Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 23:39:21
Okay well I just read an article on wikipedia about the collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center
I want to know what you think of the information and if there are any flaws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center
I want to know what you think of the information and if there are any flaws
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SiLeNT(U) on 2005-08-19 at 23:52:45
I hate people who are so damn patriotic they can't see what's right in front of their eyes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 00:03:11
I read a tiny bit, then looked at the picture...
Now tell me... How could the WHOLE building collapse, when hit so high up...? Hmmm....?
Now tell me... How could the WHOLE building collapse, when hit so high up...? Hmmm....?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 00:04:20
QUOTE(SiLeNT(U) @ Aug 19 2005, 11:52 PM)
I hate people who are so damn patriotic they can't see what's right in front of their eyes.
[right][snapback]293584[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293584[/snapback][/right]
Yea, I hate when everything that's infront of my eyes says that planes made the WTC fall down.
Since I'm clearly a patriotic idiot please tell me what's in front of my eyes.
And please, if you have information that says otherwise, post a damn link to it. Or some proof.
Because to me it is as if you are telling me "WE ARE LIVING IN A MATRIX, PERIOD" without any proof at all.
QUOTE
I read a tiny bit, then looked at the picture...
Now tell me... How could the WHOLE building collapse, when hit so high up...? Hmmm....?
Now tell me... How could the WHOLE building collapse, when hit so high up...? Hmmm....?
Here's your answer:
QUOTE
One and Two World Trade Center
Schematic of 1 WTC with impact damage. Note narrow central shaft into which all internal columns are bunched. Adapted from NIST report "Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis", October 19, 2004To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and other common architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then unusual approach in its construction— instead of the typical high-rise infrastructure utilizing building-wide rows of heavy columns within walls, each tower was essentially a hollow steel tube staked to the earth by a cross-sectionally narrow array of columns running up the building core. As secondary supports, each tower had 240 thin steel columns sheathing the facade, a signature feature that allowed the number of internal columns to be very small for such huge structures. The result was super-tall, super-wide office buildings with maximized expanses of column-free floorspace.
After the aircraft impacts on September 11, 2001, it appeared to most observers from the ground that the buildings had been severely but not fatally damaged. They did not realize that intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles, deposited near the cores of the towers by the two aircraft, was weakening the central steel columns, longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. As is well known, the strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic the higher the temperature. Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, basically, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers had much to do with the jet fuel (and resulting fire) reaching so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to shield stairways and elevator shafts.
Impact locations for towers 1 and 2.
Impact locations for towers 1 and 2.The towers were each struck by hijacked Boeing 767 jet planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91,000 L) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds: Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h). The resulting explosions ignited thousands of gallons of the jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors simultaneously in each tower, consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls and framing, human beings, and other items in all the affected floors. The fires reached sustained intense temperatures rarely observed in building conflagrations, in places exceeding 760 °C (1400 °F).
The north tower, 1 WTC, was impacted at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am, standing for 102 minutes and 5 seconds. The south tower, 2 WTC, was impacted at 9:02:54 am and collapsed at 9:59:04 am, standing for 56 minutes and 10 seconds. The fact that the north tower stood much longer than the south is attributed mainly to three facts: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the airplane was lower (so there was less impact damage); the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded. Also, the hottest part of the fire in the south tower burned near a corner of the building and apparently led to a sudden bursting of bolts in that section, while the failures in the north tower core involved slower warping and softening effects.
[edit]
Collapse of the two towers
Ground Zero debris with markup showing building locations.The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, indicating that there were in fact two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, "pancaking" in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse.
Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the building's concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping. This placed additional stress on the bunched core columns, which themselves were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable; the huge mass of the falling structure had sufficient momentum to act as a battering ram, smashing through all the intact floors below. This theory is supported by witnesses from within the tower stating they heard "something like a heavy freight train approaching". There is some visual evidence that it was the core that collapsed first. It can be seen in videos that the large antenna, which was built on top of the core, starts downward a fraction of a second earlier than the rest of the building.
In the south tower, heat warping weakened the single-bolt connections between the floorplates and the initially intact external columns surrounding the impact hole, effectively creating a "hangman's drop" for that portion of the building above the point of failure. Eventually, the gravity load on these bolts increased beyond the breaking point as the joins, floorplates and columns weakened. Again, the momentum of the collapsing structure was sufficient to smash everything below it.
Schematic of 1 WTC with impact damage. Note narrow central shaft into which all internal columns are bunched. Adapted from NIST report "Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis", October 19, 2004To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and other common architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then unusual approach in its construction— instead of the typical high-rise infrastructure utilizing building-wide rows of heavy columns within walls, each tower was essentially a hollow steel tube staked to the earth by a cross-sectionally narrow array of columns running up the building core. As secondary supports, each tower had 240 thin steel columns sheathing the facade, a signature feature that allowed the number of internal columns to be very small for such huge structures. The result was super-tall, super-wide office buildings with maximized expanses of column-free floorspace.
After the aircraft impacts on September 11, 2001, it appeared to most observers from the ground that the buildings had been severely but not fatally damaged. They did not realize that intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles, deposited near the cores of the towers by the two aircraft, was weakening the central steel columns, longspan floor trusses and the joins connecting the floorplates to the external columns. As is well known, the strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, becoming more elastic the higher the temperature. Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, basically, or were destroyed by fire, and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way. This is something of a tautological argument, however, because the lightness and hollowness of the towers had much to do with the jet fuel (and resulting fire) reaching so far inside in the first place. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to shield stairways and elevator shafts.
Impact locations for towers 1 and 2.
Impact locations for towers 1 and 2.The towers were each struck by hijacked Boeing 767 jet planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91,000 L) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds: Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the north tower, Flight 175 hit the south tower at about 590 mph (950 km/h). The resulting explosions ignited thousands of gallons of the jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors simultaneously in each tower, consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls and framing, human beings, and other items in all the affected floors. The fires reached sustained intense temperatures rarely observed in building conflagrations, in places exceeding 760 °C (1400 °F).
The north tower, 1 WTC, was impacted at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am, standing for 102 minutes and 5 seconds. The south tower, 2 WTC, was impacted at 9:02:54 am and collapsed at 9:59:04 am, standing for 56 minutes and 10 seconds. The fact that the north tower stood much longer than the south is attributed mainly to three facts: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the airplane was lower (so there was less impact damage); the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded. Also, the hottest part of the fire in the south tower burned near a corner of the building and apparently led to a sudden bursting of bolts in that section, while the failures in the north tower core involved slower warping and softening effects.
[edit]
Collapse of the two towers
Ground Zero debris with markup showing building locations.The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, indicating that there were in fact two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, "pancaking" in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse.
Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the building's concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping. This placed additional stress on the bunched core columns, which themselves were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable; the huge mass of the falling structure had sufficient momentum to act as a battering ram, smashing through all the intact floors below. This theory is supported by witnesses from within the tower stating they heard "something like a heavy freight train approaching". There is some visual evidence that it was the core that collapsed first. It can be seen in videos that the large antenna, which was built on top of the core, starts downward a fraction of a second earlier than the rest of the building.
In the south tower, heat warping weakened the single-bolt connections between the floorplates and the initially intact external columns surrounding the impact hole, effectively creating a "hangman's drop" for that portion of the building above the point of failure. Eventually, the gravity load on these bolts increased beyond the breaking point as the joins, floorplates and columns weakened. Again, the momentum of the collapsing structure was sufficient to smash everything below it.
Oops, look like I just quoted most of the article. Try reading the whole thing, then answering MY question. I'm not here to answer your questions as to why planes made the WTC fall down. You are the one making the assertion that says otherwise, and I'm asking to provide proof, which is basically reading the article and pointing out what the things it says are false.
Kellimus, just so I know that you are qualified to make such conclusions that planes can't make a building fall down. Do you know how the towers were built? Exactly what kinds of forces were involved in the collapse? Can you give any numbers at all to back it up?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 00:16:04
Do you?
My point exactly.
You have to Wikipedia it to try to argue against us.
But did you know Wikipedia lies about things, too?
Hmmmm... Bet you didn't know that one, did you?
My point exactly.
You have to Wikipedia it to try to argue against us.
But did you know Wikipedia lies about things, too?
Hmmmm... Bet you didn't know that one, did you?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 00:17:08
Yea, wikipedia lies, which is why I'm asking you to point out where. It's simple.
Especially since you are making the assertion that the WTC towers didn't collapse from a plane.
Stop avoiding it, just answer the question. You skipped all of what I was saying. It doesn't matter whether I am qualified or not. I'm not stating anything. I'm asking you to state things since you are the one telling me things.
And incase you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing anything against you.
Put it this way, I'm a stupid noob who doesn't know anything about 9/11 and you are going to teach me about what really happened. Now explain it to me with actual evidence okay?
Especially since you are making the assertion that the WTC towers didn't collapse from a plane.
Stop avoiding it, just answer the question. You skipped all of what I was saying. It doesn't matter whether I am qualified or not. I'm not stating anything. I'm asking you to state things since you are the one telling me things.
And incase you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing anything against you.
Put it this way, I'm a stupid noob who doesn't know anything about 9/11 and you are going to teach me about what really happened. Now explain it to me with actual evidence okay?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 00:22:00
How can I teach you anything when everyone says it's lies?
Just look at the evidence. I don't care how big the jet was, it is impossible to have an Aluminum plane, make a building fall... Even if it hit's it on it's "main" suspension beams...
Go ahead and flame me all you patriots out there (Not including you Devilesk because I know you're just looking for answers) Like I said in my null topic, I DON'T :censored:ING CARE ANYMORE!
Just look at the evidence. I don't care how big the jet was, it is impossible to have an Aluminum plane, make a building fall... Even if it hit's it on it's "main" suspension beams...
Go ahead and flame me all you patriots out there (Not including you Devilesk because I know you're just looking for answers) Like I said in my null topic, I DON'T :censored:ING CARE ANYMORE!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-20 at 00:24:17
QUOTE
How can I teach you anything when everyone says it's lies?
You're lying right now. Everyone means every single being. I am included. I do not think it's lying; therefore, you are lying. (pwned)
QUOTE
Just look at the evidence. I don't care how big the jet was, it is impossible to have an Aluminum plane, make a building fall... Even if it hit's it on it's "main" suspension beams...
That's the thing, there is no evidence. While I am not suggesting either way (I am completely neutral), I don't see you bring up anything. Nothing at all. What amazes me ever more is:
QUOTE
Go ahead and flame me all you patriots out there (Not including you Devilesk because I know you're just looking for answers) Like I said in my null topic, I DON'T :censored:ING CARE ANYMORE!
If you don't care, why bother posting? It's clear you're trying to do something. But if you don't care, why are you trying? Once again, lying.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 00:24:22
Yea Kellimus I'm looking for answers. What have you given me? Nothing but statements with no support.
Last time I checked there were only about 2 "patriots" here arguing against you.
Rofl
"Just look at the evidence"
Why don't you point me too it?
Which is why I told you to treat me as a damn stupid noob:
What you are constantly lacking is FACTS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NICE.
See, I'm trying to be damn open-minded here, but you aren't giving me any reason to believe you other than your word.
Last time I checked there were only about 2 "patriots" here arguing against you.
Rofl
"Just look at the evidence"
Why don't you point me too it?
QUOTE
How can I teach you anything when everyone says it's lies?
Which is why I told you to treat me as a damn stupid noob:
QUOTE
Put it this way, I'm a stupid noob who doesn't know anything about 9/11 and you are going to teach me about what really happened. Now explain it to me with actual evidence okay?
What you are constantly lacking is FACTS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NICE.
See, I'm trying to be damn open-minded here, but you aren't giving me any reason to believe you other than your word.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 01:22:19
im sure you all know what they say happend, and i beleave them. there was extream heat and a sudden force that jolted both buildings. the two towers had no actual support beams......they were on the outside. like a bug has his suport on the outside. an exo-skelliton. thats what the towers had. but what i dont get....if why did the planes explode, what made the gas in the tanks to do what they did? i have seen many plane crashes, and when they hit something that will give away....like a building, the gas just leaks out, it dont explode.... it may catch on fire THEN blow up,but they acted like missles, when they hit the outside, they exploded. but enough with that.....back to work..... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-08-20 at 01:26:15
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 19 2005, 11:24 PM)
Yea Kellimus I'm looking for answers. What have you given me? Nothing but statements with no support.
Last time I checked there were only about 2 "patriots" here arguing against you.
Rofl
"Just look at the evidence"
Why don't you point me too it?
Which is why I told you to treat me as a damn stupid noob:
What you are constantly lacking is FACTS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NICE.
See, I'm trying to be damn open-minded here, but you aren't giving me any reason to believe you other than your word.
[right][snapback]293627[/snapback][/right]
Last time I checked there were only about 2 "patriots" here arguing against you.
Rofl
"Just look at the evidence"
Why don't you point me too it?
Which is why I told you to treat me as a damn stupid noob:
What you are constantly lacking is FACTS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NICE.
See, I'm trying to be damn open-minded here, but you aren't giving me any reason to believe you other than your word.
[right][snapback]293627[/snapback][/right]
Ok, Well, I tryed pointing out a few things. Frankly, I don't remember all the information I had aquired about this. I only remember so much so I'm going to Propose Documentaries I've watched about this. Most of the information you will find on the Internet is what the White House has proposed Unless you wrote otherwise in your search engine with key words. Although, there are alternative sources to this. Infact, like I said, there are quite a few videos I'd like you guys to watch =). One of which is a compilation of many parts all about 9/11 and the anomalies. I'm going to try to get the names soon. It shows alot of anomalies, It shows this in many views, One which is the scientific point of view of 9/11. I havn't watched it in some time But I remember it was a great documentary. Sorry, I mean Documentaries =). One lasts around 2 hours and 40 minutes. The others are smaller. Like I said, I'll post the names of the Documentaries for all of you who are interested. Hopefully, a few.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 01:28:30
Structural facts as to why planes couldn't take down the WTC would also be good.
Not information like "Oh it's obvious aluminum would have no affect on steel".
Some actual facts with take into account the way the WTC was built and the forces involved in a collision.
Also, I'm skeptical about all the "anomlies" and such especially if you are pointing them out in the media. Like if you are pointing out them using the word explosion or collapse or whatever, that I don't think really matters.
Anomalies based on the actual facts of the disaster are needed.
Not information like "Oh it's obvious aluminum would have no affect on steel".
Some actual facts with take into account the way the WTC was built and the forces involved in a collision.
Also, I'm skeptical about all the "anomlies" and such especially if you are pointing them out in the media. Like if you are pointing out them using the word explosion or collapse or whatever, that I don't think really matters.
Anomalies based on the actual facts of the disaster are needed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-08-20 at 01:31:03
QUOTE(Aikanaro @ Aug 19 2005, 06:21 PM)
I'll try to answer politely. Your...Uhh, Post is a work of fiction. First of all, A plane is made out of Aluminium Which by the way, tears apart quite easily. A Passenger Jet, no matter the size, tears up easily. All the plane should've done is crash and go through a tiny bit. The plane is made out of Aluminium, think for a second. Do you really believe that an Aluminium plane (Which is very fragile by the way, even against popula belief) Was able to make a STEEL (Once again, I repeat) building Collapse downward and leave nothing but wreckage. Seriously, I'll repeat again, A PLANE CANNOT DO THE DAMAGE YOU SAW ON THE TWIN TOWERS. A plane is huge alright, Buts its not STEEL, ITS ALUMINIUM. Have you guys ever seen plane accidents? When those accidents occur and the plane impacts on something, It basicly tears up like butter. A PLANE IS NOT STRONG AT ALL.
By the way, Never ever in history has a building collapsed that way because of a Plane crash. This was clearly Demolition. As I said In my previous Post, If you look clearly at the video where you can see (You can find videos of 9/11 everywhere on the internet) That every floor exploded due to demoliton. OF course, you cannot see this if you go in normal speed, You have to watch it carefully and slowly. There also has been documentaries on 9/11. I suggest you all to see a few. Oh, And no don't watch one created by the Bush Administration, I think we all know what their theory already is. Watch one made by a different source and see what they have to show.
Seriously guys, its so ridiculous that you think a plane can create such damage. First of all, FIRE HAS NEVER WEAKENED AND BENDED STEEL. Thats one STRAIGHT FACT. And lets say the Plane actually managed to burn the building to such a point and the tower magically crumbled. What a coincidence that it crumbled right straight down and not on to the city? When a building crumbles and falls straight down into itself, It takes Extremely planning. And its dealt with Demolition, not a random plane crash into a building.
To Answer Chris: No, it cannot be terrorists who did that. No, I do not believe that 2 of the most important buildings in the United States who have Cameras EVERYWHERE inside and alarms and is highly protected was not able to figure out Some random guys were taking alot of space to carefully plan and implant Demolition.
By the way, One last point. Why didn't the Us-airforce stop those planes? What was the cause? After several minutes of a plane going off-course and that has stopped all communication, There are Jets sent to intercept IMMIDIATLY. But, Ahem, There were no planes sent to intercept whatsoever. What a coincidence...........
[right][snapback]293397[/snapback][/right]
By the way, Never ever in history has a building collapsed that way because of a Plane crash. This was clearly Demolition. As I said In my previous Post, If you look clearly at the video where you can see (You can find videos of 9/11 everywhere on the internet) That every floor exploded due to demoliton. OF course, you cannot see this if you go in normal speed, You have to watch it carefully and slowly. There also has been documentaries on 9/11. I suggest you all to see a few. Oh, And no don't watch one created by the Bush Administration, I think we all know what their theory already is. Watch one made by a different source and see what they have to show.
Seriously guys, its so ridiculous that you think a plane can create such damage. First of all, FIRE HAS NEVER WEAKENED AND BENDED STEEL. Thats one STRAIGHT FACT. And lets say the Plane actually managed to burn the building to such a point and the tower magically crumbled. What a coincidence that it crumbled right straight down and not on to the city? When a building crumbles and falls straight down into itself, It takes Extremely planning. And its dealt with Demolition, not a random plane crash into a building.
To Answer Chris: No, it cannot be terrorists who did that. No, I do not believe that 2 of the most important buildings in the United States who have Cameras EVERYWHERE inside and alarms and is highly protected was not able to figure out Some random guys were taking alot of space to carefully plan and implant Demolition.
By the way, One last point. Why didn't the Us-airforce stop those planes? What was the cause? After several minutes of a plane going off-course and that has stopped all communication, There are Jets sent to intercept IMMIDIATLY. But, Ahem, There were no planes sent to intercept whatsoever. What a coincidence...........
[right][snapback]293397[/snapback][/right]
Pre-9/11, if a plane went out of course, you don't go "OMFG GET THE AIR FORCE SHOOT IT DOWN!!!11"
You say "OMFG WTF, keep radioing them!!!" Or something to that extent.
And yes, we did scramble air force jets, problem was is that we didn't know where the planes went, they were off course and out of radar, with so much commercial and private traffic in the air it was almost impossible to find where the planes went.
The plane that crashed in Pen. crashed becuase the men on board tryed to retake the plane....
And the twin towers were NOT entirely steel. It was a steel reforced building, the buildings weren't solid blocks of steel.
Now about the alliuminum, a plane going extremely FAST and hitting a concentrated point on the building will do A LOT of damage. It was not the planes that brought the buildings down, it was the explosion and fires caused by air plane fuel. When you put medal into fire, it WILL weaken, it just matters how fast. Now temperatures at the crash sites on the buildings WERE EXTREME, the few steel beams holdings the bottom floors to the top floors in the middle of the crash site weakened and could not hold the top floors any more.
and omfg I heart devilesk right now
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-08-20 at 01:47:44
Alright, heres the 2 hours and 40 minutes Decomentary that pretty much explains the whole scientific point of view of 9/11. The documentary is called "Confronting the Evidence: A call to reopen the 9/11 Investigation." This is a free video that you can order on dvd. Since its free, I don't think there would be any problem to Download it with Torrent to make it easier/faster. I have 2 sites here on which you can Download it Torrent wise. Theres probably more but heres two : http://www.torrentreactor.to/torrents/view_53202
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3336463
I hope a few check this out, Its really worth it. Its always nice to be open-minded. So far Devilesk is right, We havn't given that much of information. I'm not a scientist either, I've only said What I knew as facts and information I've seen on Documentaries, Not all, but most of what I remember. But theres been more questions so I hope this answers it all. Please try to be open-minded Like Devilesk if you do watch it.
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3336463
I hope a few check this out, Its really worth it. Its always nice to be open-minded. So far Devilesk is right, We havn't given that much of information. I'm not a scientist either, I've only said What I knew as facts and information I've seen on Documentaries, Not all, but most of what I remember. But theres been more questions so I hope this answers it all. Please try to be open-minded Like Devilesk if you do watch it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 02:45:37
also.....your thought about not being able to destoy steel with aluminum......have you ever seen what happens when a tornado hits? yeah,it can put a 2x4 thru a steal beam, that was at speads of about 100 mph.......the plain is going 400 or so....thats alittle bit faster. and the aluminun......its 2 in thick. and it dose have seal in it.........for support........this is the ONLY time that i will dissagree with kellimus. and when a building colapses.....blam flyes everywhere. even out the windows.......and there you go....it LOOKS like demo. but its not.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-08-20 at 03:09:39
QUOTE(durk-A-dur @ Aug 20 2005, 01:45 AM)
also.....your thought about not being able to destoy steel with aluminum......have you ever seen what happens when a tornado hits? yeah,it can put a 2x4 thru a steal beam, that was at speads of about 100 mph.......the plain is going 400 or so....thats alittle bit faster. and the aluminun......its 2 in thick. and it dose have seal in it.........for support........this is the ONLY time that i will dissagree with kellimus. and when a building colapses.....blam flyes everywhere. even out the windows.......and there you go....it LOOKS like demo. but its not.
[right][snapback]293801[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293801[/snapback][/right]
Really, Don't post in here. Your pathetic. You don't even pull out correct data and I'm 100% sure you didn't research about this 9/11 event as opposed to most of the others. What are you trying to do? Post for the sake of post count?? Your post is so pathetic, I'm really sorry. Your just pulling info out of nowhere that you presume is this way. Unless you can give a *Fact* or a link or even perhaps a comprehensible post that actually seems realistic or a possible solution, Don't post in here. Your Post is not serious at all, You just said anything practically. If we thought the way you did, everything.......would...Just be....without real research done.....And people could maybe......get away with terrible things....Because....We didn't....take the time......to look at this.....in a scientific point....of view and determine.....what really happened and what could've....done such an explosion like this....
And read all the precedent posts before saying something that Really makes no sense scientificly.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Altercation on 2005-08-20 at 10:14:08
9/11 is a very controversial subject. If you don't think it is read the signature. For example (I am unable to find the reference right now) there was a holding tank under the 9/11 planes, which is clearly not a part of the Boeing 747 design. And about the pentagon...just watch this http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Oh yeah and about chris calling me a liar for "exagerating" the death toll in Iraq:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596
Yeah look at the date! No matter how brainwashed you are, you still know that that number cannot DECREASE in 9 months. it can only rise. Read my signature chris
Oh yeah and about chris calling me a liar for "exagerating" the death toll in Iraq:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596
Yeah look at the date! No matter how brainwashed you are, you still know that that number cannot DECREASE in 9 months. it can only rise. Read my signature chris
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-08-20 at 12:32:26
QUOTE(Aikanaro @ Aug 19 2005, 11:09 PM)
Really, Don't post in here. Your pathetic. You don't even pull out correct data and I'm 100% sure you didn't research about this 9/11 event as opposed to most of the others. What are you trying to do? Post for the sake of post count?? Your post is so pathetic, I'm really sorry. Your just pulling info out of nowhere that you presume is this way. Unless you can give a *Fact* or a link or even perhaps a comprehensible post that actually seems realistic or a possible solution, Don't post in here. Your Post is not serious at all, You just said anything practically. If we thought the way you did, everything.......would...Just be....without real research done.....And people could maybe......get away with terrible things....Because....We didn't....take the time......to look at this.....in a scientific point....of view and determine.....what really happened and what could've....done such an explosion like this....
And read all the precedent posts before saying something that Really makes no sense scientificly.
[right][snapback]293823[/snapback][/right]
And read all the precedent posts before saying something that Really makes no sense scientificly.
[right][snapback]293823[/snapback][/right]
And you just wasted a post space by trying to teach him something, next time actually add to this debate.
QUOTE(Altercation @ Aug 20 2005, 06:14 AM)
9/11 is a very controversial subject. If you don't think it is read the signature. For example (I am unable to find the reference right now) there was a holding tank under the 9/11 planes, which is clearly not a part of the Boeing 747 design. And about the pentagon...just watch this http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Oh yeah and about chris calling me a liar for "exagerating" the death toll in Iraq:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596
Yeah look at the date! No matter how brainwashed you are, you still know that that number cannot DECREASE in 9 months. it can only rise. Read my signature chris
[right][snapback]293934[/snapback][/right]
Oh yeah and about chris calling me a liar for "exagerating" the death toll in Iraq:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596
Yeah look at the date! No matter how brainwashed you are, you still know that that number cannot DECREASE in 9 months. it can only rise. Read my signature chris
[right][snapback]293934[/snapback][/right]
Thats just an article, did you even go to the website I posted? It actually HAS AN ARCHIVE of nearly every death in iraq.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 15:03:37
Who is it made by though? Democrats, or Republicans?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-08-20 at 15:19:42
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Aug 20 2005, 11:32 AM)
And you just wasted a post space by trying to teach him something, next time actually add to this debate.
[right][snapback]294016[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]294016[/snapback][/right]
Alright then, I will number all my points about this.
1. Fire cannot weaken or bend steel.
2. Why didn't the twin towers fall onto the city instead? I believe the *ONLY* way to make a tower fall directly on itself is by precise demolition that takes weeks of planning.
3. I was about to Address this but Altercation did. There was something bizarre under the 2 planes. That could've easily been a missile. Because really, I do not believe the damage the plane did when it hit. Never would it have done such an explosion. Anyhow, to add more to this. Before the plane hits the tower, You can see a small blue light that goes on and fades right away. Its hard to see but you have to watch it frame by frame. Alright, whats odd here is, the blue light took place where the strange object was under the plane. This Really strange of course. I as one, think it was a missile that was there and thats what caused that huge explosion. Like I said, a normal passenger plane would've only went a bit inside and no real explosion wouldv'e taken place as it did.
4. There has been theories that the plane that crashed had Nobody inside. It would seem it is not the same plane that took off from the airport. Apparently, When the plane was still in radio contact, it was going in its original course obviously. But when it lost radio contact, it was really near a Military base (I forgot the name for the moment). Which means A millitary plane took off to replace the other one while it landed. Whatever happened to these people is unknown. This could explain the object (Or missile) Under the plane because the original plane that took off from the airport did not have that under it.
5. The amount of money to investigate 9/11 is a joke in comparison to the amount of money that was spent to investigate Kennedy's death. I don't remember the numbers atm, I'll check it out soon.
6. It doesn't matter if the twin towers were not made all of Steel and therefore, it could be reasonable to say it weakened and fell But thats not right. What holds the Buildings is *Steel*. Therefore, burn all the desks or destroy all windows you want. But that should not make the twin tower fall. The Steel should not have been affected during this event.
I have more atm but I need to rewatch a documentary to clarify some.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-08-20 at 15:23:12
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Aug 18 2005, 08:43 PM)
How do you know that? How can YOU say we aren't doing it enough? Do you realize that America (citizen wise) is the most generous country in the world?
[right][snapback]292049[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]292049[/snapback][/right]
You're speaking for the entire continent? I don't think much of America (third world countries) are wealthy enough to even think about helping other countries. If you mean the U.S. then SAY the U.S. Because, for the 2nd time, America is the entire continent.
QUOTE(SiLeNT(U) @ Aug 19 2005, 10:52 PM)
I hate people who are so damn patriotic they can't see what's right in front of their eyes.
[right][snapback]293584[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293584[/snapback][/right]
The same could be said of religions as well. Most are made telling their followers that other religions are wrong and in doing so create a single minded individual. Edit: Note, I'm agreeing with you. I'm in the front on the fight against patriotism as one of my friends once described me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 15:48:16
QUOTE(Aikanaro @ Aug 20 2005, 03:19 PM)
Alright then, I will number all my points about this.
1. Fire cannot weaken or bend steel.
2. Why didn't the twin towers fall onto the city instead? I believe the *ONLY* way to make a tower fall directly on itself is by precise demolition that takes weeks of planning.
3. I was about to Address this but Altercation did. There was something bizarre under the 2 planes. That could've easily been a missile. Because really, I do not believe the damage the plane did when it hit. Never would it have done such an explosion. Anyhow, to add more to this. Before the plane hits the tower, You can see a small blue light that goes on and fades right away. Its hard to see but you have to watch it frame by frame. Alright, whats odd here is, the blue light took place where the strange object was under the plane. This Really strange of course. I as one, think it was a missile that was there and thats what caused that huge explosion. Like I said, a normal passenger plane would've only went a bit inside and no real explosion wouldv'e taken place as it did.
4. There has been theories that the plane that crashed had Nobody inside. It would seem it is not the same plane that took off from the airport. Apparently, When the plane was still in radio contact, it was going in its original course obviously. But when it lost radio contact, it was really near a Military base (I forgot the name for the moment). Which means A millitary plane took off to replace the other one while it landed. Whatever happened to these people is unknown. This could explain the object (Or missile) Under the plane because the original plane that took off from the airport did not have that under it.
5. The amount of money to investigate 9/11 is a joke in comparison to the amount of money that was spent to investigate Kennedy's death. I don't remember the numbers atm, I'll check it out soon.
6. It doesn't matter if the twin towers were not made all of Steel and therefore, it could be reasonable to say it weakened and fell But thats not right. What holds the Buildings is *Steel*. Therefore, burn all the desks or destroy all windows you want. But that should not make the twin tower fall. The Steel should not have been affected during this event.
I have more atm but I need to rewatch a documentary to clarify some.
[right][snapback]294122[/snapback][/right]
1. Fire cannot weaken or bend steel.
2. Why didn't the twin towers fall onto the city instead? I believe the *ONLY* way to make a tower fall directly on itself is by precise demolition that takes weeks of planning.
3. I was about to Address this but Altercation did. There was something bizarre under the 2 planes. That could've easily been a missile. Because really, I do not believe the damage the plane did when it hit. Never would it have done such an explosion. Anyhow, to add more to this. Before the plane hits the tower, You can see a small blue light that goes on and fades right away. Its hard to see but you have to watch it frame by frame. Alright, whats odd here is, the blue light took place where the strange object was under the plane. This Really strange of course. I as one, think it was a missile that was there and thats what caused that huge explosion. Like I said, a normal passenger plane would've only went a bit inside and no real explosion wouldv'e taken place as it did.
4. There has been theories that the plane that crashed had Nobody inside. It would seem it is not the same plane that took off from the airport. Apparently, When the plane was still in radio contact, it was going in its original course obviously. But when it lost radio contact, it was really near a Military base (I forgot the name for the moment). Which means A millitary plane took off to replace the other one while it landed. Whatever happened to these people is unknown. This could explain the object (Or missile) Under the plane because the original plane that took off from the airport did not have that under it.
5. The amount of money to investigate 9/11 is a joke in comparison to the amount of money that was spent to investigate Kennedy's death. I don't remember the numbers atm, I'll check it out soon.
6. It doesn't matter if the twin towers were not made all of Steel and therefore, it could be reasonable to say it weakened and fell But thats not right. What holds the Buildings is *Steel*. Therefore, burn all the desks or destroy all windows you want. But that should not make the twin tower fall. The Steel should not have been affected during this event.
I have more atm but I need to rewatch a documentary to clarify some.
[right][snapback]294122[/snapback][/right]
You are making statements about steel, but you aren't giving support. Where's the scientific evidence? Where's the information about steel?
QUOTE
4. There has been theories that the plane that crashed had Nobody inside. It would seem it is not the same plane that took off from the airport. Apparently, When the plane was still in radio contact, it was going in its original course obviously. But when it lost radio contact, it was really near a Military base (I forgot the name for the moment). Which means A millitary plane took off to replace the other one while it landed. Whatever happened to these people is unknown. This could explain the object (Or missile) Under the plane because the original plane that took off from the airport did not have that under it.
I think that's a pretty big statement you are making. You can't just say "whatever happened to these people is unknown". At least give a hypothesis as to how you could possibly cover that up, because I don't know how.
So basically you are saying that the government intentionally destroyed the WTC and killed all those american citizens?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-08-20 at 16:10:07
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 20 2005, 02:48 PM)
You are making statements about steel, but you aren't giving support. Where's the scientific evidence? Where's the information about steel?
I think that's a pretty big statement you are making. You can't just say "whatever happened to these people is unknown". At least give a hypothesis as to how you could possibly cover that up, because I don't know how.
So basically you are saying that the government intentionally destroyed the WTC and killed all those american citizens?
[right][snapback]294138[/snapback][/right]
I think that's a pretty big statement you are making. You can't just say "whatever happened to these people is unknown". At least give a hypothesis as to how you could possibly cover that up, because I don't know how.
So basically you are saying that the government intentionally destroyed the WTC and killed all those american citizens?
[right][snapback]294138[/snapback][/right]
Thats *Exactly* What I'm saying. Something of this magnitude could scare people. This would allow the United States to go to war. Of course, many people still opposed, but many were convinced that they had to go to war to *fight* terrorism.
Well, My hypothesis is that the poeple were killed at the military base. Because those planes are definetly not the same planes as the ones who took off. The only possibility wouldv'e been that they were killed in the process.
About the Steel: I read that the Steel starts to melt at 2800 degrees fahrenheit.
By the way, Have you thought of checking out the Documentary? Its really interesting and demonstrates alot of things you might not have thought of. Anyways, I hope a few people check it out =/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 16:18:56
QUOTE
Thats *Exactly* What I'm saying. Something of this magnitude could scare people. This would allow the United States to go to war. Of course, many people still opposed, but many were convinced that they had to go to war to *fight* terrorism.
Now what is the reason to go through all this trouble? What do you believe is the governments reasoning for this? Also, how would this go unnoticed?
I've also found and interview and an article that gives an explanation for the towers collapse
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
However both are from the same guy Dr. Thomas Eagar
QUOTE
Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
That's basically what I've been seeing as an explanation.
QUOTE
1. Fire cannot weaken or bend steel.
In some sources it says that at around half the temperature it takes to melt steel the steel starts to lose its strength.
QUOTE
2. Why didn't the twin towers fall onto the city instead? I believe the *ONLY* way to make a tower fall directly on itself is by precise demolition that takes weeks of planning.
In the Nova interview that point is addressed.
It would be good if you read the two articles and then pointed out any flaws.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-08-20 at 16:37:32
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Aug 20 2005, 11:03 AM)
Who is it made by though? Democrats, or Republicans?
[right][snapback]294114[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]294114[/snapback][/right]
Can you believe it!?!?! LIBERALS AHHHH, lol, like this is a first for me to put my proof from a liberal website lol!
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
here is the website again.