Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: egj13 on August 22, 2008, 07:33:56 AM
-
GAITHERSBURG, MD — Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408042,00.html
Ok conspiricy nuts...have at it
-
So we're supposed to believe a report from the government about the biggest farce the government has ever concocted?
Why wasn't the investigation done by an independent firm at the very least?
So the columns that were weakened just happend to be the columns that caused the building to implode just like the first two?
Why did the firefighters say they weren't worried about WTC 7 as the fires were minimal?
Why did Rudy illegally order the cleanup before an investigation could be conducted at the time of the buildings collasping?
-
The ant's nests is starting to stir.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
-
I'm a little disappointed in the current level of participation >:(
-
So am I...
-
Did anyone *really* expect anything but what's in this report? Who ordered it and paid for it? Bush appointed a new guy (from airplane/defense firm) to run NIST a monht before 911. Do the math.
What we have here is Bush admin releasing this info on the most convenient friday of the year (right before conventions in summer) to get on record before they leave white house.
metal melts at 2,750 degrees.
where was this heat generated from?
Good question. There is no fuel source which can reach this temperature whatsoever, much less sustain it and fall in sequential manner as it did. There was no pancake collapse. 500+ feet of metal and concrete becomes powderized clouds and molten steel, leaving a pile 30 feet tall, in 7 seconds.
Fire, huh?
I'm a little disappointed in the current level of participation >:(
Give it 2 weeks as the scientists worldwide finally have something tangible to dissect.
Give it a month before a new wave of documentaries. It's the smoking gun of 911. Fire melts a building for the first time in history - and not only that - it does it in 7 seconds?
Everybody knows.
-
Give it 2 weeks as the scientists worldwide finally have something tangible to dissect.
Give it a month before a new wave of documentaries. It's the smoking gun of 911. Fire melts a building for the first time in history - and not only that - it does it in 7 seconds?
Everybody knows.
I'm still disappointed. >:(
-
Did anyone *really* expect anything but what's in this report? Who ordered it and paid for it? Bush appointed a new guy (from airplane/defense firm) to run NIST a monht before 911. Do the math.
What we have here is Bush admin releasing this info on the most convenient friday of the year (right before conventions in summer) to get on record before they leave white house.
Good question. There is no fuel source which can reach this temperature whatsoever, much less sustain it and fall in sequential manner as it did. There was no pancake collapse. 500+ feet of metal and concrete becomes powderized clouds and molten steel, leaving a pile 30 feet tall, in 7 seconds.
Fire, huh?
Give it 2 weeks as the scientists worldwide finally have something tangible to dissect.
Give it a month before a new wave of documentaries. It's the smoking gun of 911. Fire melts a building for the first time in history - and not only that - it does it in 7 seconds?
Everybody knows.
Was there evidence of melted steel in the remains?
-
Was there evidence of melted steel in the remains?
yeah, aside from the pools of molten steel under all 3 buildings (even the one not hit by a plane!), NASA did thermo temp measurement from space, and determined that even WEEKS after the collapse, temperatures were still above 1300 and 1400 degrees F.
Jet fuel only burns for a few seconds, and cannot reach this temperature. The paper that fueled the fires never reached anything near that temperature.
Something was keeping that molten steel at a temp of 1300+ degrees for weeks afterwards. There is only one thing that burns that hot, and that is explosives. Jet fuel - kerosene essentially - does not.
The molten steel was never addressed by the 911 commission because "it wasn't related to Al-Quida". Many scientists point to the molten steel as something completely unexplainable, without the use of explosives, in which case it's explained very easily.
-
All you conspiracy dudes can post your questions to NIST as they are taking questions.
There are lots of metals that melt below 2750
Elements Symbol Melting Point Celsius Melting Point Fahrenheit
Aluminum Al 659 1218
Brass (85 Cu 15 Zn) Cu+Zn 900-940 1652-1724
Bronze (90 Cu 10 Sn) Cu+Sn 850-1000 1562-1832
Copper Cu 1083 1981
Gold Au 1063 1946
Lead Pb 327 621
Magnesium Mg 670 1240
Silver Ag 961 1762
Tin Sn 232 450
Zinc Zn 419 786
-
Com on Boys...........
Bring on all the experts that say the report is bunk.
:)
-
Speaking of the high temperatures for the extended period of time.
The explanation is that the ash from the building acted like an insulator and kept the heat up.
There are way more explanations then unused explosives for the extend high temperatures.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.
The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.
As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.
Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”
The investigation team found that the design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at the time. The estimated 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 on the morning of Sept. 11 were evacuated without any fatalities or serious injuries.
To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11; conducted first-person interviews of WTC 7 occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; and performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building’s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence due to a combination of debris impact damage, fires and a progression of structural failures from local fire-induced damage to collapse initiation, and, ultimately, to global collapse.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn’t that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder—located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7—would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
-
Com on Boys...........
Bring on all the experts that say the report is bunk.
:)
HAHA
-
I'd just be interest to know how the towers actually fell faster than gravity would naturally pull them towards Earth?
-
I'd just be interest to know how the towers actually fell faster than gravity would naturally pull them towards Earth?
They fall faster than gravity due to falling in a vaccum.
Oxygen was not present.
Because of explosives.
-
This is what doesn't make sense at all...
They fell faster than gravity would bring them down, but softened steel from fire would have at least put up some resistance.
So what the hell?
-
The point of an explosive is to EXPLODE not to slow burn.
But hey, I am not the one trying to convince the world that some explosives expert used a 2 week slow burning explosive to bring down 3 buildings.
While simultaneously fly 2 planes into 2 towers. All because they didn't want to pay for Asbestos removal.
-
The point of an explosive is to EXPLODE not to slow burn.
Yikes. Credibility gone. Thanks for playing.
-
They fall faster than gravity due to falling in a vaccum.
Oxygen was not present.
Because of explosives.
Are you serious.
Do you know what a vacuum is.
Do you know how gravity works.
All object on earth fall slower then in a vacuum because of air resistance.
But gravity is gravity which equals 9.81 m/s^2 a vacuum has no bearing on this. It is about the interaction of 2 objects
Just because there wasn't oxygen doesn't mean that there wasn't air pressure.
What you are talking about is an implosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implosion_(mechanical_process)
-
Give it a month before a new wave of documentaries. It's the smoking gun of 911. Fire melts a building for the first time in history - and not only that - it does it in 7 seconds?
Everybody knows.
How do you get a time of 7 seconds? It took an hour or more for the two towers to collapse after impact.
http://www.911timeline.net/ (http://www.911timeline.net/)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosives
An explosive material is a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.
-
How do you get a time of 7 seconds? It took an hour or more for the two towers to collapse after impact.
http://www.911timeline.net/ (http://www.911timeline.net/)
we're talking about tower 7, the 3rd tower to fall,l at 5:20 PM that day.
It went from standing to completely pulverized in 7 seconds.
Faster than freefall speed.
Observe:
(http://www.songcity.co.uk/wtc7fall.gif)
-
So 240 are you going to read the report.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
In videos, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent.
-
Seriously, we might as well be debating the JFK thing all over again.
Let the scientists read it and challenge it.
-
Seriously, we might as well be debating the JFK thing all over again.
Let the scientists read it and challenge it.
The JFK report was right on point. ;)
-
JesusFuckingChrist
The new report is as accurate as can be. The metal didn't have to melt it just had to be weakened enough.
You guys hanging on to this are pathetic.
-
JesusFuckingChrist
The new report is as accurate as can be. The metal didn't have to melt it just had to be weakened enough.
You guys hanging on to this are pathetic.
There will be the vast majority of engineers, experts and scientists who will find nothing wrong with the report. Then there will be the a few nutty engineers, experts and scientists who will challenge it and every CT'er will flock to what they say.
-
So 240 are you going to read the report.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
In videos, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent.
I saw the segment they did on cnn about this. they didnt show 1 replay of wtc7 collapsing >:(
-
I love getting you CT weenies fired up abou this...
-
I love getting you CT weenies fired up abou this...
egj13,
Do you believe in any conspiracy theories from our nation's past?
That whole FDR coup?
-
I am by no means a CTer...does the government hide things? as a member of the military I can tell you yes...but does the government kill people like in 9-11...um no
-
I am by no means a CTer...does the government hide things? as a member of the military I can tell you yes...but does the government kill people like in 9-11...um no
Would allowing an attack to take place - be something we would do?
Luscitania (sp?)
Pearl harbor.
Do you believe either event was allowed to happen?
-
Would allowing an attack to take place - be something we would do?
Luscitania (sp?)
Pearl harbor.
Do you believe either event was allowed to happen?
Could you clarify how pearl harbor was allowed to happen? It's my understanding that there were several failures in both communication and command but I don't believe it was "allowed" to happen.
-
Could you clarify how pearl harbor was allowed to happen? It's my understanding that there were several failures in both communication and command but I don't believe it was "allowed" to happen.
we could do a whole nother 20-page thread on that.
Brix, do you believe in US history, our leaders have ever let harm come to a few citizens to justify action?
-
we could do a whole nother 20-page thread on that.
Brix, do you believe in US history, our leaders have ever let harm come to a few citizens to justify action?
I haven't heard credible evidence otherwise, at least not yet.
Although I happen to know a Navy Air Traffic Controller who says there is irrefutable evidence that flight 93 was shot down by two F-18's over Penn.
-
Although I happen to know a Navy Air Traffic Controller who says there is irrefutable evidence that flight 93 was shot down by two F-18's over Penn.
That is officially CT talk.
It goes against the official story.
Your friend is a conspiracy theorist by definition. He believes something other than the 'official version'.
True, the debris was spread over 8 miles and the witnesses said fighters brought it down.
True, some canadian military guy admitted it was shot down.
True, Rumsfeld admitted we shot it down (on video).
True, the NBC chopper on the scene BEFORE the police arrived showed an empty hole with no fire or debris.
But... if it's true we shot it down, then our govt killed citizens (to prevent bigger injury, yes), but did it and lied about it. That's big. Hard to take their word on the other events of the day - especially when the pentagon crash had equally small amount of plane debris - when they so obviously lie about this one.
-
That is officially CT talk.
It goes against the official story.
Your friend is a conspiracy theorist by definition. He believes something other than the 'official version'.
True, the debris was spread over 8 miles and the witnesses said fighters brought it down.
True, some canadian military guy admitted it was shot down.
True, Rumsfeld admitted we shot it down (on video).
True, the NBC chopper on the scene BEFORE the police arrived showed an empty hole with no fire or debris.
But... if it's true we shot it down, then our govt killed citizens (to prevent bigger injury, yes), but did it and lied about it. That's big. Hard to take their word on the other events of the day - especially when the pentagon crash had equally small amount of plane debris - when they so obviously lie about this one.
Nothing you said is beyond possibility but I doubt the same is true about Pearl Harbor.
-
Nothing you said is beyond possibility but I doubt the same is true about Pearl Harbor.
well, it only has to happen once.
If it happened on 911... and they lied about it... then it's not hard to look at other events.
Declassified papers show Vietnam was started without us being fired upon at tonken. yes, state dept blames a middle mgmt paperwork error for the report were were shelled, and vietnam started as a result.
Declassified papers show in 1962, we had a plan to blow up planes and stage miami terror attacks, to justify invasion of cuba. People would have died in the bombings. It was approved by dept of defense. Only JFk stopped it at last minute.
Surrely there's more, but it doesn't matter. Hard to listen to guys like BB tell us "they'd never lie about this" when they admit they did exactly that, decades ago.
It's pointless. We can't change any of it. But I guess it's interesting to argue about.
-
well, it only has to happen once.
If it happened on 911... and they lied about it... then it's not hard to look at other events.
Declassified papers show Vietnam was started without us being fired upon at tonken. yes, state dept blames a middle mgmt paperwork error for the report were were shelled, and vietnam started as a result.
Declassified papers show in 1962, we had a plan to blow up planes and stage miami terror attacks, to justify invasion of cuba. People would have died in the bombings. It was approved by dept of defense. Only JFk stopped it at last minute.
Surrely there's more, but it doesn't matter. Hard to listen to guys like BB tell us "they'd never lie about this" when they admit they did exactly that, decades ago.
It's pointless. We can't change any of it. But I guess it's interesting to argue about.
Despite that I think you have a soft spot for socialism in America I don't discount many of the things you say regarding "conspiracy" theories. You speculation abut 9/11 being allowed to happen doesn't fly with me but that doesn't mean there are many things the gov't doesn't or hasn't declassified about many official stories. In Hunt for Red October (I love Tom Clancy) James Earl Jones' character says "Let's deal in what we KNOW."
Speculation is just that and only dealing with what I may "know" doesn't mean I don't have an open mind.
-
I haven't heard credible evidence otherwise, at least not yet.
Although I happen to know a Navy Air Traffic Controller who says there is irrefutable evidence that flight 93 was shot down by two F-18's over Penn.
How would a "Navy" ATC know?
-
How would a "Navy" ATC know?
His friend is a crazy loon nut CTer.
Although even Beach Bum won't say the govt wouldn't do such a thing. Sounds like the CTers are everywhere around here these days.
Why can't people just believe what they're told, and realize that we're #1 in the world because we always do the right thing? These lib CTers... the Obama nation author for example... BB for another example...and this navy guy.
Do they hate america because they don't believe everything Bush says?
-
How would a "Navy" ATC know?
Exposure to materials that most of us would never see.
-
Exposure to materials that most of us would never see.
So, this Navy ATC, was exposed to classified documents concerning this? And it's likely that many other people know or have seen the same documents?
-
So, this Navy ATC, was exposed to classified documents concerning this? And it's likely that many other people know or have seen the same documents?
I have to assume so but it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
-
I have to assume so but it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Do you think it's true? Or are you undecided pending more information?
-
Give it a month before a new wave of documentaries. It's the smoking gun of 911. Fire melts a building for the first time in history - and not only that - it does it in 7 seconds?
Everybody knows.
Well, here's your "everybody!" Boy, this 'Search for the Truth' stuff is really taking off.
Spiderman and Wonder Woman are really convincing.
-
;D
-
Well, here's your "everybody!" Boy, this 'Search for the Truth' stuff is really taking off.
Spiderman and Wonder Woman are really convincing.
Believe whatever you'd like. You have a very logical and loyal republican voter in Brix, telling us that the US shot down a plane and lied about it. Sounds like your beef should be with him. Much easier to make fun of protesters that face evidence. Go for it.
-
Explain to me how Pearl harbour or Navy flight controllers have anything to do with release of the WTC 7 report.
I thought the new board rules were here to stop hijacking threads.
Oh well. I guess CTers get a free pass.
-
Explain to me how Pearl harbour or Navy flight controllers have anything to do with release of the WTC 7 report.
I thought the new board rules were here to stop hijacking threads.
Oh well. I guess CTers get a free pass.
Sometimes conversations evolve in different directions. The rule was about deliberate trolling designed to derail the discussion.
That's not the case here.
Both pearl and navy ATC subjects have a relation to the topic indirectly.
-
Getbig= Coalition of world renown metal melting experts
-
Do you think it's true? Or are you undecided pending more information?
I believe the my ATC buddy believes it and I trust that opinion for the most part. I would like to see more before I'm 100% behind it but I've seen enough in my experience to find it likely.
-
I believe the my ATC buddy believes it and I trust that opinion for the most part. I would like to see more before I'm 100% behind it but I've seen enough in my experience to find it likely.
It's certainly possible and there would have been reason to shoot it down and cover it up. I wonder if we will ever know.
-
It's certainly possible and there would have been reason to shoot it down and cover it up. I wonder if we will ever know.
Do you believe it's possible that they 100% lied about one of the planes, but told 100% of the truth on the other 3 planes?
And, seeing as there was no debris at the Pentagon site (well, enough to fit in the back of a pickup truck), and if you believe they lied about plane #4... Don't you start to scratch your head on plane #3?
If you find a used condom in your living room and your GF admits to fcking the mailman...
But she completely denies knowing anything about the used condom in your bed...
Do you still trust the bitch?
-
Do you believe it's possible that they 100% lied about one of the planes, but told 100% of the truth on the other 3 planes?
And, seeing as there was no debris at the Pentagon site (well, enough to fit in the back of a pickup truck), and if you believe they lied about plane #4... Don't you start to scratch your head on plane #3?
If you find a used condom in your living room and your GF admits to fcking the mailman...
But she completely denies knowing anything about the used condom in your bed...
Do you still trust the bitch?
No.
And since your the bitch, of course i trust you. ;) ;D
-
No.
And since your the bitch, of course i trust you. ;) ;D
One child left behind, I see.
-
One child left behind, I see.
lol, I'm in a tourney online dude. lol
YOU ARE
-
lol, I'm in a tourney online dude. lol
YOU ARE
Hopefully not a grammar tournament. Hey, did you see nancy pelosi's clown outfit tonight?
-
Hopefully not a grammar tournament. Hey, did you see nancy pelosi's clown outfit tonight?
lol, nah. Not even watching it. All over this tourney. Coming back from the dead. might even make in the money.......but my Aces just got busted : (
-
BUMP