video I would say debris from the building....
Correct. It's actually all the non-steel parts of the building. They are converted to talcum powdersize -sub 100 micron- dust particles. The only thing they found in that pile was steel.
Now, the question becomes, what energy caused every bit of concrete, desk, chair, carpet, glass, light, etc in that building to convert itself into these dust particles in 6.5 seconds?
Gravity alone cannot. Never has. Never will. You cna measure the 9.8 m/s2 if you want. It is physically not possible.
Think about it man... everything converted to talcum powder consistency.
-
It's not plausible for concrete and what ever else made up the WTC floors would be burning for a while and already be at a point to where, at the point of collapse, it would spread like that?
-
It's not plausible for concrete and what ever else made up the WTC floors would be burning for a while and already be at a point to where, at the point of collapse, it would spread like that?
No. I thought that too. But the concrete in a large % of the building is still very much intact and standing, until that moment we hear the explosions. Even if the inside of the building was completely hollowed out with fires (impossible as the windows were still intact on most of the building) - but even if .... the four concrete walls of the building wiould be sitting in that pile.
Weirdest of all perhaps -
If you were to drop a large chunk of concrete from 1000 ft onto pavement, it would certainly breakapart but it would not be completely pulverized into such a fine powder. In the case of the Towers,the conversion to dust somehow took place in mid-air long before hitting the ground! This is VERY VERY evident on the WTC 1/2 towers (taller)
-
Alsoooo - what would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of fact, no one would build them - they would be too dangerous. If the WTC buildings did collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind).
This did not happen. The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed - over the strenuous objections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims, etc etc - and has been melted down inoverseas markets. The blueprints for the Towers have also become unavailable.
It just doesn't add up. And I believe history will show WTC7 as the smoking gun of 9/11 :(
-
The floors were held together by trusses so the concrete could have been made into a finer material and the collapse sealed the deal.
First, we'd have to establish why all 47 floors' trusses failed at once. barring explosives, that's a hell of a coincidence. Remember, since the timed collapse takes 6.5 seconds, it's actually just faster than freefall. so we know there was zero resistance - the floors never hit each other. They actually broke apart in midair.
So if they all gave out at once (we'll pretend), you would have hundreds of chunks of concrete sitting in midair. Now, they are going to fall. They will break, they will chunk. But None of the contains the potential energy to convert to powder when it hits the ground. (drop a brick or a ton of bricks 500 feet - it will not powderize.
Now we realize from the video that these concrete/desks/windows/chairs/etc pieces all turn into dust before they ever touch the ground.
-
oh wait... so you're "sure" that all kinds of interesting things happened. Oh, okay. I guess we can ignore physics (faster than freefall speed ignoring all resistance), firefighting history (much larger fires have never brought down a building), witnesses and video/audio (explosions, warnings), and all the other good stuff.
We don't need this pile of clue which point to a controlled demoluition. no. We have the "sure" unfounded beliefs of a guy who hasn't researched it. Prob solved!
actually, the 911 funboys started this one, to bash the skeptics. after them tugging each other off for 10 posts, i chimed in with facts. Sorry if you don't like em. tell your friends to stop making threads like these, and I'll quit responding.
No ones ignoring physics. The point is that on one side people do not make crazy assumptions on things we don't KNOW. On the other side is someone like you ascribing whatever meaning to unexplained and ultimately irrelevant questions. You know no better than anyone else yet you claim to have the answers no matter how unreasonable.
You have no pile of evidence. You have a pile of horse dung that you twist and highlight, no matter how insignifigant, that just so happens to support a theory that is downright rediculus. You should slap yourself for being so silly.
Those 911 funboys have a better point and make more sense than any of the "evidence" you've put before us.
-
You have no pile of evidence. You have a pile of horse dung that you twist and highlight, no matter how insignifigant, that just so happens to support a theory that is downright rediculus. You should slap yourself for being so silly.
If you were a fire insurance company, and Silverstein asked to collect $480+M for the building due to fire damage imploding it, would you cut him a check that day? Or would you consider any of these things which point to a controlled demolition:
streamers.
classic kink.
explosions caught on videotape.
firefighters, police, reporters, residents all told it was about to come down.
visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this.
silverstein saying 'we made the decision to pull it'.
ejection jets top right corner
building falling into its own basement
pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event.
-
Dumbasses, Loose change is only 1 of thousands that have researched and come up with the same evidence open your brain. :o