Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by James_DT
Is this the same crackpot conspiracy video that was posted on here before? It's completely stupid, and really only made for a) Americans and b) fools who believe such crap. It's nearly as bad as www.johntitor.com 
yes, it is to entertain the simple sheep-like minds of people like Bart
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
i love this bit proving you wrong.
how have you proved me wrong?
" the flashes before the plane hits the buildings...."
ok so a very dodgy looking garden shed video reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and you believe there were flashes?? i think you will find that there were no flashes.
these are 4 images from 4 different reporters, not one dodgy put together video
In all the images and video i have seen of the aircraft crashing into the towers, i do not see flashes. only in that stoopid put-together-with-sellotape video you lot love so much. what are the flashes meant to be anyway?? rockets firing?? i beg to differ, ive seen them in other videos. im not suggesting they're anything, just odd
"the buildings sub parking, and ground level being completely ruined (subway carpark being reduced to rubble)"
i guess thats what happens when thousands of tonnes of concrete lands on it
no, listen to the video properly, the part of the sub level (base) has been reduced to rubble before the collapse.
The two men then made their way to the parking garage, but it was practically demolished, no walls, just rubble. how come right at the bottom of the building was left in rubble, thick concrete walls was demolished, yet the floors inbetween was intact?
i dont get it? the sub level car parks are material, but not essential to the buildings stability, the core and foundations go down perhaps 100ft.
Ha! nor do i! exactly my point, how did the concrete base get reduced to rubble before the collapse? and not the levels inbetween?
"Also the plane than hit the pentagon? (yeah right!), the lawn was in perfect condition, the lamposts bent back the opposite way...
Also, how come none of the cars we're blown off the highway when the plane 'scrapped' over the top of them? at that distance, the jet engines would have overturned them several times."
Aircraft was flown into the side, it did not even touch the ground before it hit, and the engines would have almost certainly been idling, however they would have been pitched up to about 30degrees so any jetwash would not affect objects on the ground.
in the government report, and on TV the specifically mentioned the plane sliding along the floor
perhaps the tail struck the ground as it hit the building? i remember seeing scuff marks on the lawn anyway...
would it be these scuff marks shown in a photo prior to the plane crash?
[Edited on 04-02-2006 by Cybermonkey]
[Edited on 05-02-2006 by Bart]
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
why are you making saying that, when hitler did the same thing?
i.e it has happened before?!
And CM, you have not proven me wrong regarding how any of the scientific eviedence can be wrong?
Having studied chemisty, physics and structural supports at college myself i find it hard to see how some of the things could happen?
from my point of view, im not saying the government has done this to themselves, im not saying they didnt. ive just got an open mind.
I think the government obviously covers up alot of stuff, the media portrays alot of different angles, its bound to happen from time to time.
|
Lynny
Member
Registered: 3rd Jan 03
Location: oop north! Where people talk properly
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
why are you making saying that, when hitler did the same thing?
i.e it has happened before?!
firstly i didnt understand that sentance?? 'why are you making' eh?
and secondly....hitler is totally different from JFK or elvis, they cant be compared
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
And CM, you have not proven me wrong regarding how any of the scientific eviedence can be wrong?
Having studied chemisty, physics and structural supports at college myself i find it hard to see how some of the things could happen?
like what? the trade centers were extremely strong at their base since the terrorist attack in the underground car park in feb 26 1993, they were reinforced 10-fold at ground level down to underground level 2 i believe to stop it happening again and possibly bringing the building down. does this answer your question?
i too have studied physics but i fail to see the relevence of this, this is all just hypothetical nonsense spurred along by people like you. and what scientific evidence do you want? the fact that AVGAS kerosene actually burns much higher than 1000 degrees celsius? or that its a common fact that when fires are contained in small spaces (ie, the stairwells and central support columns in the WTC) that they burn much fiercer than they would in open air, comsuming everything bar the strongest materials.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
why are you making saying that, when hitler did the same thing?
i.e it has happened before?!
And CM, you have not proven me wrong regarding how any of the scientific eviedence can be wrong?
Having studied chemisty, physics and structural supports at college myself i find it hard to see how some of the things could happen?
from my point of view, im not saying the government has done this to themselves, im not saying they didnt. ive just got an open mind.
I think the government obviously covers up alot of stuff, the media portrays alot of different angles, its bound to happen from time to time.
nothing suspicious happened though, its almost entirely impossible to stage something of this size and pull it off convincingly. A BUNCH OF CRAZY RAG HEAD ARABS FLEW THE PLANES INTO THE BUILDINGS. thats it. stop listening to michael moore, stop pretending to be american, open your eyes and realise its actually fucking difficult to hide a Boeing 757 and all its passengers
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
why are you making saying that, when hitler did the same thing?
i.e it has happened before?!
firstly i didnt understand that sentance?? 'why are you making' eh?
and secondly....hitler is totally different from JFK or elvis, they cant be compared
im not comparing hitler to any of them. im comparing him to jwbush.
Hitler attacked his own building to declare war on another country.
I also found some interesting read on this website.
a C-130 (large passenger place) crashed into a large story building, they wait hours and hours for it to collapse, and yet it doesnt?
Also, The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse. (you can check that out).
Anyway, its late, my misses is moaning, time to hit the sack 
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by lynny_sxi
next thinkg you knwo they're be saying JFK wasnt really shot and hes living with elvis somewhere
why are you making saying that, when hitler did the same thing?
i.e it has happened before?!
firstly i didnt understand that sentance?? 'why are you making' eh?
and secondly....hitler is totally different from JFK or elvis, they cant be compared
im not comparing hitler to any of them. im comparing him to jwbush.
Hitler attacked his own building to declare war on another country.
I also found some interesting read on this website.
a C-130 (large passenger place) crashed into a large story building, they wait hours and hours for it to collapse, and yet it doesnt?
Also, The Windsor Building in Madrid burned for nearly two days on almost all its floors. Its structural core was weaker than that of the WTC towers and yet it didn't collapse. (you can check that out).
Anyway, its late, my misses is moaning, time to hit the sack
oh FFS, a C130 Hercules is a military turboprop, NOT a large passenger plane, they are quite small compared to say a 757. it crashed into a 10 storey apartment building, hardly big either 
please go and bore your wife/girlfriend with your fake facts. goodnight
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
when i watched it i found some of it interesting and i feel i do belive some of it.
I am entitled to belive what i want and no one will change my desision , end of the day NO ONE on here knows , however much yo may know about planes and what not.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
if you believe whats in that video you must be fat and also an american
|
Nismo
Member
Registered: 12th Sep 02
User status: Offline
|
no just i possibly see things differently to you and dont belive the press or what the goveremtn wants us to belive.
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nismo
no just i possibly see things differently to you and dont belive the press or what the goveremtn wants us to belive.
exactly my point.
I think some of it is true, it has to be?
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
like what? the trade centers were extremely strong at their base since the terrorist attack in the underground car park in feb 26 1993, they were reinforced 10-fold at ground level down to underground level 2 i believe to stop it happening again and possibly bringing the building down. does this answer your question?
i too have studied physics but i fail to see the relevence of this, this is all just hypothetical nonsense spurred along by people like you. and what scientific evidence do you want? the fact that AVGAS kerosene actually burns much higher than 1000 degrees celsius? .
How the hell, the country with the most amount of money, build 3 of the most well protected buildings in the world. and yet it falls down due to the structure melting (when temperatures are not high enough to melt any of the structure).
But yet in madrid, a simialr building with a known weaker structure stays burning on all floors for 2 days and still does not collapse?
As for the concrete walls in subway etc, you seem to be missing the point.
Right, here is my question.
A perfectly heathly building is hit near the top (60 or so stories? i cant remember how high), moments later, lound noises are heard, fire brigade report explosions (as you are a rationable man, you may put that down to people farting, ok, i'll agree) seismic activity also reported explosions before the collapse, two care takers then enter the subway part of the building, and then follow onto the basement parking, to find all the walls there reduced to rubble, we're talking very thick concrete walls.
How the hell did that happen when thinner concrete walls are still standing? (i.e the concrete floors inbetween the subway and the level the plane hit?
Your right, these walls dont play a main role in the stable structure, as they have been previously bombed and its still stood, but it still doesnt explain how the very bottom section of the building had become damaged when the plane never hit anywhere near it and also no fire was detected down any of the stairwells or lift shafts?
[Edited on 05-02-2006 by Bart]
|
Jules
Member
Registered: 26th Nov 04
Location: Ipswich, Suffolk Status: Happy
User status: Offline
|
The two caretakers in the basement are american and therfore fat rumour mongers who like to fuel stupid theorys like these.
[Edited on 05-02-2006 by Jules]
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
^ what he said  , also i believe te trade centers were over 100 storeys high
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
The program that was on ages ago was saying the fire was burning that hot that it destoyed all the fireproofing etc and then destroyed all the steel.
There were a lot more details than that obviously but it wasn't just a normal fire.
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
The program that was on ages ago was saying the fire was burning that hot that it destoyed all the fireproofing etc and then destroyed all the steel.
There were a lot more details than that obviously but it wasn't just a normal fire.
not only that, but how the hell did WTC7 building fall down?
700-800 foot away, on the opposite side of the square, they say it 'caught fire' from falling ashes etc etc. Yet no other buildings caught fire?
Oh, and surprisingly enough, the £200m worth of gold under WT7 was moved a couple of days prior to the collapse. That building had more than 3 small controlable fires on no more than 2/3 floors.
Yet they decided to bring the building down in a controlled explosion 
|
gianluigi
Member
Registered: 9th Mar 05
Location: Ipswich, Suffolk
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by John
The program that was on ages ago was saying the fire was burning that hot that it destoyed all the fireproofing etc and then destroyed all the steel.
There were a lot more details than that obviously but it wasn't just a normal fire.
not only that, but how the hell did WTC7 building fall down?
700-800 foot away, on the opposite side of the square, they say it 'caught fire' from falling ashes etc etc. Yet no other buildings caught fire?
Oh, and surprisingly enough, the £200m worth of gold under WT7 was moved a couple of days prior to the collapse. That building had more than 3 small controlable fires on no more than 2/3 floors.
Yet they decided to bring the building down in a controlled explosion
yes they made a point about whent he building fell down, it resembled an Implosion. not saying all this is true or not.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bart
quote:
Originally posted by John
The program that was on ages ago was saying the fire was burning that hot that it destoyed all the fireproofing etc and then destroyed all the steel.
There were a lot more details than that obviously but it wasn't just a normal fire.
not only that, but how the hell did WTC7 building fall down?
700-800 foot away, on the opposite side of the square, they say it 'caught fire' from falling ashes etc etc. Yet no other buildings caught fire?
Oh, and surprisingly enough, the £200m worth of gold under WT7 was moved a couple of days prior to the collapse. That building had more than 3 small controlable fires on no more than 2/3 floors.
Yet they decided to bring the building down in a controlled explosion
yes this does seem odd i must admit. what was the official report on the building?
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
well, they first of all said it melted due to fire, bla bla bla.
then later on (and ive got the video) of the WT7 documentary, Larry Silverstein (owner of WT7) admits on TV they had to 'pull' the building.
Oh come on! never in history has building completely collapsed due to fire, but yet this building was too dangerous and had to be rigged with explosives!
It also just happened to be the building that held all the government documents etc for the city
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
wasnt WTC7 some distance from the 2 towers though?
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
yes, quite some distance! but yet the bank right next to the twin towers didnt catch fire.
Oh, and Larry Silverstein took out a 200m (maybe billion, cant remember) insurance policy some months before.
One other thing, WT7 fell in approx 8-10 seconds, as the building was demolished from the inside. IT fell at the same speed as dropping rocks/steel free fall.
The WTC which supposedly 'collapsed' also fell at the same speed as free fall, i.e there was nothing in the building to stop anything
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
If all that weight is falling though it is basically freefall is it not?
When that starts its not being stopped by anything, especially a few melted steel beams.
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
to be honest though, the WTC was a very weak building structurally inside, and would have gained momentum very very quickly indeed because of its size, as soon as 1 floor collapses onto the one beneath, you have twice the compressing factor on the next floor below, its an exponential factor that would gain speed and momentum very fast indeed
|
Bart
Member
Registered: 19th Aug 02
Location: Midsomer Norton, Bristol Avon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
If all that weight is falling though it is basically freefall is it not?
When that starts its not being stopped by anything, especially a few melted steel beams.
slightly true.
But the solid concrete floors inbetween (approx 100 of them), would be added friction. It would definatly not fall at the same speed as free fall.
|
