IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Loose Change, A video that will change everything you thought about 9/11
JasOnZx
post Nov 27 2005, 05:49 AM
Post #1


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 30-October 05
Member No.: 25,749



http://nineoneone.nl/Media/documentaries/9...documentary.wmv

Anyone who reads this topic I highly suggest to download and watch this video. It will change everything you thought about 9/11. The video is about an hour long but it gos into great detail about 9/11. Take my word on it its a great video. Not like good like funny but very seriouse and almost scary.

It's kinda hard to descrip so just watch it for your self.


--------------------
IPB Image

Search, find a nigga, run up behind a nigga
Shoot car windows out to flatline a nigga
Gun pop, heart stop, homie this is heavy
You on your way to meet your maker, nigga are you ready
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattay
post Nov 27 2005, 02:33 PM
Post #2


Do Boy
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 82
Joined: 14-July 05
From: New Hampsha
Member No.: 19,171
PSN Name: PM me



I just watched the entire movie.

It has changed almost everything I knew about the events that took place on September 11, 2001. Some of the hijackers are still alive? That the planes we thought crashed into the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania were not really the planes reported hijacked? The planes that were said that crashed into their destinations, were seen differently. One plane that crashed into the Trade Centers was said to be a Boeing 757, but after witnessing numerous accounts of video tapes, the plane looked nothing at all like a 757. And, right before the plane hit the building, an explosion detonated inside the building right where the plane hit. But this happened before the 757 even touched the Tower. A missle? Set explosions? Both sides are explained thoroughly in this video.

When the other airliner hit the Pentagon, there were eyewitness accounts of the plane sweeping only 50 feet of the ground. Right over cars, if an airliner that size was to travel over a car, at that altitude, the car would be swept off the highway. But their cars were still intact with the ground. And, the two six ton jet engines that were on the plane when it hit, were no where to be found. Instead, a few parts of an A-16 (I think that was its name) were found inside the Pentagon.

Was the story you and I believe just a conspiracy by the FBI just to keep our mouths shut? If any of you have seen the topic I made ( http://www.gta-sanandreas.com/forums/index...showtopic=62288 ). You'll see one of the 9/11 hijackers. I thought, and I was damn sure he was dead, because I don't think many people could survive a colision with a building and a commercial airliner. He was alive because this young man's father recieved a phonecall from his son on September 14, 2001.

But was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon an airliner? Witnesses say they saw a C-130 cargo plane fly right overhead the Pentagon seconds before impact. And how the light posts were ripped from the ground, not cut in half by the wings from a plane flying that low to the ground. There was also no sign of wings crashing through the Pentagon with the airliner.

Could there have been something else? Missles maybe? Instead of planes.

It is an ongoing experiment trying to figure out what really happened. Could the attacker even be Usama Bin Laden? In his confession video found in Afghanistan, then released to the people on December 14, 2001, there was a man that looked nothing like Bin Laden that said he was. Also, the man was writing a note with his right hand. Even though Usama Bin Laden is left handed. He was also wearing a gold watch and a gold ring on his right hand, a violation in Islamic culture.

Watch this video, even though it may be long, you'll be glad you did.


--------------------


click my sig for a good time.
Thanks to D-O for the sig
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 04:25 PM
Post #3


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



I hate conspiracy theories. dry.gif

QUOTE
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

...Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 Ś before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack Ś newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.


QUOTE
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

And tell me this: how the hell was the government going to plant controlled demolition explosives in three (in you count WTC #7) insanely busy office buildings in the middle of downtown Manhattan without a single person noticing anything what-so-ever?

The US Government can barley get anything done on a good day, much less keep something like that quiet.
QUOTE
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/
Think about this kind of scenario: the evil PNAC cabal wanted a war and needed a massive terrorist attack as a pretext. They think, we could fly some "hijacked" planes into the WTC towers. Just one problem with that idea -- burning jet fuel isn't sufficient to bring the towers down [No, I don't believe that nonsense. I'm humoring these morons, focusing on the scenario itself. -- Ed.] and the public might not support our Pertpetual War if the towers don't collapse. Oh yeah, and don't forget about WTC 7. The plan won't work unless we rig explosives to bring down that building, too. And don't worry about getting caught. It's easy to rig three office buildings in downtown Manhattan with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing.

Now, a "controlled demolition" that succeeds where the 1993 WTC bombing failed should be sufficient, but for some reason, the neocon cabal thought it necessary to go through with the hijacked planes plot, even though they were deemed insufficient to do the job. And they managed to coordinate them in such a way so that they crashed into the buildings at the exact locations of the rigged explosives -- can't have anyone seeing explosions in another part of the buildings -- and manage to do that without setting off the explosives prematurely ...

What fucking planet are these people from?


QUOTE
http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2003_09...389955927810681
Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.

The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #4


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



Riddle me this OPX.

According to the "Law of Falling Bodies" originally put together by Galilelo the total distance traveled at the end of any specific time in a total vacuum is calculated by this formula: Distance = (32.16/2) X Time in seconds squared..

So if there is ANY resistance, than time of "falling bodies" slows down in relation to the resistance.

1350 feet = (32.16/2) X time in seconds squared and you will get 9.1627 seconds.. and this would be the FASTEST time these building would come down. South Tower came down in 10.4 seconds and the North Tower came down in 8.4 seconds!

And there was resistence - the massive lower sections of the building. These are the buildings that were built with 47 massive interior steel core columns together with 236 large exterior steel columns that were welded together by steel plates. There was also steel trusses which connected every other steel column. Not to mention the concrete in a corrugated pan.

With that said, we find that one building could POSSIBLY fell as fast as 9.1627, which is VERY UNLIKELY, due to the massive resistence, but it is possible. The other tower (which came down in 8.4 seconds) actually fell FASTER than it would have in a vacuum.

Galileoĺs finding from the inclined planes experiment:
ľ The distance traveled by a uniformly accelerating
object is proportional to the square of the time:
Distance traveled = (1/2) x (acceleration) x (time^2).
ľ For a freely falling object, d = gt2/2.

With this equation, the distance the top brick on the building would travel in 8.4 seconds is (1/2) x (9.8m/s^2) x (8.4s^2) = 345.744 metres OR 1134.3307103856 ft (1 metre = 3.2808399 ft)

Let's round the numbers off: (1/2) x (10) x (8.4^2) = 352m x 3.3 (3.3 ft in a metre) = 1164.24

The top brick of the WTC could ONLY travel 1164 feet within the 8.4 seconds it took to fall EVEN if it were in a total vacuum and did not have the resistance of 110 floors beneath it! That simply CANNOT explain how it actually fell 1350 feet (according to FEMA) within that time. It is not scientifically tenable.

The only scientific reason that could explain why the tower fell faster than the law of gravity is that it is NOT GRAVITY bringing it down!! A brick can be thrown down or pulled down faster than 9.8 m/s^2, but it cannot fall down faster! It's impossible.

The "official" story that's fed to us it that the towers "pancaked", meaning each floor would hit the one under it, and that would give way then hit the next, etc. So we're talking about resistance at EVERY floor. If there was resistence (and there obviously was) the building COULD NOT have fallen down faster than it would have in FREE FALL. Imagine this: if there was only ONE floor, with NO floors to hit beneath it, it would've actually taken LONGER for the floor to reach the ground, than it would have during 9/11, hitting EACH floor on the way down, coming down FASTER than it would have during free fall!!

A 110 storey building came falling down in 8.4 seconds. That is more than 13 floors EACH SECOND. Imagine you walking across a 13 storey building and seeing it crumble due to damage. One moment there is a 13 storey building on fire, ONE SECOND LATER, the entire building is lying in crumbles. It goes against all physics and common sense!

These are undisputable facts, not conspiracy theories!!!


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 05:39 PM
Post #5


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Uh-huh. So the North Tower was a second faster? And I guess the fact that after about halfway down the dust and debries blocking our view of anything that happened after that is nothing?

Bombs don't make things fall faster, they just throw them but gravity is still what brings it down.

And besides that when each floor hit the one below that added more weight each time to crush the one below that. AKA more force to counteract resistence.

Besides that how often have people timed how long it takes an office tower to fall in on itself?

-EDIT-
Also, like I said before, how do you think they managed to plant explosives in key ares of 3 major office buildings without anybody seeing anything at all in the middle of downtown Manhattan?

Also from Wikipedia.org:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_domestic...e_Center_towers
As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects thrown away from the building are photographically depicted falling only slightly faster than the actual building, suggesting the towers fell at free fall speeds.


This post has been edited by OptimumPx: Nov 27 2005, 05:56 PM


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Nov 27 2005, 05:54 PM
Post #6


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



On the topic of the Pentagon plane, has anyone ever seen that video of a jet fighter being shot down a runway into a concrete block at 200mph? When the plane hits the entire thing, excpet the wings which miss the block, is totaly blown into dust. There is not a single piece of aircraft left that you can identify, just a big hole in the block and lots of totaly smashed debris.
I reckon that if an airliner hits a building/ground at 200mph or there abouts, there is going to be very little left of it intact at the end.

I'm still not sure on the WTC ones though. I was certain this was planes and terrorists. I watched it live on TV and saw that 2nd plane hit and saw the towers fall down.
But now after seeing these vidoes i'm a bit skeptical. Though i don't know anything about the physics of it so i can't check it all out myself.
I'd like to see 2 explanations, the official and this one in the video, but both including all the balistics, and physics models that can be used to explain the incident.

There's still a lot of evidence for the terrorist story though. I think the conspiracy theorists are looking too hard for this one. They really would love to show the US government did this, i'm just convinced they are wasting their time looking for something that is not there.

And to be honest, if the government wanted to blow the towers up and get away with it then why not copy the failed attempt in 1992 (might have that date wrong). The plan there was to drive a truck full of C4 and hydrogen cylinders into the carpark and blow a hole in the outer wall of tower one (this gives all the strength to the tower). It would collapse as the outer wall holds most of the weight, and would fall over onto tower two, brining them both down.
That seems like a far better plan to me, and you could cover it better and still blame Mr Bin Laden and his buddies.

This post has been edited by Lord Steve0: Nov 27 2005, 06:00 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 06:40 PM
Post #7


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 27 2005, 08:07 PM) [snapback]1009820[/snapback]

Uh-huh. So the North Tower was a second faster? And I guess the fact that after about halfway down the dust and debries blocking our view of anything that happened after that is nothing?

Even if it came down in 10 seconds, it doesn't make sense because the resistence of 100+ floors would slow down the speed of which the towers came down, not accelerate it.

QUOTE
Bombs don't make things fall faster, they just throw them but gravity is still what brings it down.

When you throw a basketball of a roof, the basketball would reach the floor earlier than if you would simply drop the basketball, doesn't it? I hope you're not trying to say that if explosives brought down the towers, the speed of which it would've come down would not have been effected by this. Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

QUOTE
And besides that when each floor hit the one below that added more weight each time to crush the one below that. AKA more force to counteract resistence.

Fair enough. But then again, 13 storey's collapsed each second. There is no doubt each floor added more weight to cursh the one below, thus the lower floors would've collapsed at a faster rate than that of the upper floors. Meaning, the lower floors would actually fell EVEN FASTER THAN 13 STOREYS PER SECOND. Look at the video's of the towers collapsing, there is not much diffirence in the speed the top floors came crashing down and the lower floor crashing down - it came down at a pretty consistent rate.

QUOTE
Besides that how often have people timed how long it takes an office tower to fall in on itself?

Never. But people have timed how long office towers have been on fire and how many came down due to this. Apart from the Twin Towers, and WTC7, no office towers have collapsed due to fire, and towers OLDER than the WTCs have survived WORSE fires which raged for WAY LONGER, and DIDNT came down.

QUOTE
-EDIT-
Also, like I said before, how do you think they managed to plant explosives in key ares of 3 major office buildings without anybody seeing anything at all in the middle of downtown Manhattan?

Watch the video.

QUOTE
Also from Wikipedia.org:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_domestic...e_Center_towers
As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects thrown away from the building are photographically depicted falling only slightly faster than the actual building, suggesting the towers fell at free fall speeds.


Yes, free fall speeds. How? How can 110 storeys of concrete and massive steel collums come down at free fal without any resistance whatsoever?

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: Nov 27 2005, 06:40 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 06:45 PM
Post #8


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Oh ya CaldMagi, the guy (Jerry Russell, Ph.D.) who came up with your theory here later stated the he was wrong and refuted himself saying that he was wrong here. happy.gif

QUOTE
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strike
post Nov 27 2005, 06:57 PM
Post #9


Upstanding Citizen
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: 11-September 05
Member No.: 24,248



Another 9/11 conspiracy theory, eh?

Quite an interesting video, actually. Freaky, maybe, but none-the-less very interesting and informative. After watching that, I may never look at 9/11 in the same way. And the planes? Where did they go? They smashed and then disappeared. I think not. Either Bin Laden is a talented magician or they disintergrated on contact. I guess we shall never know.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 07:56 PM
Post #10


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 27 2005, 09:13 PM) [snapback]1009891[/snapback]

Oh ya CaldMagi, the guy (Jerry Russell, Ph.D.) who came up with your theory here later stated the he was wrong and refuted himself saying that he was wrong here. happy.gif

Your point being?

You obviously thought he was wrong when he came up with this theory, but when he suddenly changes his opinion in your favor, he is right? Suuuuure. How do you know he is right this time? The truth about 9/11 doesn't evolve around this single personality.


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 07:57 PM
Post #11


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Yes but he does say that he was wrong.


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 08:07 PM
Post #12


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



Well... if a paper passport of a hijacker can survive a blast and conveniently land next to the WTC wreckage for an FBI agent to pick up, then I guess anything is possible.

EDIT: What about this guy: http://freepressinternational.com/wtc_manager.wmv

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it (note that a Boeing 707 is about the same size as the Boeing 767s that hit the towers).

That was the largest plane at the time.

I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door...

This intense grid... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

IT REALLY DOES NOTHING TO THE SCREEN NETTING."

I bet the CONSTRUCTION MANEGER of the WTCs is wrong, and a wild conspiracy theorist who says he was actually wrong in saying explosion brought down the tower is right.. Yep yep.

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: Nov 27 2005, 08:10 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 08:32 PM
Post #13


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



It was designed to take an impact from a lost plane trying to go to the airport after the journey (low on fuel) moving at slower speeds.

Not an impact at full speed with full tanks of jet fuel ready for a cross-country trip.

Quite a difference. Also the 767 is 61,400 pounds heaver then the 707.

Besides that:
QUOTE
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
According to one of the designers of the World Trade Center (WTC), the towers were originally designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707; and the impact of the aircraft on Sept. 11th did not take the buildings down. In fact, WTC One stood for 1 hour and WTC Two stood for 1 3/4 hours after impact. Engineers familiar with the chain of events suspect that heat from the massive and extraordinary fires weakened the structures and initiated the progressive collapses.
...
"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire" - World Trade Center construction manager.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on Earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

The building's construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved it from the inferno. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 08:59 PM
Post #14


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire" - World Trade Center construction manager.

This fire?

IPB Image

Alot of the jet fuel exploded outside the towers, there wasn't much fuel burning in the towers itself. If you believe office paper, wooden desks and carpet was able to weaken 2 massive steel collums, causing it to collapse, while there are countless of other similiar (and even weaker) structures that didn't collapse due to (way heavier) fire, then you are seriously out of touch with reality.

EDIT:
IPB Image

IPB Image

Odd enough, the tower with the lessest fuel burning collapsed first. Care to explain me this one?

EDIT2:
While you're at it, you might as well tell me what is the source of this intense heat at ground zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: Nov 27 2005, 09:04 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Nov 27 2005, 09:00 PM
Post #15


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



I think people d otend to avoid the fact an airliner just hit the towers. They argue about how fire could not damage them badly wnough for a collapse. But they seem to forget that a plane hit both towers, in the case of tower two, right on a corner where most of the tower strength lies.
Apparently the fireproofing on the beams was poor, there have been investigations to show that fire did mess them up pretty bad. If you go and look at the debris if there's any left anywhere it is pretty warped from heat damage.
The fire was pretty dammed intense as well, it was in an enclosed area, with lots of oxygen as well. Winds up there would fan the fires, and the last thing the designers of fire control systems expect is for jet fuel to be burning 110 floors up a skyscraper. I've seem thermal images from the event and it looks extremly hot in there, easily enough to damage pillars and warp beams.

The evidence for bombs is pretty weak though. A few puffs of smoke and dust! The whole thing was caving in on iteslf! Just because you get debris flying out of windows a few stories below the main collapse doesn't mean there was a bomb. In fact when the first plane hit, it sent burning jet fuel shooting down the lift shafts to the ground floor and blew out all the windows there, that could be what happened when it collapsed.
And i think what OPX was saying about bombs not making it fall faster makes sense. A bomb would not blow the entire building down to the ground, if that was the case it would need to be above the building to push it down with it's explosive force. A bomb inside would send force every direction, it would probably slow the collapse not speed it up as debris would be going all over the place.
I just don't think there is anywhere near enough evidence to say bombs were involved. It was clearly obvious a plane hit each tower and blew a huge hole in each one, and the fire would seriously damage any internal pillars. I think people just want an alternative and are fitting their theories round whatever evidence they like.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 09:11 PM
Post #16


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



I was referring to this fire, which might I add laid smoldering for many days afterwards before it finally went out.
IPB Image
QUOTE
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.



--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 27 2005, 09:29 PM
Post #17


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



The fires at the WTCs have been reported by FEMA to be 800║C (1472║F), yet after 5 days of continuously spraying water over the WTCs debris, the temperature at ground zero was still 700 to 750║C (1300 to 1400║F). Meaning, the temperature of smoldering debris, 5 days after the attacks with thousands of gallons water been sprayed over it, was actually HOTTER than the actual fire that brought down the towers. Or do you have another fancy article ready which says the fires that "raged" in the WTCs were, say, 1250║C (2230║F) or something? Anyway, I'm dying to know what the source of the intense heat at ground zero was.


--------------------
QUOTE(psych°)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 27 2005, 09:39 PM
Post #18


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Two 110 story buildings lying in a burning pile, around 4 stories deep into the ground, and you expect the fires to be put out quickly?

And of course it got hotter, all of the flammable materials all collected together.

Look into the smoldering coal on the Titanic for similarities.


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HB~Sauce
post Nov 28 2005, 12:11 AM
Post #19


Vandal


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 21-July 05
From: Alberta, Canada
Member No.: 20,125



I'd download that video, but I have dial up, damn you Motorola! BOT, I have never heard this side of 9/11.


--------------------
I get bored...
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 28 2005, 12:16 AM
Post #20


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



QUOTE(P4yn3 @ Nov 27 2005, 07:17 PM) [snapback]1010121[/snapback]

Optimum's sources are a bunch of shitty blogs.

No offense, but XD

Hey! I only used 2 blogs. mad.gif

And at least I named all my sources. sleep.gif


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 05:45 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4