Post by: FreewayX327 on February 18, 2006, 08:58:00 PM
9/11 Conspiracy Video
Post by: CattyKid on February 18, 2006, 11:39:00 PM
QUOTE(FreewayX327 @ Feb 18 2006, 11:05 PM) 
I'm not sure if this has been posted but anyways I got this video from my cousin today. I watched it. Looks interesting. Do you believe it?
9/11 Conspiracy Video
I didn't watch it, (sorry, it's 1:30 here and time for bed), but I don't think that we've gotten the whole story on 9/11.
EDIT:
NVM, I said something stupid about how a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon and that it was probably something else. Then I did some reading and discovered that all the stuff I had previously read on the subject was biased, false, and/or twisted to make the government look bad.
I still don't think that we're getting the WHOLE 9/11 story, though.
Post by: soupy_31 on February 18, 2006, 11:55:00 PM
Post by: Modderxtrordanare on February 19, 2006, 02:46:00 AM
I did.
And, he made a damn strong argument about it.
This post has been edited by Modderxtrordanare: Feb 19 2006, 10:47 AM
Post by: slightly_damp on February 19, 2006, 09:40:00 AM
The theories shown in the film are far more credible, and backed up with much more evidence than any of the "official" reports are.
I dont know why or who did it, but I truely believe that the wtc was demolished with contolled explosives and the pentagon wall with a missile. The theory that the U.S. government carried out this horrific exercise I cant/dont want to believe, but the fact that they seem to be covering up a vast amount of evidence chills me to the bone.
Post by: lordvader129 on February 19, 2006, 12:42:00 PM
QUOTE(soupy_31 @ Feb 19 2006, 12:55 AM)
Hmm... that was pretty interesting. Personally I don't have an opinion on the matter, but that really made a strong arguement.
QUOTE(Modderxtrordanare @ Feb 19 2006, 03:46 AM)
Did anyone watch the full hour of that?
I did.
And, he made a damn strong argument about it.
im going to watch this later, but you can look at alot of other "theories" and see very strong and credible arguments, which doesnt really lend any value to the theory, look for someone talking about how the moon landing was a hoax and youll see what i mean
Post by: Modderxtrordanare on February 19, 2006, 01:07:00 PM
QUOTE
you can look at alot of other "theories" and see very strong and credible arguments, which doesnt really lend any value to the theory, look for someone talking about how the moon landing was a hoax and youll see what i mean
True, but using your example, the moon landing. Theorists were using arguments such as how the flag was waving in space when theirs no oxygen. And all their theorys were disproven.'
But in this case, the government is covering up alot and wont answer questions due to "national security".
Post by: lordvader129 on February 19, 2006, 03:23:00 PM
QUOTE(Modderxtrordanare @ Feb 19 2006, 02:07 PM)
True, but using your example, the moon landing. Theorists were using arguments such as how the flag was waving in space when theirs no oxygen. And all their theorys were disproven.'
But in this case, the government is covering up alot and wont answer questions due to "national security".
well my point is many of the arguments such as the flag waving in a vaccuum and no exhaust plume on the lander taking off seem very plausible, but when people take the time to look at them closely they are disproven, much the same with many of the 911 theories, i just see less people trying to disprove them because more poeple are willing to accept the government lying about 911 than the moon landing
i watched the video, his theories on the pentagon make alot of sense, although i havent seen much research on those (perhaps for those very reasons) but hes totally wrong on the towers, the impact, the fire, the collapse, all could have easily been done by the planes
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 19, 2006, 05:50:00 PM
I didn't watch this guys entire vid simply because I couldn't retain my laughter from his opening observations, which are absolutely ridiculous. Plus the fact that he's banking his theories on out of focus, blurry images.
I posted a screenie below of part of his vid. In that particular picture he claims a missile was fired from the fuselage of the 767 seconds upon impact. HOW FUCKING STUPID. WHY, why would someone, even the government, strap a missile onto a plane, which would need a deployment system installed. It would be ten times easier and more concealed to just add extra explosives into the plain and detonate them on impact.
Then he goes onto to claiming you could see the flash from the missile explosion prior to the plane colliding into the building. More bullshit. Look at my screen shot, that white blur, which he claims is a missile is still in full view, while you could already see a flash starting from where the nose is colliding. I also wonder if that white blur was fudged in by some moron trying to raise controversy.
Who comes up with these theories??? Hey, I'm always open to listening to some alternative possibilities, but c'mon these people are just reaching, and simply looking for attention or trying to cause more controversy for their own amusement.
(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/ighyighy/bullshit.jpg)
Post by: compton on February 19, 2006, 06:06:00 PM
but the point it makes is clear, don't take everything for face value. and this movie should also be held to the same flame. eitherway, this flick will scare the piss out of you.
BTW for the guy bitching about the quality of the shots, you are a fool for watching the google video version. there is a full version of a dvd quality rip on the internet that is completely clear. The footage it uses is all from cable and Network coverage, with the clearity that is associated with it.
you are obviously coming at this with preconceived notions, so to get the full scope just watch it like a movie. You don't have to beleive in killer robots for the terminator to be interesting.
This post has been edited by compton: Feb 20 2006, 02:14 AM
Post by: lordvader129 on February 19, 2006, 08:43:00 PM
QUOTE(xboxbox451 @ Feb 19 2006, 06:50 PM)
Omg, how many of these friggin conspiracy 9/11 threads must we endure. It seems everyone with some amateur video editing software has now become experts in scenario analysis. Being a resident of NJ and living about 15 mins outside of Manhattan, I personally can attest to the destruction of these towers. I did not personally see the planes fly into the towers, but I did see them go up in smoke.
I didn't watch this guys entire vid simply because I couldn't retain my laughter from his opening observations, which are absolutely ridiculous. Plus the fact that he's banking his theories on out of focus, blurry images.
I posted a screenie below of part of his vid. In that particular picture he claims a missile was fired from the fuselage of the 767 seconds upon impact. HOW FUCKING STUPID. WHY, why would someone, even the government, strap a missile onto a plane, which would need a deployment system installed. It would be ten times easier and more concealed to just add extra explosives into the plain and detonate them on impact.
Then he goes onto to claiming you could see the flash from the missile explosion prior to the plane colliding into the building. More bullshit. Look at my screen shot, that white blur, which he claims is a missile is still in full view, while you could already see a flash starting from where the nose is colliding. I also wonder if that white blur was fudged in by some moron trying to raise controversy.
Who comes up with these theories??? Hey, I'm always open to listening to some alternative possibilities, but c'mon these people are just reaching, and simply looking for attention or trying to cause more controversy for their own amusement.
yeah i was thinking about that, what would even be the point of putting a missile on it? a missile that size, compared to the impact of a fully fueled 757, would be like shooting a pellet gun at a car, then firing a bazooka at it, then saying the bazooka wasnt enough, the car must have been destroyed because of the pellet shot
as for the video quality on google, it has nothing to do with the google video, it has to do with the fact that hes taking the tv caps, which are already fully zoomed on the video camera, then further zooming with his video editing software, resulting in massive pixellation and an inability to identify anything at all
i liek the first tower impact, with the white glare on the plane, did he ever say what he though it was? or just pointing it out for no reason?
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 19, 2006, 09:06:00 PM
QUOTE(compton @ Feb 19 2006, 08:06 PM)
BTW for the guy bitching about the quality of the shots, you are a fool for watching the google video version. there is a full version of a dvd quality rip on the internet that is completely clear. The footage it uses is all from cable and Network coverage, with the clearity that is associated with it.
you are obviously coming at this with preconceived notions, so to get the full scope just watch it like a movie. You don't have to believe in killer robots for the terminator to be interesting.
, watch it like a movie, sure let me grab some 
an waste an hour of my time. All I did was thumb through it looking for some unique or new evidence. All I saw was the same ol' stuff you can find anywhere with an internet connection.These conspiracy vids are pure and total bullshit. Their all talking about their theories that are based on clips and scenes collected via the internet, and maybe a pointless interview or two. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to even consider such a theory based on such a limited gathering of information. If I'm even gonna consider such a thought I want some hard core investigation, not someone that collected a bunch of third party accounts and compiled it all into an amateur video without ever leaving their bedroom
.If there is a conspiracy involved, the only way we'll know is if the actual perpetrators of events come forth, and personally I think trying to keep something like 9/11 a secret is nearly impossible. If Clinton couldn't keep a dim witted slut from spilling her guts, then how could any government conceal something like 9/11.
Post by: FreewayX327 on February 19, 2006, 09:40:00 PM
QUOTE(xboxbox451 @ Feb 19 2006, 11:13 PM)
If there is a conspiracy involved, the only way we'll know is if the actual perpetrators of events come forth, and personally I think trying to keep something like 9/11 a secret is nearly impossible. If Clinton couldn't keep a dim witted slut from spilling her guts, then how could any government conceal something like 9/11.
You got a point. I think its just really up to the person to believe that the government did this or not. Its sort of like how some people think the Holocaust didnt really happen.
Somethings makes sense and somethings sound like they can be made up. Like the cell phone call from the plane to someone on the ground. I would think it would be really difficult for someone to do that. And the hole in the pentagon. Didnt look like a plane crashed into it. Wasnt that big of a crash. There were somethings done to that side of the pentagon before hand. Sound like it was all made up and planned out. Maybe just a conincidence?
On the other hand if the government was really behind this why would things seem so obvious. Like would they really strap on a missle to a plane knowing that every news station is watching and covering every second of the attack? I dont think so.
Lets face it. Not everybody likes bush. and theyre out to attack him and make him look worse than he is right now by doing anything. This may be just antoher movie to make him look bad. Or it could be really true. Everybody has a right to their own opinion. you decide to believe if its true or not.
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 19, 2006, 10:29:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Feb 19 2006, 10:50 PM)
yeah i was thinking about that, what would even be the point of putting a missile on it? a missile that size, compared to the impact of a fully fueled 757, would be like shooting a pellet gun at a car, then firing a bazooka at it, then saying the bazooka wasnt enough, the car must have been destroyed because of the pellet shot
True, true. Also, those Towers would most likely survive a missile blast so it would be pointless for anyone to consider their usage. The main proponent in their collapse was the fuel spillage, which was the terrorists main reason for hijacking planes nearby their destination so they could crash them with full tanks allowing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel to spill down igniting the tower in order to heat up and weaken its steel structure. Once that portion of steel weakened from the intense heat, the portion it was supporting came crashing down causing a chain reaction of destruction.
Damn, all this talk about the towers has left me depressed. From the people that died to the conflicts that's have ensued.
May they rest in peace (except for the terrorists. I hope all their virgins look like a cross between Rosie O-Donnell and Roseanne Barr).
Post by: Modderxtrordanare on February 19, 2006, 10:49:00 PM
I guess freewayx327 is right, everyone is allowed their own opinion, but it's up to you to believe it or not.
Post by: damam on February 20, 2006, 09:20:00 AM
QUOTE(xbox451)
Omg, how many of these friggin conspiracy 9/11 threads must we endure.
Thats funny, cause I was just thinking the other week that wow, no one has posted anything on 911 in a real real long time.
Im not going to bother watching this one either because I have spent way to much time watching other similar videos on other threads. But another really common thing in these videos is to take quotes out of context. Really you should not put too much weight on a quote unless you can read the paragraph before and after for relevance and then check the credentials of the being person quoted. Millions of people witnessed this attack, and so i am sure it is very plausible to find a select few that perceived it in a way that would back any theory. I am still waiting for the flying saucer/alien theory, I am certain it is out there.
I also have yet to hear a good motive behind all of this.
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 09:50:00 AM
QUOTE
so they could crash them with full tanks allowing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel to spill down igniting the tower in order to heat up and weaken its steel structure. Once that portion of steel weakened from the intense heat, the portion it was supporting came crashing down causing a chain reaction of destruction.
not only that, they hijacked cross-country flights nearby the target, so they knew they would be fully fueled
although the video does make the (seemingly) accurate point that dozens of high rises have burned for hours on end and never collapsed, but i feel people that use this comparison cant see the forest for the trees.......those buildings werent hit by planes.
now we could argue back and forth over whether or not the impact of 100 tons of metal hitting the side of a building at 500 miles per hour would have any effect of that buildings structural integrity, but lets look at the building that didnt collapse first
the reason the other buildings didnt collapse from the fire was because the steel support beams are surrounded by a fireproof casing that prevents them from heating up and weakening in a fire
in the twin towers, that casing was stripped off by the initial impact of the planes, exposing the steel to the fire and causing it to heat up and weaken very fast
another question, why did they collapse so fast once the steel structure failed? well the planes hit about 1/3 of the way up and 1/4 of the way from the top of the towers, the total weight of each tower was about 500,000 tons, assuming even distribution that puts 165,000 tons and 125,000 tons above each crash site, repsectively.
assuming the structure failed across one floor the top of the tower would have fallen approximately 3 meters before hitting the floor below it, this would result in a speed of about 5.5 m/s. 125,000 tons decelerating for 5.5 m/s to 0 almsot instantly (as is the case in a solid object hitting another solid object) would result in a force of nearly 7 million tons (that would be like stacking 14 more world trade center towers on top of tower 1) the one that was hit 1/3 of the way up would have produced over 9 million tons of force, its no wonder it collapsed so fast.
and thats assuming they only fell down 1 floor, if they fell two floors the force is doubled
now, another favorite chestnut of the conspiracy theorists is that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft, i have a few things to say on that
1: design and practice are often two very different things, its possible this was simply a failure of the design
2: they were designed to withstand the impact of a boeing 727, the largest commercial aircraft in service at the time of the towers design, the 727 is about 20% smaller and over 60% lighter than the 757
3: both points 1 and 2 are moot, the towers DID survive the initial impact of the planes (they stood for an hour after the crash) it was the fire and failure of structural steel the caused the collapse
yes, the towers were designed to survive a plane crash
yes, the towers were designed to survive a fire
unfortunately, they could not survive both at the same time
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 10:07:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 20 2006, 10:27 AM)
I am still waiting for the flying saucer/alien theory, I am certain it is out there.
Post by: damam on February 20, 2006, 10:45:00 AM
QUOTE
The Church of Scientology claims that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists who were the real masterminds behind the attacks, despite the fact that none of the hijackers were ever known to have visited psychiatrists.
i like how they put in that last part that none of the hijackers ever saw shrinks. just in case we were seriously considering it. . . .
Post by: throwingks on February 20, 2006, 01:17:00 PM
http://www.abovetops...e_evidence.html
... and we landed on the moon.
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 01:24:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 20 2006, 02:17 PM)
Good photo's LV.
If the first photo has not been photoshopped this may prove the theory of life after death *sniggers* also prophet what ever his name is seems to have lost a few balloons in the other photos.
@thread starter
-1/10
heh, the first photo (the animated one) is actually a bird flying in front of the camera, you can also see it int he last pic (the white dot) next to the tower
ill see if ic an find all the frames of the bird....
there...looks like a bird flapping its wings
and other shots of the towers from other angles show nothing there
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 02:23:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Feb 20 2006, 02:24 PM)
There may be many conspiracies to what really happened but a Boeing 757 DID hit the Pentagon. The theory has been debunked on abovetopsecret.com They have pictures of 757 wheels and everything else.
http://www.abovetops...e_evidence.html
... and we landed on the moon.
a few of those pics (the peices of wreckage) showed up in the video in the first post, but without any real "expert" testimony from either side i cant formulate a valid opinion
one thing i would like to know, however, is why there is no apparent damage from the wings in the pentagon wall
@ avarden
that si so fake, everyone knows superman doesnt live in new york, thats gotta be storm from the xmen
Post by: CattyKid on February 20, 2006, 02:33:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Feb 20 2006, 04:30 PM)
that si so fake, everyone knows superman doesnt live in new york, thats gotta be storm from the xmen
I think Superman lives 6 feet under now.
Post by: pug_ster on February 20, 2006, 04:06:00 PM
Post by: _iffy on February 20, 2006, 07:24:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 20 2006, 11:27 AM)
I also have yet to hear a good motive behind all of this.
Patriot act
fire in the buildings-> kerosene, simular to gasoline, burns extreamly fast. All the gas would have been
compleatly burnt up in less then 5 sec. all of it. The resulting fire that "heated up the support
structure", was from desks, paper, chairs etc. Hardly enough to produce 3000 degrees needed.
That building had water sprinklers. It would have given the fireman more time to put out the fire.
I don't know why they fell, but it wasn't from the jet fuel. And there's no way the tower would have
collapsed that soon. Let alone both towers.
btw slightly off topic, but how much money has bush made since 9/11? Doesn't he own alot of stock in
haliburton? (<-spelling?) Oil companies?
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 20 2006, 11:27 AM)
I also have yet to hear a good motive behind all of this.
money
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 08:57:00 PM
and where did you get 3000 degrees from? steel weakens an dbecomes structually unsound between 1300F 1400F
a wood fire, accelerated by jet fuel, should be able to produce these temperatures easily
that, combined with the impact of the planes themselves, would be plenty to destroy the structure of the towers
Post by: buckwheat on February 20, 2006, 09:15:00 PM
http://letsroll911.o...ight=passengers
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/hole.htm
http://thewebfairy.c...n/flight93.html
http://www.thoughtcr...otscheduled.htm
http://www.whatreall.../hijackers.html
No scientifical explanation needed...
Enron LOVES 911> http://letsroll911.o...er=asc&lighter=
Edit/Delete Message
Post by: throwingks on February 20, 2006, 09:22:00 PM
QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 20 2006, 09:22 PM)
Too bad there were no hijacked planes, no hijackers and no Flight 77. Flight 93, no 757 wreckage whatsoever. Just lies. 911 is one BIG LIE.
http://letsroll911.o...ight=passengers
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/hole.htm
http://thewebfairy.c...n/flight93.html
http://www.thoughtcr...otscheduled.htm
http://www.whatreall.../hijackers.html
No scientifical explanation needed...
Enron LOVES 911> http://letsroll911.o...er=asc&lighter=
Edit/Delete Message
Post by: lordvader129 on February 20, 2006, 09:43:00 PM
QUOTE
Too bad there were no hijacked planes, no hijackers and no Flight 77. Flight 93, no 757 wreckage whatsoever. Just lies. 911 is one BIG LIE.
a friend of mine knew someone on one of the flights, but yeah, she sprobably just part of the coverup
Post by: CattyKid on February 20, 2006, 10:23:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Feb 20 2006, 11:29 PM)
Guess you didnt read my link above. Don't get all your info from 1 sided sources. Read all angles and make your own decisions. Don't let people make them for you.
If you read one side of ANY "conspiracy" you will believe their side against almost ALL reason.
You HAVE to read both sides, as he says. I watched a TV show that "proved" that the Moon landing was a hoax and I believed it for years.
A month or two ago, I did a little research and realized all the "arguments" in that show were complete and utter CRAP or at the least half-truths.
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 20, 2006, 10:25:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)
Patriot act
fire in the buildings-> kerosene, simular to gasoline, burns extreamly fast. All the gas would have been
compleatly burnt up in less then 5 sec. all of it. The resulting fire that "heated up the support
structure", was from desks, paper, chairs etc.
The average swimming pool holds about 20,000 gallons of water, now picture half that amount of extremely volatile JET FUEL spilling, possibly even misting, and igniting. The fuel acted as a component in spreading the fire throughout the floors in order to create an even distribution of fire. I'm sure when they designed the Towers they didn't ever conceive it possible for such a disaster to ever occur.
QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)
That building had water sprinklers. It would have given the fireman more time to put out the fire.
Are you serious
. What makes you think the sprinkler system was still in tact after such an impact. Plus I'm sure the water pipes that supplied water to the above floors were severed, only making the fire spread without any type of retardant available. Even if water was available, jet fuel and water is not a great combination, the water would have just acted as a mobile carrier piggy backing the ignited fuel to other floors.Damn I wouldn't want to see you ever put out a gasoline fire with your limited knowledge of flammable liquids
.QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)
Hardly enough to produce 3000 degrees needed.
Awww, I think your a bit confused. The 3000 degrees you mention is a point at which steel can possibly start to melt. MELT!
You just need to heat steel up to around 500 degrees to start compromising its load capacity. Also take into account the structural damage it received from the impact of the plane, plus temps supposedly exceeded an estimated 1500 degrees.
Once you reduce its load capacity there's no way it can continue to support the existing loads. Due to the impact the fire was capable of spreading throughout the floors affecting the structural supports as a whole.
QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)
I don't know why they fell, but it wasn't from the jet fuel.
Correct, it was a combination of a massive impact and heat induced structural weakening propelled by jet fuel.
QUOTE('_iffy' date='Feb 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM' post='3260678')
btw slightly off topic, but how much money has bush made since 9/11? Doesn't he own alot of stock in
haliburton? (<-spelling?) Oil companies?
haliburton? (<-spelling?) Oil companies?
Sounds like someone is a big fan of Michael Moore.
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 21, 2006, 12:15:00 AM
QUOTE(slightly_damp @ Feb 21 2006, 01:48 AM)
Jet fuel is hardly "extremely volatile"
True. Particularly if you compare jet fuels flash point to gasoline, though hurling a jet fuel container into a building at 100mph, I would then consider it highly volatile.
Post by: throwingks on February 21, 2006, 08:30:00 AM
Post by: lordvader129 on February 21, 2006, 09:51:00 AM
QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 06:47 AM)
Until somebody explains what happened to UA93, the ALLEGED hijackers, and WTC 7, then I guess your friends friend is apart of the conspiracy. I know both sides of the story and was stupid enough to believe the official story, but now I know what really happened on 911. Don't be mad because I don't believe your DEMIGODS, the media and the government. As for Micheal Moore all he did was WHITEWASH the masses to still believe some arabs were behind 911 and our Goverment is capitalizing on it. Though I'm still wondering how those Arabs would benifit like our gov. on 911. But hey, you gotta give it to them, they pulled it off and the masses fell for it. 911 is as much a psychological attack on the world as it was physically. Lives are still being lost right now as I type this. But it doesn't matter cuz this is all a kooky, nutjob conspiracy theory. Let's just live our lives like nothing happened. There isn't anything we can do about it anyway.
so do you believe that guy who said flight 175 was a missile with a hologram generator on it to make it look liek a plane? lol
Post by: damam on February 21, 2006, 11:50:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129)
so do you believe that guy who said flight 175 was a missile with a hologram generator on it to make it look liek a plane? lol
dont be absurd
it was a UFO with a hologram generator on it to make it look like a bird
Post by: _iffy on February 21, 2006, 11:55:00 AM
>second that steel wasn't ordinary, it was insulated and it would've had to have been tested for fire to be up to code. Lasting for only half an hour? I don't think so
>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"
Micheal Moore's movies are extreamly one sided, but a good point is a good point. Money is the ultimate modivator.
Would you murder someone for a million dollars? 10 million? 1 billion? Your guarenteed to get away with it? That question becomes harder to answer when the money is real. And don't forget that people have mudered for less than that.
Jet fuel.
kerosene is a highly refined fuel, it's clear with a yellow hue, with additives to make it the equivilent of 140 octane. The gas you put in your car is 87 octane. Single engine aeroplanes use 110 octane.
I don't know if you've ever thrown a water balloon at a wall or a ceiling fan, but the water turns to a mist when you do that. Have you ever seen a fire breather at a fair or on tv? That's alcohol igniting as a mist.
A jet caries it's fuel in it's wings. The metal on those wings are less than a quarter of an inch thick.
Imagine the twin towers as a wall, and the jet as a balloon filled with gas.
Ka-boom. That fire ball you saw, that was it. All the jet fuel. I said 5 sec, because there would sure to be some drops of fuel which would take time to heat up and turn to vapor first. But NOTHING like a bunson burner or a BBQ were it burns for hours. This wasn't a plane that skidded on a runway, it flew straight into
a wall. It's wings were toast.
Now, I hate to think that george bush junior (geor-ju) would murder his own countrymen, so I'm willing to give him the benifit of the dout, but 911 is just so undeniably fishy, I just don't know what to think.
btw did they give up looking for osama. What's up with that? They found Saddam fairly quickly, and he was in a hole in the ground.
Post by: buckwheat on February 21, 2006, 12:45:00 PM
Post by: damam on February 21, 2006, 02:14:00 PM
Post by: buckwheat on February 21, 2006, 02:57:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 21 2006, 04:21 PM)
did they not do the madrid bombing then?
Did I say they did or didn't do it? I'm talking about SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH.
Post by: CattyKid on February 21, 2006, 03:49:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 21 2006, 02:02 PM)
>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"
Do you realize that a PLANE hit these buildings? A plane?
Max takeoff weight, 412.9 TONS. That is a LOT of mass stopping quickly. VERY quickly. You mean to tell me that a plane /THAT size couldn't sever a concrete water pipe at the center of a building?
SOURCE
Post by: lordvader129 on February 21, 2006, 03:51:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 21 2006, 01:02 PM)
>second that steel wasn't ordinary, it was insulated and it would've had to have been tested for fire to be up to code. Lasting for only half an hour? I don't think so
i already explained how it failed so fast, the fire proof insulation was stripped off by the initial impact of the plane, the steel underneath wasnt rated for high temperatures at all (it didnt need to be, it had the fireproof casing)
QUOTE
>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"
the supply pipes didnt necessarily have to be severed, any number of things could have happened to disable the sprinkler heads, a peice of wreckage could have kinked a pipe, the system could have been damaged in the impact and failed to initialize at all
QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 01:52 PM)
Forgot to add: THEY DID IT ALL WITH THE POWER OF...boxcutters...
maybe i just have a more twisted imagination than everyone else but i can see exactly how they could have done it with boxcutters
stroll up to the first class bathroom (front of plane, near cockpit, also conveintly adjacent to first class kitchen) grab nearest flight attendant out of the kitchen and put the boxcutter to her neck, order the pilot and copilot out of the cockpit, get in and lock the door, if the door doesnt lock just hold on to your flight attendant hostage, or just execute the entire flight crew, not like you need them anyway
Post by: damam on February 21, 2006, 04:15:00 PM
Also if you do some research you will find that several successful skyjackings have used nothing more than knife like objects such as box cutters. They also generally worked in groups of 1 - 6 people. What 911 did was change our survival tactics in such a situation. now any threat will be met with force, where as before the best survival tactic was compliance (which worked very well for over 50 years and more than 500 skyjackings world wide). People who suggest this was impossible to do with box cutters seem to forget that.
Post by: xboxbox451 on February 21, 2006, 06:05:00 PM
QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 02:52 PM)
Forgot to add: THEY DID IT ALL WITH THE POWER OF...boxcutters...
Nah, it was more like American naivete towards a homeland attack, our trusting nature, and lack of security.
This entire disaster could have been easily avoided if the cockpit doors were locked and pilots trained NEVER to open them UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Pitiful that such a simple measure could have saved thousands lives.
Post by: lordvader129 on February 21, 2006, 06:20:00 PM
QUOTE(xboxbox451 @ Feb 21 2006, 07:12 PM)
Nah, it was more like American naivete towards a homeland attack, our trusting nature, and lack of security.
This entire disaster could have been easily avoided if the cockpit doors were locked and pilots trained NEVER to open them UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Pitiful that such a simple measure could have saved thousands lives.
true, but as damam said the standard operating procedure was compliance because at the time no one expected a suicide attack
Post by: throwingks on February 22, 2006, 06:37:00 AM
Did any of these people do real world tests? Does anyone really know what is supposed to happen when a Jet full of fuel strikes a huge building?
I am gonna believe the videos when I see it melt from the inside out. Read and believe what you are told, or watch and make your own decisions, its up to you.
You are no worse than the people you are arguing against, just believing main stream media. You are just believing conspiracy theorists.
Which conspiracy theories aren't true in your mind? Any?
Post by: _iffy on February 22, 2006, 10:27:00 AM
QUOTE
Did any of these people do real world tests? Does anyone really know what is supposed to happen when a Jet full of fuel strikes a huge building?
No.
Never has a plane crashed into a building. All you can do is look at the video, apply knowledge of Physics,
and watch the video again. There have been crash tests, with video, of planes crashing into walls. You can
apply simularities, but it's just physics. You do momentum equations, vector equations. You take into account strength of materials. Shear forces, tourque, compression, etc.
But in the end, no-one reading this was there. So no-one can testify what really happened, and thats what make a good conspiricy theory. And good talks.
as far as the building not falling in freefall: bombs or no, the top of the building will stop falling on each floor.
giving that staggard look.
Post by: throwingks on February 22, 2006, 01:38:00 PM
very well worded. That was what I was trying to get across.
Post by: bluedeath on February 22, 2006, 02:19:00 PM
Post by: _iffy on February 22, 2006, 07:14:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on April 08, 2006, 05:00:00 PM
steve jones
or read this doc:
http://www.physics.b...nergy/htm7.html
it cannot be said that this is a conspiracy theory, its fact based upon applied science...
might have been posted before but fuck it...
Post by: jha'dhur on April 08, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Feb 20 2006, 11:57 AM)
now we could argue back and forth over whether or not the impact of 100 tons of metal hitting the side of a building at 500 miles per hour would have any effect of that buildings structural integrity, but lets look at the building that didnt collapse first
assuming the structure failed across one floor the top of the tower would have fallen approximately 3 meters before hitting the floor below it, this would result in a speed of about 5.5 m/s. 125,000 tons decelerating for 5.5 m/s to 0 almsot instantly (as is the case in a solid object hitting another solid object) would result in a force of nearly 7 million tons (that would be like stacking 14 more world trade center towers on top of tower 1) the one that was hit 1/3 of the way up would have produced over 9 million tons of force, its no wonder it collapsed so fast.
WOW, you mean to tell me that a plane hitting the side of a stationary building exerts an impact force on the building.
HMM...
Let me guess the FORCE the buliding was struck with is proportional to the mass and velocity of the plane.
AND not = 0...
P.S. YES you are a MORON..
Post by: puckSR on April 08, 2006, 07:46:00 PM
QUOTE
Let me guess the FORCE the buliding was struck with is proportional to the mass and velocity of the plane.
AND not = 0...
AND not = 0...
ACtually you still miss the point....
of course the velocity matters.....but the velocity only matters because it changes....
if the plane hits the building and continues to travel at the same velocity....no force on the building...
but what happens is that the plane loses velocity(i.e. decelerates)...thus causing force on the building.....
But i guess you already knew that.....
We really need to explain to you again.....when velocity changes....it becomes acceleration
So when momentum changes...it is force...not momentum any longer
Good luck with that job...Im sure if you mention any of this to a nuclear/chemical/electrical Engineer...they will laugh till they are blue in the face.....
Post by: jha'dhur on April 08, 2006, 08:12:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 8 2006, 08:53 PM)
ACtually you still miss the point....
of course the velocity matters.....but the velocity only matters because it changes....
if the plane hits the building and continues to travel at the same velocity....no force on the building...
but what happens is that the plane loses velocity(i.e. decelerates)...thus causing force on the building.....
But i guess you already knew that.....
We really need to explain to you again.....when velocity changes....it becomes acceleration
So when momentum changes...it is force...not momentum any longer
Good luck with that job...Im sure if you mention any of this to a nuclear/chemical/electrical Engineer...they will laugh till they are blue in the face.....
The force is proportinal to the momentum, derived from the mass and veloctiy of the plane at the moment of impact. The F = 0 only when P = 0. (i.e. m or v =0)
Post a mathmatical expression to the contrary.
Post by: jha'dhur on April 09, 2006, 02:34:00 AM
QUOTE(slightly_damp @ Apr 8 2006, 09:32 PM)
Your like an ugly girl, trying to get attention.
Are you satisfied now, I have replied to one of your lame posts.
Are you supposed to be a dick in training or something like that.
Post by: puckSR on April 09, 2006, 03:01:00 AM
Maybe its because im on medication right now....but you seem like a prick...
He was simply telling you to keep your misconceptions and your childish antics out of a thread about a potential 9/11 conspiracy....and instead you decide to insult him?
And not even a good insult? I mean, if your just going to randomly decide to insult people...shouldnt you at least give them the common courtesy of a good insult?
i.e.
Im glad Im not jha'dhur's barber.....
it must be hard to cut someone's hair when their head is shoved so far up their own ass...
