NewbSaibot United States. Apr 06 2011 12:13. Posts 4944
Sorry for the typos, on a time budget typing from work.
bye now
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 12:16. Posts 4601
i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower
no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days
this isn't true, it's just spouted because it's annoying to disprove.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 06 2011 12:23. Posts 4944
I'll be the first to agree that WTC1/2 falling down on top of itself is very unusual in appearance, and that I too initially expected it to fall wildly out of control destroying several city blocks and other buildings in its path. At the same time I'm not an engineer so I have no reason to say it's impossible for it to fall exactly as it did. I also have to weigh a heavy degree of common sense and suggest that, if the common idiot like me can assume it should fall sideways, then why the hell wouldnt the gov't just go ahead and let it fall sideways. Why go out of their way to make it fall so cleanly?
I'll also be first to do a big triple take once any legitimate efforts to control iraqi oil materialize. Vague statements about Exxon drilling in tandem with the fact that somebody needs to manage the shit in a state of total anarchy does not immediately make me think "well obviously thats what we want". Our involvement in Iraqi oil still seems to be so minimal without any signs of progress that I'm not buying it yet. If 20 years from now we control all the oil fields then I'll definitely think we exploited the shit out of this war, but still not necessarily the result of a 9/11 conspiracy due to the myriad of problems building the conspiracy. At best, the only conspiracy I can easily agree with is the possibility that we simply LET 9/11 happen as per the terrorists plan. I.E. no explosives used, no involvement from the gov't, but we did have prior knowledge to the event and allowed it to happen and use whatever fallout as an excuse to war. The gov't didnt know if the buildings would collapse and quite frankly didnt care, just let whatever happens happen.
Going back to this whole "fell at gravity speed" nonsense, and the structural integrity of the building interfering with this, lets rewind the tape and see how the first 2 towers once again fell. While it might be difficult for the first 20 or so floors to fall unobstructed on the floors beneath them, surely by floor 50-70, with million of tons of debris weighing down, they simply didnt have a chance to resist whatsoever. It's like stomping on a building made of wet spaghetti noodles at this point, it cant even begin to withstand the force of the collapsed floors crashing down above it even for a nanosecond. So the only question is at what point does the force become so incredible that it simply plows right through the rest of the building? Basically the building is guaranteed to "fall at gravity speed" once you have that much force coming down on it.
But then again, the first two towers didnt "fall" at all, they collapsed in on themselves, something which no building ever does.
On April 06 2011 10:56 NewbSaibot wrote:
My bad on confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1/2, wasnt paying attention to the number. Despite the fact that WTC 7 collapsed in a traditional demolished manner, it still does not dissuade from the fact that WTC 1/2 most certainly did NOT collapse like this.
So you say that someone was granted access for a few weeks to wire the whole building 7 with explosives, which was one of the most secure buildings in the world with the biggest CIA center in it, yet it is way too far fetched to assume the same for WTC1 and WTC2?
How old are you, 5?
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On April 06 2011 10:56 NewbSaibot wrote:
My bad on confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1/2, wasnt paying attention to the number. Despite the fact that WTC 7 collapsed in a traditional demolished manner, it still does not dissuade from the fact that WTC 1/2 most certainly did NOT collapse like this. Coupled with the fact that building demolitions require explosives which may tremendous noise, much more so than the infrequent and subtle noises heard by witnesses, there is no reason to believe a conspiracy to knock it down took place.
Oh you mean a huge loud explosion like this one?
Or exlosions so strong it knocks people over?
Or explosions strong enough to demolish the lobby?
As someone already mentioned, why go to all this hassle and use airplanes, which many skeptics would find unusual and only arous conspiracy theorists worldwide, when a simple 2nd shot of explosions in the basement would do the same trick and be much more plausible when pawned off to the public? Who's great idea was it to say "hey, lets make this as difficult as possible, and use the one thing that the building was specifically designed against!"?
I already said why, also it looks illogical to you that they plotted using planes against a "plane-safe" buildilng, but not that a plane-safe building was brought down by a plane, yup really critical thinking there buddy, you are guided by evidence and not rationalizing your beliefs LOL.
On top of that, we can clearly see the first two towers initiate their collapse precisely where the planes struck. So that would require explosives to be planted in that location, the location that 2 jumbo jets are scheduled to fly into, so that the collapse is believable. So you're telling me that those planes were perfectly coordinated to fly into the exact location where explosives were previously planted, and when those planes smashed into the building at 300mph or so, that the explosives survive this impact for 45 minutes before finally being detonated. And that when they were ultimately detonated, they made certain to do give as much time as humanely possible for every single video camera in the city to be observing, producing as much evidence as anyone could ask for, so that the whole world could study and observe the moment of destruction for decades to come? Thats like committing a bank robbery in broad daylight, but first calling the cops to let you know you're there, calling every news outlet so they can arrive to film it, and then sitting in the bank for over half an hour before you even begin putting money in the bag. Was the gov't just fucking showing off at this point or something?
The building has to be brought down with the minimal amount of explosives for obvious reasons, so it will probably fall from a weakened point.
And despite whatever demolitions you have where explosives are spread out over a certain amount of time, there is always a final act. You dont just blast a few key points, sit back for half an hour, and like a tree it just gradually starts to give way and collapses on its own. It still requires significant explosive force to initiate the collapse, the kind which cant be concealed, especially for something as massive as a 100 story building.
Im guessing you are not familiar with Jenga (and common sense lol), if the structure is severely weakened it requires very minimal force to bring it down.
Also please refute the evidence posted, why did WTC7 fall from minors fires when no steel framed buildling in history has collapsed from fire?, why do we see molten steel but steel melts at 2700degrees, 3 times hotter than jet fuel burns etc.
[/QUOTE]
On April 06 2011 11:16 palak wrote:
i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower
I read those and they just seem to be faulty buildings without the needed precautions, the thai building was a poorly built building with no fire insulation whatsoever, the theater was in its way to being remodeled for better safety measures, not remotely the case of the world trade centers, and none of those fires seem to be as small as the WTC7 was.
On April 06 2011 11:23 NewbSaibot wrote:
I'll be the first to agree that WTC1/2 falling down on top of itself is very unusual in appearance, and that I too initially expected it to fall wildly out of control destroying several city blocks and other buildings in its path. At the same time I'm not an engineer so I have no reason to say it's impossible for it to fall exactly as it did. I also have to weigh a heavy degree of common sense and suggest that, if the common idiot like me can assume it should fall sideways, then why the hell wouldnt the gov't just go ahead and let it fall sideways. Why go out of their way to make it fall so cleanly?
Because the world trade centers falling in a lateral way would devastate new york, the incident would be dozens of times worse with many thousands more dead, the cleaning job would take a decade, and the intent of the government is to induce the country into a war, not to do maximum damage.
I'll also be first to do a big triple take once any legitimate efforts to control iraqi oil materialize. Vague statements about Exxon drilling in tandem with the fact that somebody needs to manage the shit in a state of total anarchy does not immediately make me think "well obviously thats what we want". Our involvement in Iraqi oil still seems to be so minimal without any signs of progress that I'm not buying it yet. If 20 years from now we control all the oil fields then I'll definitely think we exploited the shit out of this war, but still not necessarily the result of a 9/11 conspiracy due to the myriad of problems building the conspiracy. At best, the only conspiracy I can easily agree with is the possibility that we simply LET 9/11 happen as per the terrorists plan. I.E. no explosives used, no involvement from the gov't, but we did have prior knowledge to the event and allowed it to happen and use whatever fallout as an excuse to war. The gov't didnt know if the buildings would collapse and quite frankly didnt care, just let whatever happens happen.
You just proved that you dont believe what evidence says, you will believe what the government is capable of doing, you think they wont be evil enough to kill their own people (despise what history has taught us), and wont listen to evidence pointing it, so you are just wasting my time since you already made up your mind.
there are no vague statements about Exxon drilling, it is a fact, also its not about directly "drinking their milkshake", its about controlling the price of oil.
Going back to this whole "fell at gravity speed" nonsense, and the structural integrity of the building interfering with this, lets rewind the tape and see how the first 2 towers once again fell. While it might be difficult for the first 20 or so floors to fall unobstructed on the floors beneath them, surely by floor 50-70, with million of tons of debris weighing down, they simply didnt have a chance to resist whatsoever. It's like stomping on a building made of wet spaghetti noodles at this point, it cant even begin to withstand the force of the collapsed floors crashing down above it even for a nanosecond. So the only question is at what point does the force become so incredible that it simply plows right through the rest of the building? Basically the building is guaranteed to "fall at gravity speed" once you have that much force coming down on it.
Wrong, this pancake effect isnt entirely true, the falling bulilding does not act as a crushing anvil increasing weight, the force is disperse since its rubble falling, if it encounters enough resistance it will go sideways, as you see in failed demolitions where the columns are not properly removed, the buildings dont go out vertically.
Chop a three down from one side and it wont fall vertically, damage a sand castle from the side and see how it falls, thats why demolishing a building requires perfectly timed explosives, because if they arent used the building wont fall down on its footprint
[/QUOTE]
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 06 2011 13:13. Posts 4944
I cant refute WTC7 collapsing from minor fires, although it is highly suggested that the collapse of the first 2 buildings created such powerful earthquake like tremors that adjacent buildings would have been damaged. What is the significance of WTC7? Why blow that one up, a much smaller inferior building, having no particular symbolic presence, hours after the first two, and without something like a plane to dupe the public into believing the cause of destruction?
Im guessing you are not familiar with Jenga (and common sense lol), if the structure is severely weakened it requires very minimal force to bring it down.
Severely weakened, such as after being hit by a plane perhaps? What you're failing to include is that previous buildings which were engulfed in flames were not previous hit by fucking jet airplanes before collapsing.
I also like how you wrote off the fact that a totally different plane hit the buildings from what they were designed to be hit with. You can sit there and claim that a 707 is "similar" to a 767 all day, but the fact remains that a 767 is a bigger, heavier plane, which carries a larger payload and more fuel. Its impact would have been greater than what the building was designed for. And thats another key point, the buildings were *designed* to be hit by a 707, but that doesnt mean they are impervious to such a thing. It's not like jet airliners go crashing into buildings every other year and extensive design and preparation for such a thing can be planned for. A 707 could just have easily destroyed the buildings just the same. Clearly they are trying to prevent collapse by such a thing or else it would never have been called for during the building's conception, so obviously there is concern that impact with a jet airliner would completely wipe the building out. Guess what, it did. More engineers have spent more time & money building the space shuttle and we lost 3 of those fuckers too. Shit happens.
Btw, these "explosions" heard by shaniqua and McGruff the taxi driver are of no concern to me. There are people who also say they heard/saw cruise missiles flying into the towers too. I could really give a fuck less what a few bystanders claim they heard when there are a million others who disagree on top of all the video taped evidence.
bye now
Last edit: 06/04/2011 13:14
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 13:14. Posts 4601
no explosions like at 2:20
#at=62
molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Last edit: 06/04/2011 13:16
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 13:25. Posts 4601
On April 06 2011 11:16 palak wrote:
i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower
no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days
this isn't true, it's just spouted because it's annoying to disprove.
I read those and they just seem to be faulty buildings without the needed precautions, the thai building was a poorly built building with no fire insulation whatsoever, the theater was in its way to being remodeled for better safety measures, not remotely the case of the world trade centers, and none of those fires seem to be as small as the WTC7 was.
so steel buildings which are stripped of their fire proofing (like both wtc towers after the plane crash on the floors they were hit on) will eventually weaken and collapse if fires are allowed to burn for an extended period of time.
On April 06 2011 12:13 NewbSaibot wrote:
I cant refute WTC7 collapsing from minor fires, although it is highly suggested that the collapse of the first 2 buildings created such powerful earthquake like tremors that adjacent buildings would have been damaged. What is the significance of WTC7? Why blow that one up, a much smaller inferior building, having no particular symbolic presence, hours after the first two, and without something like a plane to dupe the public into believing the cause of destruction?
Again your flawed thinking, you challenge that "why didnt they fabricate a valid reason for its collapse" yet you dont challenge the reason for collapse... haha you realize how dumb that is?
Also i dont know (and there is no way to know yet) why, there CIA, department of defense and the IRS had offices there, maybe they wanted to get rid of something? dont know.
Severely weakened, such as after being hit by a plane perhaps? What you're failing to include is that previous buildings which were engulfed in flames were not previous hit by fucking jet airplanes before collapsing.
Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.
I also like how you wrote off the fact that a totally different plane hit the buildings from what they were designed to be hit with. You can sit there and claim that a 707 is "similar" to a 767 all day, but the fact remains that a 767 is a bigger, heavier plane, which carries a larger payload and more fuel. Its impact would have been greater than what the building was designed for. And thats another key point, the buildings were *designed* to be hit by a 707, but that doesnt mean they are impervious to such a thing. It's not like jet airliners go crashing into buildings every other year and extensive design and preparation for such a thing can be planned for. A 707 could just have easily destroyed the buildings just the same. Clearly they are trying to prevent collapse by such a thing or else it would never have been called for during the building's conception, so obviously there is concern that impact with a jet airliner would completely wipe the building out. Guess what, it did. More engineers have spent more time & money building the space shuttle and we lost 3 of those fuckers too. Shit happens.
Yes while it being built to sustain alike impact isnt guarantee it will work, the building failing to resist that kind of impact twice is either very fishy or a terrible design flaw when they were supposed to withstand an alike impact
Btw, these "explosions" heard by shaniqua and McGruff the taxi driver are of no concern to me. There are people who also say they heard/saw cruise missiles flying into the towers too. I could really give a fuck less what a few bystanders claim they heard when there are a million others who disagree on top of all the video taped evidence.
Yes anecdotal evidence of "i heard" are not very good to support anything, thats why i posted firemen claiming seeing colleagues being throwin around by explosions, which are also anecdotal but stronger, but if there was any doubt i posted a video of a big loud explosion that you are choosing to ignore it seems...
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 13:38. Posts 4601
Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.
was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no
did fires burn in it for a long time, yes
did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
asdf2000 United States. Apr 06 2011 13:42. Posts 7693
lol baal how noble it is for you to sacrifice your time
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 13:48. Posts 4601
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
On April 06 2011 12:14 palak wrote:
no explosions like at 2:20
#at=62
molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines
read the thread before posting... i already posted evidence of explosions, visual and audible:
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11.
That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons.
On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too.
And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 14:04. Posts 4601
On April 06 2011 12:14 palak wrote:
no explosions like at 2:20
#at=62
molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines
read the thread before posting... i already posted evidence of explosions, visual and audible:
0:09
No molten steel? rly?
this is a pre-clean up pic.
first explosion video is not near as loud as those used during controlled demolishions which is y i posted the other video, not sure y u reposted the wtc 7 video
as for the picture, those cuts on the columns are made by the clean up crews not by thermite during the collapse, skip to like 1:30 or so in the video and watch from there.
#at=95
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.
was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no
did fires burn in it for a long time, yes
did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes
Ok heres a trivia for you, guess which one collapsed?
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11.
That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons.
On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too.
And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past?
lusitania killed 128 US CIVILIANS and the US will not go to war due to anything else, as far as it is concerned fuck the other 1872 people or whatever.
Soo what hit the pentagon? Multiple reconstructions have showed the damage on it is consistent with a plane, and if it wasn't hit by a plane, where did the plane that hit it go? Was everyone on that plane part of the conspiracy?
With the economy, sooo then who exactly planned the demolition and made sure the US gov't was involved and spent millions in order to eventually profit from was in the middle east? Haliburton which lost 25% of it's stock price due to the collapses effect on the economy? Who all is profiting from this conspiracy theory, how did they manage to convince hundreds-thousands to go along with them, and how have the hired construction workers or engineers etc managed to all keep quite over the last 10 years over the fact that they were part of this conspiracy?
Also you didn't answer about the fact that tonkin and mexican american war were both started without any american death, just percieved hostility towards america.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
