Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on February 12, 2009, 10:16:56 PM

Title: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on February 12, 2009, 10:16:56 PM
I don't have an opinion one way or the other but for anyone's that's interested,

Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 12, 2009, 10:20:14 PM
you really have no opinion or you don't want to say?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: 2ND COMING on February 12, 2009, 10:22:22 PM
(http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/4ad257eee7868eba71639a6d2fae36bb1dba342.gif)
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on February 12, 2009, 10:35:55 PM
you really have no opinion or you don't want to say?

If I said I think it's interesting, does that mean anything?


What do you think?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 12, 2009, 10:40:26 PM
If I said I think it's interesting, does that mean anything?


What do you think?
I think there is no freaking way fire brought down wtc7
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on February 12, 2009, 10:46:19 PM
I think there is no freaking way fire brought down wtc7

One thing that many people havent seen are the missing pieces of wtc7 that were caused by falling debris. The pictures I've seen show a substantial amount of it's ground level missing but since Im not an engineer, I don't know if that was enough to contribute to it falling down.  I tried using Jenga blocks to recreate the collpase but it's just not the same.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 12, 2009, 10:49:33 PM
One thing that many people havent seen are the missing pieces of wtc7 that were caused by falling debris. The pictures I've seen show a substantial amount of it's ground level missing but since Im not an engineer, I don't know if that was enough to contribute to it falling down.  I tried using Jenga blocks to recreate the collpase but it's just not the same.
why would it matter if you're an engineer.  skeptics don't listen to them either.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on February 12, 2009, 10:51:37 PM
the pic at 51 sec is pretty amazing. that hotel was an inferno. Damn.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: gordiano on February 12, 2009, 11:17:46 PM
why would it matter if you're an engineer.  skeptics don't listen to them either.

LOL....so true.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: webcake on February 12, 2009, 11:20:20 PM
Interesting stuff... 8)
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: 24KT on February 12, 2009, 11:39:30 PM
One thing that many people havent seen are the missing pieces of wtc7 that were caused by falling debris. The pictures I've seen show a substantial amount of it's ground level missing but since Im not an engineer, I don't know if that was enough to contribute to it falling down.  I tried using Jenga blocks to recreate the collpase but it's just not the same.

Silly man   ;)
Of course it wouldn't be the same. Only an extremely well trained and very skilled demolition expert using strategically placed charges could collapse a building of that size right down into it's own footprints.... uh, ...at least until Sept 2001, then fire acquired the same ability too. ...and you are neither.   :P
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Purge_WTF on February 12, 2009, 11:56:58 PM
  "Never trust a Bush unless it's burning."   ;D
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: 24KT on February 13, 2009, 12:03:25 AM
  "Never trust a Bush unless it's burning."   ;D

(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)

I have a feeling that line will grow in popularity in the coming years.

I have a friend of mine who lives in Texas, and his last name is Bush.
Six years ago, ...he was enjoying the perks of being named Bush while living in Texas,
...I should give him a call to see how he's been enjoying it over the last couple of years.  I don't think he is.  :'(
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 04:10:05 AM
Wow...so from looking at pictures alone you know what is the exact type of metal that was used in both buildings and how much it is weakened by high temps? Damn you guys most be really good experts  ::)

Ohh...did we forget that 2 gigantic buildings crashed next to WTC 7? That surely didn't help him stay standing.

You all only show how little you know, assessing a building collapse by looking at some pictures...wow...simply wow.


In case you missed it :

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/09/china.hotel.fire/index.html

A massive fire engulfed a newly constructed, unoccupied luxury hotel in central Beijing on Monday night as crowds watched a nearby fireworks display marking the end of Lunar New Year celebrations.



They probably using new alloys that were designed with 9/11 in mind.

But I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to educate the less fortunate ones, I find it to be a great privilege. :-*
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 07:46:26 AM
Bump for new physics laws and picture analysis of structures and metals  ;D.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 13, 2009, 07:49:58 AM
lol, haven't figured out why people don't want to waste their time with you IFBB?  I know, it's because you're always right and we're just stupid.  have fun waiting...
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 07:50:17 AM
Silly man   ;)
Of course it wouldn't be the same. Only an extremely well trained and very skilled demolition expert using strategically placed charges could collapse a building of that size right down into it's own footprints.... uh, ...at least until Sept 2001, then fire acquired the same ability too. ...and you are neither.   :P

I guess all the idiots in WTC 7 must have either missed or ignored the massive barrel charges being placed around the building, the man hours involved, the wiring, the tons of people coming and going or the few who did not work there...yeah ok.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 13, 2009, 07:57:07 AM
I guess all the idiots in WTC 7 must have either missed or ignored the massive barrel charges being placed around the building, the man hours involved, the wiring, the tons of people coming and going or the few who did not work there...yeah ok.
brilliant ::)
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 08:04:19 AM
Ignoring facts does just like the folks in WTC7 ignored the super secret demo guys as they wireed the building right. Hugo u have no idea what the hell ur talking about. Ur not an engineer, nor a demo expert. U cut and paste from CT websites that fit into ur bizarre world view. Explain to me in detail how they got the demo into the building, how they wired it without anybody noticing, including the NYPD,and who "they" are. U can't because thats the beauty of a CT, it can never really be proven.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Mr. Magoo on February 13, 2009, 08:05:05 AM
Wow...so from looking at pictures alone you know what is the exact type of metal that was used in both buildings and how much it is weakened by high temps? Damn you guys most be really good experts  ::)

Ohh...did we forget that 2 gigantic buildings crashed next to WTC 7? That surely didn't help him stay standing.

You all only show how little you know, assessing a building collapse by looking at some pictures...wow...simply wow.


In case you missed it :

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/09/china.hotel.fire/index.html

A massive fire engulfed a newly constructed, unoccupied luxury hotel in central Beijing on Monday night as crowds watched a nearby fireworks display marking the end of Lunar New Year celebrations.



They probably using new alloys that were designed with 9/11 in mind.

But I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to educate the less fortunate ones, I find it to be a great privilege. :-*

I actually conducted a science experiment with help of many engineers and scientists that are 9-11 skeptics a few years ago. Burning jet fuel couldn't make the steel collaspe, it wouldn't get hot enough. However, unless you all dont know already, the mob (gambino family) had the contract of installing the insulation in both world trade centers, and they figured out they could save a ton of money by not putting any fire protection in the corners. This might explain it more.

I use to be interested in that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 13, 2009, 08:09:26 AM
Ignoring facts does just like the folks in WTC7 ignored the super secret demo guys as they wireed the building right. Hugo u have no idea what the hell ur talking about. Ur not an engineer, nor a demo expert. U cut and paste from CT websites that fit into ur bizarre world view. Explain to me in detail how they got the demo into the building, how they wired it without anybody noticing, including the NYPD,and who "they" are. U can't because thats the beauty of a CT, it can never really be proven.
ignoring your bullshit explosives senerio.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Cap on February 13, 2009, 08:10:48 AM
I actually conducted a sience experiment with help of many engineers and scientists that are 9-11 skeptics a few years ago. Burning jet fuel couldn't make the steel collaspe, it wouldn't get hot enough. However, unless you all dont know already, the mob (gambino family) had the contract of installing the insulation in both world trade centers, and they figured out they could save a ton of money by not putting any fire protection in the corners. This might explain it more.

I use to be interested in that sort of thing.
From what I understand from firemen I know who have looked at the design of the towers said they were flawed.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 08:11:55 AM
U guys said it was demolished...I have no idea but i'm not gonna say little green men did it. Jag said it was well placed explosives..ok demo experts..how did they pull it off?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hereford on February 13, 2009, 08:15:02 AM
I thought she said GWB did it?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 13, 2009, 08:27:44 AM
U guys said it was demolished...I have no idea but i'm not gonna say little green men did it. Jag said it was well placed explosives..ok demo experts..how did they pull it off?
you don't know how controlled demolitions are done ::)
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 08:42:10 AM
Yes actually I do...maybe not enought to lay them out but then neither do u. But guess what I do know ur friggen idiot. U have to get the explosives inside the fucking building u want to demolish...generally done when the building is completely vacant and set for demolish..not with hundreds of people around, cops etc wondering what the hell ur doing. So again, how did they get the explosives inside the building,genius. Oh wait, thats what can't be explained..thus making ur moonbat CT complete.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: OzmO on February 13, 2009, 08:42:24 AM
Its amazing how we can tell from video everything we need to know about what happened.

It's so fucking cool.

I'm going to watch some videos of amoebas so i can know everything about biology, afterwards I'm going to watch some footage of helicopters so i can learn how to build and fly one.

I'm so happy and enlightened.

 ;D
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 08:46:01 AM
Perfect Ozmo....anyway I just want to know who "they" are and why Uncle Sam is imbecile 364 days a year but on Sept 11, everything went perfect.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
lol, haven't figured out why people don't want to waste their time with you IFBB?  I know, it's because you're always right and we're just stupid.  have fun waiting...


Please state ONE thing that is wrong in my post...ONE.

I have state MANY flaws in your theory, all based on logic and reality, you can't match.

1.Different alloys.
2.Different structure.
3.Analysing done by looking at video.
4.Two of the worlds biggest buildings collapsed near it and weakend it.

In regards to the jet fuel temperature, you don't need to MELT the metal to collapse the building.
Heard of blacksmiths? How did they forge metals YEARS ago? They heat them and hit them, so yeah, a huge plane crash + fire = less strength = structural failure.


Now if any of you, Hugo,240,Jag or any other big mouth that can prove with LOGIC and SCIENCE that any of what I said is wrong ....you're welcomed, I'm even willing to make a bet on that , none of you can.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hereford on February 13, 2009, 08:48:48 AM
Hey I heard that all the damn neo-cons have developed teleported technology. Maybe GWB deceitfully beamed the explosives in using magic?

You guys ever think of that?

Hmmmm??
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 09:07:29 AM
Yes we have teleport tech as well as hover tanks and no we didn't land on the moon, however we have met with martians..turns out they like cheese and and are big bronco's fans.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: OzmO on February 13, 2009, 09:12:12 AM
Yes we have teleport tech as well as hover tanks and no we didn't land on the moon, however we have met with martians..turns out they like cheese and and are big bronco's fans.

So they are planting John Elway's DNA in the embryos of surrogate mothers to win future super bowls?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: headhuntersix on February 13, 2009, 09:13:46 AM
I'm not sure but they did mention that they want Mike Shanahan back...not sure what that was all about. They looked pissed though.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Dos Equis on February 13, 2009, 10:16:37 AM
This is absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  Geeze.   ::)
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
This is absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  Geeze.   ::)

Come on now, making a comparison based only on a video of two completely different buildings that one was built with extra couple of decades of technology in it is pure logic...very sane....lol.

They might as well post a video of a house of card collapsing and claim that the WTC7 implosion was modeled on that  ;D
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Nordic Superman on February 13, 2009, 10:35:07 AM
Lots of intelligent and educated people here to believe two mutually exclusive buildings can be direct models for each other - even though the structures are radically different along with the circumstances involved.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: OzmO on February 13, 2009, 10:41:19 AM
Fellas,

You need to accept the videos and become happy and enlightened.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Dos Equis on February 13, 2009, 10:42:47 AM
Come on now, making a comparison based only on a video of two completely different buildings that one was built with extra couple of decades of technology in it is pure logic...very sane....lol.

They might as well post a video of a house of card collapsing and claim that the WTC7 implosion was modeled on that  ;D

Tell me about it.  

And I'm talking about the entire 911 CT stuff.  It's just stupid.  Plain and simple.  Missiles into the Pentagon.  Missing planes and passengers.  Secretly wired buildings.  It's not even good science fiction.  
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
Fellas,

You need to accept the videos and become happy and enlightened.

Instead of my finishing project for my first degree I should have showed a video showing something slightly similar and tell the testers that it's solids proofs lol.

I'm still waiting for all our geniuses here to teach us new physics and engineering methods...I might get a Nobel prize due to Getbig!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: The Showstoppa on February 13, 2009, 10:56:40 AM
Have any of you internet warriors ever been anywhere near a building that is being destroyed by controled demolition?  The explosions are very loud yet NOBODY reported hearing those type of explosions on 9/11.  I guess the US gov-ment has some super-duper top secret non-sound making explosive devices, right?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on February 13, 2009, 11:04:45 AM
it is strange how wtc7 collapsed, so much like a controlled demo, that initially people thought it was brought down.

this is strange because large buildings all over the world have suffered massive fire damage, often buildings far older and in worse shape, burned for much longer, hell even buildings NEXT to wtc LOOKED like they were burned/damaged worse, and NONE of them fell except wtc7. neatly into its footprint.

its just very suspicious
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: OzmO on February 13, 2009, 11:10:32 AM
it is strange how wtc7 collapsed, so much like a controlled demo, that initially people thought it was brought down.

this is strange because large buildings all over the world have suffered massive fire damage, often buildings far older and in worse shape, burned for much longer, hell even buildings NEXT to wtc LOOKED like they were burned/damaged worse, and NONE of them fell except wtc7. neatly into its footprint.

its just very suspicious


Sure it is.  Most unusual events are when they are part of a catastrophe.  Also, not every building in the area was exactly alike and was damaged exactly alike.
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 11:17:51 AM
it is strange how wtc7 collapsed, so much like a controlled demo, that initially people thought it was brought down.

this is strange because large buildings all over the world have suffered massive fire damage, often buildings far older and in worse shape, burned for much longer, hell even buildings NEXT to wtc LOOKED like they were burned/damaged worse, and NONE of them fell except wtc7. neatly into its footprint.

its just very suspicious



http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov

You guys really need to decide what is your CT, first it was the twins that were imploded,now WTC 7....what's next? Ants ate the foundations?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Fury on February 13, 2009, 12:23:45 PM
brilliant ::)

Great response. Good thing you refuted his point.


I'm curious how a building that is open 24/7 to thousands of people would somehow be lined with the massive amount of explosives needed to bring it down with ONE SINGLE PERSON noticing. Not one person on this board has given a valid response to that. Why? Because they can't!
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: Hereford on February 13, 2009, 03:39:44 PM
Yes we have teleport tech as well as hover tanks and no we didn't land on the moon, however we have met with martians..turns out they like cheese and and are big bronco's fans.

Well. No shit.

That's good to know!

Do they hate the Raiders too?
Title: Re: Side by side burning building comparison
Post by: IFBBwannaB on February 13, 2009, 05:21:11 PM
Great response. Good thing you refuted his point.


I'm curious how a building that is open 24/7 to thousands of people would somehow be lined with the massive amount of explosives needed to bring it down with ONE SINGLE PERSON noticing. Not one person on this board has given a valid response to that. Why? Because they can't!

Also remember that when you do a controlled demolition, it's not just putting the explosives on the support columns , it's also drilling into them to put them in. Not to mention that many of the support columns are unreachable in an occupied building.