Author Topic: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy  (Read 11192 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2007, 04:19:40 PM »
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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2007, 04:28:56 PM »
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.


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2007, 08:10:44 PM »
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!



OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2007, 08:12:09 PM »
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

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2007, 08:15:31 PM »
do you have a pic of the front of the building 240????????????


well?


because until you do...............  you have nothing but speculation

BRUCE

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Different Dunes, Same Sand
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2007, 08:22:56 PM »
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?
Thread Killer

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2007, 08:29:23 PM »
Well look at the skeptic circle jerk I just found :D  I hope you all clean your mess up...

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2007, 09:02:45 PM »
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.
Squishy face retard

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11062
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2007, 10:13:29 PM »
i know your joking!   ..... right?

Do you have a explanation? I sure as hell don't.

beatmaster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2819
  • Save a tree, eat a beaver
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2007, 11:13:53 PM »


the picture of the dollard bill was made long before the wtc existed, can you explain this?
are you delusional?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2007, 12:21:59 AM »
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. 

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2007, 07:47:14 AM »
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.
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2007, 07:53:15 AM »
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.

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2007, 08:05:57 AM »
 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)
Squishy face retard

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2007, 08:15:18 AM »
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
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2007, 08:16:52 AM »
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2007, 08:20:04 AM »
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

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2007, 08:24:49 AM »
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. 
Squishy face retard

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2007, 09:25:29 AM »
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.

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2007, 09:29:12 AM »
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...."
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2007, 09:30:10 AM »
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'?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2007, 09:34:42 AM »
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. 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2007, 09:42:09 AM »
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.

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2007, 09:46:53 AM »
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.
Squishy face retard

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2007, 09:52:42 AM »
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