CiaranM Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Ive looked into who made the most money from this whole scenario.... guess what they are prominent politically tied people Halliburton for one has seen its stocks rise over 10% since 9/11 Anyone we know in the present administration currently linked to Haliburton ....any wild guesses ? so now a companies stock rising by 10% in 6 years is evidence for involvement in 9/11 ??? f**ks sake it ain't even that good, 10- measly - % in 6 years !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Ive looked into who made the most money from this whole scenario.... guess what they are prominent politically tied people Halliburton for one has seen its stocks rise over 10% since 9/11 Anyone we know in the present administration currently linked to Haliburton ....any wild guesses ? so now a companies stock rising by 10% in 6 years is evidence for involvement in 9/11 ??? f**ks sake it ain't even that good, 10- measly - % in 6 years !!! kick the horse don't tickle its belly :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurms Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 one floor fails, and falls, which compounds the weight of that floor plus the force via gravity of that layer on the lower floor ridiculous !! You're speaking as if for the 50 years prior the lower floors hadn't been able to support all that weight ! you say steel can lose 10 percent of it's structural integrity at exposure to 1000 degrees for a long time..are you suggesting the steel of the whole structure was exposed to this type of heat ? Nonsense . Sure you could have buckling in the area of the impact and jet fuel....but mostly people rubbish this idea as the fires did not burnt nearly hot enough for long enough....even if we allow our imaginations to run away with us and we say this happen ,not once but three times in one day, then surely all you can expect if the top part of the building to collapse in on itself...but why...for the love of god...would it take the whole bulding with it ? Sorry..I just can't see it .. to bring that parallel form of total crumbling you need another explanation for my mind.... just seem more too unlikely otherwise.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurms Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 so now a companies stock rising by 10% in 6 years is evidence for involvement in 9/11 ??? f**ks sake it ain't even that good, 10- measly - % in 6 years !!! yeah the arguments of the investment spikes are stupid..these things happen all the time are were within nominal range..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Ok....let's breathe new life into this....Zeusy you reckon it's more sensible to believe those buildings came down purely due to "buckling steel" and gravity ? And you find no need to add in any extra variables to explain the total bizare symmetry with which those buildings fell down ? I just don't know how sensible that theory is . It just seems less likely than the far simpler alternative that explosions were used , rather than the ridiculous sequential crumbling of a freaking concrete and steel structure.... At best your opinion could lean slightly one way or another...but you could never call anyone insane for thinking there were third force factors .....could you ? you're so dead sure of your explanations, which are usually based on erroneous physics and a complete ignorance of the best explanations i've seen as to "the bizzarre symmetry" with which those buildings fell down. i'm not going to bother breaking it down for you, as you DON'T ******* READ. you just repeat the same **** over and over, regardless of what anyone says in response. maybe your'e not insane, but i've seen an awful lot of inSane* people act exactly like that. so maybe you are. --------------- *edit--added the S. although inane works fairly well, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tattoodude Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 :roll: Thhhhheeeeeeeee....... Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round round and round round and round. The bus is on axle stands.... so it's not moving... the wheels just keep going round. Tickets please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 That explanation is completely more than feasible. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. Explanation enough. i think. almost, it leaves out the detail of exactly *how* the towers were constructed, and why it would make them prone to this sort of collapse... but don't bother, none of these loons will pay any attention, they'll just keep typing page after page of specious drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizardo Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 so where is Lord Lucan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Secondly, in those cases where we have discussed these issues directly with conspiracy theorists?for example, during radio interviews?we found the exchanges less than productive. We don't believe that allowing ourselves to be subjected to shouting, personal invective and wild allegations advances anyone's understanding of the facts of September 11. i see they have encountered slurms already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Secondly, in those cases where we have discussed these issues directly with conspiracy theorists?for example, during radio interviews?we found the exchanges less than productive. We don't believe that allowing ourselves to be subjected to shouting, personal invective and wild allegations advances anyone's understanding of the facts of September 11. i see they have encountered slurms already... well he does have the perfect face for radio !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever OJ Simpson my friends OJ Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tattoodude Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever Imagine a fly that hits a windscreen, it's arse travels through it's brain, it's last seconds are spent in the same predicament your in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever Imagine a fly that hits a windscreen, it's arse travels through it's brain, it's last seconds are spent in the same predicament your in now. not exactly... key word: brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever OJ Simpson my friends OJ Simpson ever think about how the floors were attached to the supporting columns? obviously not. go back to begging for gangbangs, it was more entertaining (and a lot more believable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tattoodude Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever Imagine a fly that hits a windscreen, it's arse travels through it's brain, it's last seconds are spent in the same predicament your in now. not exactly... key word: brain. thank you for correcting me, scrub last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 boring .... show me a few of the approx 80 video tapes that have footage of the *commerical airliner* hitting the pentagon. Different angles from different cameras... sorta like all of the tower shots. Please dont go back to the 6 frame video clip of blurred bullshit as it proves nothing and it not evidence This would dispell any and all of my own conspiracy theories The building falling is not what makes me doubt that day. I have talked to professionals about the buildings and have been sastified with what they said. I am however not sastified with the lack of *evidence* at the pentagon ....but thats no surprise Thats just my brainless opinion...... unlike the sheep who believe everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 boring .... show me a few of the approx 80 video tapes that have footage of the *commerical airliner* hitting the pentagon. Different angles from different cameras... sorta like all of the tower shots. Please dont go back to the 6 frame video clip of blurred bullshit as it proves nothing and it not evidence This would dispell any and all of my own conspiracy theories The building falling is not what makes me doubt that day. I have talked to professionals about the buildings and have been sastified with what they said. I am however not sastified with the lack of *evidence* at the pentagon ....but thats no surprise Thats just my brainless opinion...... unlike the sheep who believe everything nice that you got a bike that can backpedal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever OJ Simpson my friends OJ Simpson ever think about how the floors were attached to the supporting columns? obviously not. go back to begging for gangbangs, it was more entertaining (and a lot more believable)[/quote yep thought about that ... there would still be resistance from inside the building causing slight delays in the speed at which the floors fell. Im not into the floor crap zeus so your not gonna get anywhere with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 like i have stated numerous times which has been my hard stance on this subject. Show some of the approx 80 video tapes of the commercial airliner crashing into the pentagon. Hey you could even do it from different angles to show say the plane ID number .... the paint scheme on the side..... alot of things .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 So when the floors started to fail due to the heat from the fire this caused the floors to *buckle* in turn causing the collapse of WTC. How does a building that is melting from a fire not meet any resistance on its fall ? This means that everything inside WTC was melted on all 110 floors ? Wouldnt the materials inside the building create a resistance to 110 floors collapsing on one another ? Through 100 floors of resistance this building managed tio collapse at free fall speed. As demonstrated you can drop a 10 pound weight off the top of WTC and it will hit the ground in approx 10 seconds ....the same time 110 stories of concrete and steel and materials fell with no resistance what so ever OJ Simpson my friends OJ Simpson ever think about how the floors were attached to the supporting columns? obviously not. go back to begging for gangbangs, it was more entertaining (and a lot more believable)[/quote yep thought about that ... there would still be resistance from inside the building causing slight delays in the speed at which the floors fell. Im not into the floor crap zeus so your not gonna get anywhere with that you have just demonstrated that you don't understand what's different about how the floors were attached in those buildings, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurms Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film. Oh I don't disagree with any of that....you think that's the level of fire required to bring down a steel and concrete building ? That's fine , but that's just a subjective belief and I'm very confident science wouldn't concur that it is. But at least you offered a serious answer to a serious question without resorting to you"insane " ...I think there was a time for exageratted counter arguments and ridicule against the likes of "loose change" , but now perhaps that time is over and it's time for a serious discussion of the matter . It's simply silly to discount third force factors when the arguments for the collapse being offered out require so much freakish things to happen , not once , but 3 times in one day ....add to that many credible experts in their various fields not only consider it an option , but cite serious evidence for this theory that go beyond the hypothetical nature of 'pancake theory" which offers NONE . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 from a website generally read only by engineering dweebs, not likely to be encountered by conspiracy theorists: The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost. It is clear that buildings built in this manner have a catastrophic mode of failure ("house of cards") that should rule out their future construction. It is triggered when there is a partial collapse at any level that breaks the continuity of the tube, which then rolls up quickly, from top to bottom. The collapse has a means of propagation that soon involves the whole structure, bypassing its major strengths and impossible to interrupt. There is no need for an airliner; a simple explosion would do the job. There were central tubes in the towers, for elevators and services, but they appeared to play no substantial role in the collapse, and were not evident in the pictures or wreckage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film. Oh I don't disagree with any of that....you think that's the level of fire required to bring down a steel and concrete building ? That's fine , but that's just a subjective belief and I'm very confident science wouldn't concur that it is. But at least you offered a serious answer to a serious question without resorting to you"insane " ...I think there was a time for exageratted counter arguments and ridicule against the likes of "loose change" , but now perhaps that time is over and it's time for a serious discussion of the matter . It's simply silly to discount third force factors when the arguments for the collapse being offered out require so much freakish things to happen , not once , but 3 times in one day ....add to that many credible experts in their various fields not only consider it an option , but cite serious evidence for this theory that go beyond the hypothetical nature of 'pancake theory" which offers NONE . Post the sources then Slurms, who are the credible experts ? what do they have to say ? what evidence can they provide ? What are their credintials ? People are easy to brush off conspiracies due to lack of evidence. Sad thing is at the same time professionals who also believe in these theories are also brushed aside and discredited. Why does the person get discredited when they are a professional just like the ones that are saying its not a conspiracy ? Good luck with your civil liberties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurms Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 almost, it leaves out the detail of exactly *how* the towers were constructed, and why it would make them prone to this sort of collapse... but don't bother, none of these loons will pay any attention, they'll just keep typing page after page of specious drivel. I've read so many articles , seen all the visual documentation and photos of the tower being built , the animated sequences that show how pancake theory was supposed to have worked , the 3d modelling of the building and the damage the planes have done etc etc etc....all hypothetical stuff ....now if the floors were to have disattached from the core structure and slipped down pancaking one on the next , explain to why the first part of the building to start falling was the roof in a concave fashion..ie : it starts to fall from the middle ..that's to say the middle structures went first....go watch the videos again if you like....anyway ..this makes sense as pancaking would have left a significant part of the steel cire structure in place...not demolished like we saw on september 11th....(twice by the way) ... You are putting a lot of faith on a theory that doesn't provide any evidence zeus , just a hypothesis....it doesn't seem to me in any way a superior argument to the "bomb" one....quite the other way around really..yours requires a lot more faith...faith in unreanobly high tempretures , widespread dispertion of jet fuel in exactly the right places burning for longer than possible....faith in physical objects interacting in that they fall symetrically into each other at free fall speeds..rather than displaying any of the quirky behaviour we'd come to expect with mister newtons laws....faith in buildings that have supported their weight for 50 years , decideding to both ..well...give up on that idea in it's enirety because the tops of their structures are damaged... The alternative just requires that someone planted stragetic bombs.....I don't in anyway see why that's so much crazier an idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tattoodude Posted September 10, 2007 Report Share Posted September 10, 2007 This just in: Claims have been made that the bus has for all of this time been in reverse, an official spokesman was noted as saying " nonsence, pure speculation by warped individuals trying to cook up conspiracies with regard to buses, besides Sid our driver would have known if that had been the case" Everyone agree's however: THHEEEEEEEEE...... wheels on the bus go round and round round and round round and round. Funny, and people think I'm the psycho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts