Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

911 is a joke

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 911 is a joke

    just came across this thread, but it's so old i thought to make a new one.



    i think it's pretty well documented now that the twin towers (including tower 7) were blown up as a direct result of controlled demolitions. this is something that could not have been done by al queta...or any of the other players who've been blamed at one time or another for their "collapse."

    one building (let alone three on the same day!) has never come down like that due to fire before. in fact, according to history, this has never happened. ever. to come down like they did, would also defy major laws of physics...like the laws of motion...thermodynamics...and so on.

    if you've done research on the topic, it's ridiculous to think they could have come down due to anything other than TNT. this whole charade in iraq and elsewhere, therefore, is just absurd.
    Last edited by onesp1ng; 07-04-2008, 04:17 AM.
    ZhongwenMovies.com

  • #2
    onesping, you surprise me.

    What are they telling you in Taiwan on the tele? just curious.
    Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

    "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

    (more comments in my User Profile)
    russbo.com


    Comment


    • #3
      well, how do you see it then? how do three building fall down like that, all on the same day? it's simply unprecedented.

      even if it could theoretically happen, it's not like any of them tipped over (following the law of least resistance). there were also no stacks of floors found.....so the pancake theory is nonsense. and why don't other building fall down after burning for much much longer times?

      additionally, like average fires, rocket fuel is said to burn between 1300 -1700 degrees, but, in this case, was able to utterly destroy steel beams that need 2700 degrees of heat to melt.

      how?

      i mean there were pools of molten "lava" like substances found under the debris for weeks after the towers fell. why? can an average fire create "molten lava?"

      -------

      believe me, i'd be very glad to accept another reasonable argument

      -------

      ps. happy fourth of july...lol...
      ZhongwenMovies.com

      Comment


      • #4
        it's simply unprecedented.
        Flying planes full of passengers into tall buildings is fairly unprecedented..

        why don't other building fall down after burning
        Lots of buildings collapse after a fire.

        can an average fire create "molten lava?"
        I would hardly call anything about the buildings or the event, "average".

        believe me, i'd be very glad to accept another reasonable argument
        Rosie O'Donnell says there's a big conspiracy therefore there isn't..


        You could also read what popular mechanics has to say on the matter.

        Comment


        • #5
          i'm sorry, but that's far from being a reasonable explanation..

          there are just so many holes in PM's explanations. they've proved nothing. they basically only extrapolate on and rationalize what could have happened, without proof.

          please, show me one picture of a skyscraper that has disappeared into it's own footprint due to fire. i've gone through countless pics. sure, there may be partial collapse of the structure, like in the situation of world trade center 6or 5, for instance, but none i can show characteristics like the ones evident on9/11.

          here's building 6:



          there are partial collapses. however, the whole building did not come down and defy physics like the others. tower 6 also stood right between tower 1 and tower 7.

          here are pics of fires that were larger and burned longer than those on 9/11.











          none of these building collapsed entirely. why? well, because the core steal beams retained the buildings' structural integrity. the core steal beams of wtc 1, 2, and 7, in contrast, completely desentigrated, and did so in record time.

          if you say it was due to the weight or impact of the planes, i'll say buildings can never fall down like that being top heavy (again, law of least resistance), nor is it possible for them to just magically crumble because of the fall (especially into fine dust particles that covered manhattan). in addition, world trade center 7 was never hit by a plane.

          honestly, i'd really like to change my opinion of the situation, but the evidence is just too overwhelming.
          ZhongwenMovies.com

          Comment


          • #6
            You know a friend of mine lost his uncle in one of the towers that day. THe plane basically flew into the floor he was working on. To you and the rest of the conspiracy theorist that say it was all a hoax and a control demolition. I will put this the nicest way I can. GO **** YOURSELVES!!

            The buildings did exactly what they were designed to do in that situation. They collapsed in on themselves rather than tipping over. Tall ass buildings are designed that way because tipping over would be really bad.

            Plane collision+burning jet fuel+burning office material(ie. desks, computers, paper, walls)+over and hour of burning time= reduced structural efficiency of the steel beams. The weight of the above floors on now weakened steel then results in a collapse.

            So I say again... **** off with your conspiracy bullshit. Friends of mine saw it happen, were there in the smoke, lost loved ones, and are pretty ****ing convinced it had something to do with dumb ass religious fundaMENTALists... I stress mental..

            I really have zero patience for this kind of BS!
            The essential point in science it not a complicated mathematical formalism or a ritualized experimentation. Rather the heart of science is a kind of shrewd honesty the springs from really wanting to know what the hell is going on!

            Comment


            • #7
              i'm sorry this is still so very painful for you, iron cross. my intention was not to upset you or others. i said i would be glad to hear another reasonable argument.

              you know, it's not something i particularly want to discuss or think either. unfortunately that's how i see it though, because... well, no one has given a better, logical explanation. 3 buildings don't fall down and disappear like that...

              The buildings did exactly what they were designed to do in that situation. They collapsed in on themselves rather than tipping over. Tall ass buildings are designed that way because tipping over would be really bad.
              it would seem that in this case, falling over would have been preferential. seriously, why would a building be designed to implode or collapse on itself? i think of imploding and collapsing into nothing as the absolute worse scenerio.

              i've posted pictures of other burning buildings... there are many more. some are said to have burned for days and over many more floors. do you see any that've collapsed/imploded on themselves ? at basically the speed of gravity? with tons of steel and concrete underneath? in one succinct motion? which resulted in a large pile of rubble? with no stacks or leaning? ever?



              there're other problems too with what happened, but if we're focused on the building collapse specifically, then where did everything go? the things you mentioned can't do what is indicated in the above picture. even if it were true that the core beams were weakened due to fire, the building would've collapsed to one side or another, and there would have also been many many stacks found. there were no stacks, no core beams sticking up in the middle, and again, building 7 was never hit by a plane. building 7 was damaged on it's side, which would lead most to believe it'd then collapse to the injured side, not implode and fall in on itself (wherein all four ends basically land at the sime time).

              please, examine the issue, listen and read about it objectively, or educate me and prove me wrong. blowing it off as a conspiracy theory, telling me you won't believe it cause "rossie" does, or some other ridiculousness,...really helps no one.....

              i don't ridicule your beliefs. i'm an american passpost holder same as you. in addition, i've invited you to show me i'm wrong. that's the best i can do.
              ZhongwenMovies.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Two things: First, the buildings were not designed to collapse in on each other. They were designed to remain standing. Second, fire did not cause them to disintegrate.

                The WTC was designed differently than most skyscapers. They wanted to build the thing fast, as it was a damn high building, and they needed the most floor space that they could get out of it. So, the architects designed it without the usual supporting central steel structures that you would normally find.

                If you look at Asian construction, generally, there is a concrete / steel pillar in shophouses and large buildings, every five meters. These posts are there for support. It's a simple yet effective way of building. Erect posts, put floors on top of them, erect more posts, etc, etc.

                The WTC wanted to avoid these central pillars, because they would have interfered with rentable floor space. So, the WTC towers were put together differently.

                The steel support structures of the buildings were outsied the structure. All of those vertical bands that you saw outside the buildings were the actual supporting vertical elements. There were elevator shafts and such, but the main support for the building was actually the outside walls.

                The floors, fire protected steel beams and joists, actually ran from one wall to the other, without any sort of support in the middle. The floors were connected to each of the four surrounding walls. They literally hung from the walls, without having supporting vertical elements from floor to floor, as you would usually see in other buildings.

                This was the achilles heel of the WTC. When the planes hit, the fire weakened the steel floor joists, but more importantly, they softened the connections between the floor joists and the exterior walls. One of the floors in each building started to sag from it's own weight.

                Eventually, the floor connections to the exterior walls gave way, resulting in one floor dropping down to land on the one below. The one below could not support the added weight, and it subsequently collapsed. Those two floors landed on the one below, which unattached itself from the four exterior walls, and collapsed down. The subsequent and continual collapsing of upper floors directly down upon the lower one resulted in the building coming straight down pancake style.

                Fire weakened the supporting elements. The weight of the floor caused the floor to fall because the weakened steel could no longer hold. So technically, fire caused the buildiings to collapse, yet, it was the weight of the floors, and the force of one floor collapsing upon the one below that zippered the floors off the exterior walls causing the rapid collapse of the buildings.

                AS for building 7, I think, that is a different story. There is some controversy about that one, and I'm not familiar with the engineering or what happened to that one. I think the BBC is going to have a special on that soon.
                Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                (more comments in my User Profile)
                russbo.com


                Comment


                • #9
                  are you sure about that? here is a picture of the north tower during construction.



                  i see many supporting center beams.

                  another pic:



                  those beams ran all the way to the top of each building. many were found sticking out of the sides of other buildings...9which would take some serious energy) and tons of concrete disentegrated into minute dust particles, covering manhattan. these are 110 story buildings that essentially disappeared in front of our eyes. nist studies the "collapses" for three years and proves nothing.

                  below is an article that highlights the point that 1. there were many central supporting structures, and 2, there has yet to be anything proved, only a lot of conjecture in favor of a theory about "collapse initiation." unfortuately controlled demolition explains, can be tested, and proves everything, yet is utterly impossible for people to accept.

                  "NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"

                  The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

                  In a recent letter (http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

                  A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

                  In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

                  "NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

                  "But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

                  "Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.

                  NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

                  In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

                  In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

                  Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.
                  now this is the organization that studied the "collapses" for three years and they can't even explain it.

                  any other reasonable explanations?
                  ZhongwenMovies.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Or maybe a bunch of pissed off muslims did it...
                    The essential point in science it not a complicated mathematical formalism or a ritualized experimentation. Rather the heart of science is a kind of shrewd honesty the springs from really wanting to know what the hell is going on!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What you see there in the middle is the elevator shaft structures. As I remember, they do not run all the way from top to bottom in a continual structure (ie, they alternate positions about half way up). They are structural, but as you can see in the picture, the real support of the building, as designed, are the steel vertical exterior supports.

                      Don't know who NIST is. But this was all very clearly explained on various deocumentaries on Discovery and National Geo. It's also been written about in various books. Can't remember, read so many these past few years.

                      Building 7 was another story. Don't know.

                      The bigger question is, why do you want to believe otherwise?
                      Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                      "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                      (more comments in my User Profile)
                      russbo.com


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Iron Cross View Post
                        Or maybe a bunch of pissed off muslims did it...
                        A more correct statement would be "a bunch of radical muslims"

                        The Wahabbee's are an interesting bunch. There's a great book that I just finished about their history. "God's Terrorists".

                        Eye opening to say the least.
                        Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                        "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                        (more comments in my User Profile)
                        russbo.com


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Iron Cross, why do you become so agressive when a different opinion arises? Would you be as angry for the civilian death in Chile or Viet Nam? Why discriminate between the suffering of your neighbours, your nation and those far away? Be careful of your ego.

                          As for the conspiration theory, i have no clear opinion on that but that is possible knowing the history of lies the West has known.

                          Peace and love

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            now this is the organization that studied the "collapses" for three years and they can't even explain it.
                            Well here is what they think now..
                            The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

                            "Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
                            and..
                            It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

                            Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

                            They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

                            Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.
                            and finally..
                            Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              originally FEMA (the federal emergency management agency) did the first completed study on the towers “collapse.”

                              The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed its performance study of the buildings in May 2002. It declared the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders. While calling for further study, FEMA suggested that the collapses were probably initiated by weakening of the floor joists by the fires that resulted from the aircraft impacts. According to FEMA's report – and subsequently contradicted by NIST's findings – the floors detached from the main structure of the building and fell onto each other, initiating a progressive "pancake" collapse. [3]
                              nist ( the national institute of standards and technology ) is the federal technology agency that was put in charge of the investigation after FEMA’s report was deemed extremely improbable (except, that is, by the mainstream media and other governement advocates). it consisted of around 10,000 pages and took three years to complete. there has not been any peer reviewed theory (accepted or not) for the “collapsing” of towers 1, 2, and 7 by proponents who back the governments explanation since the nist study that i know of. if you know of another one, i'd like to read it.

                              FEMA's proposed explanation was rejected by a later, more detailed investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was completed in September 2005.
                              According to FEMA's report – and subsequently contradicted by NIST's findings – the floors detached from the main structure of the building and fell onto each other, initiating a progressive "pancake" collapse. [3]
                              NIST also emphasized the role of the fires, but it did not attribute the collapses to failing floor joists. Instead, NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."[4]
                              how do you rationalize the reality that the two primary sources backing your views of the 9/11 incident contradict each other and have admittingly not proved anything other than, at best, "collapse initiation?"

                              again, buldings do not collapse entirely and wholly due to fire. every kind of collapse (whether it be due to fire, earthquake, and the rest) all display very specific characteristics. they are easily observed and tested. what you're dealing with and ultimately disseminating as fact, is nonsensical and does not bear up under careful scrutiny, let alone it’s own investigative conclusions.

                              now i understand that because this is so seemingly implausible and contrary to our common sense of security, it’s often the case that the main points of contention are quickly dismissed and refuted without scientific bases. i don’t “want” to believe this, but i’ve read many arguments on both sides. the evidence in support of controlled demolition is too over-whelming. i’m not emphasizing who did it….muslim or not…radical or not… etc…what i’m emphasizing is how 3 buildings, all of which showed the characteristics of controlled demolitions, disappeared in front of our eyes for the first time in history (on the same day).

                              richard gage, (aia architect) made an interesting comment. he said something to the affect that, this is the first time on record that a building, showing the same exact characteristics of a controlled demolition, fully collapsed into dust wherein the accepted conclusion was something other than controlled demolition.

                              according to various records and pictures, there were 47 soundly tested steel center columns. in the picture i posted of the center columns, huge construction cranes, as a matter of fact, sat atop these columns during the building process and held up without fault. additionally, the towers were designed with the possibility of taking a plane hit in mind.

                              The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams. Apparently the box columns, more than 1000 feet long, were built as the towers rose by welding together sections several stories tall. The sections were fabricated by mills in Japan that were uniquely equipped to produce the large pieces.
                              here is a gif of tower 7 falling.



                              ask yourselves, are you being objective? are you asking for the same proof of people in other fields?

                              take a look at the windows in tower seven before the “collapse,” as they all blow at the same time, and the whole building buckles in on itself. you can clearly see a symmetrical collapse of the structure. again, based on expert analysis, this can only happen with the use of explosives taking out the core beams first. fire can not cause such an unnatural event to occur. other explanations have and continue to be dismissed as conjecture...

                              doc, you don’t know (or in other words, are reluctant to accept the official story regarding tower 7 at this time, yet, you also back the original theory regarding tower 1 and 2, which is an old theory that has been challenged and ultimately deemed obsolete by the very next proceeding agency that picked up the investigation. but i’m afraid national geographic and discovery are just tv shows/stations, not scientific agencies. using them as conclusive evidence, when they seem to base their conclusions of claims that have not been confirmed, is very very speculative and misleading.
                              ZhongwenMovies.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X