|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Its even more depressing to know your most likely capable of breeding.:disgust I have a hard time believing you even read the article what you posted, he sums up the collapse in a paragraph.. ANY engineer who would make an assumption based on evidence he saw on tv is not fit to call himself an engineer PERIOD, anyone posting such an assumption as FACT is equally as inept. |
Quote:
Seasoned commercial pilots say it's impossible even with themselves at the wheel.. Yet that's the gov't story... Do you see it the government's way? And.. I've never yelled, 'conspiracy' .. I'm just saying that some of the government's findings are somewhat less that accurate.. |
Quote:
|
There are "experts" and then there are "experts" but the keyword is consensus. There has been multiple investigations and there has been a ton of "experts" weigh in and while there is some disagreement among the "experts" (nothing new about this) the keyword is consensus. For SmokeytheBear (who appears to be no more than a board whore) and for those like him, if there were to be a 99% consensus he/they would still believe the 1% that place a sinister slant on their offer of expertise.
Sorry but I am just popping in. I have work that I am doing and don't have time to stay. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am out of here. |
Quote:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers?. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing? The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.) Or this guy? Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan?s analysis is that the probability that fires and damage (the ?official theory?) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7). |
Quote:
And here are comments from fire engineers: 'respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.' 'Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.' http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...=131225 #EdOp |
Quote:
|
Quote:
While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel... Hmm.. I believe that's what I said..... This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 FACT??? It appears likely.... FACT???? It is possible that the blaze....... FACT??? These conditions may have...... FACT??? ....and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground. FACT???? WRONG! They didn't pancake.. they freefell.. There is a difference.. Just like the 'official report' .. lots of "may have's" and, "could have's".. Hardly FACTS.. |
Quote:
You don't agree so it has to be a wacko site... gotta love it :) |
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Just read that site. Excellent explanation there. If you cant understand what they wrote in simple terms, and accept it, you have issues. |
Quote:
These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172.. A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how ?easy? it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the ?open sky?. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.. For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers. In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted ?hard? instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying ?blind?, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn?t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as ?IFR?, or Instrument Flight Rules. Nila Sagadevan, aeronautical engineer, pilot. He must be one of those wack jobs that doesn't know the truth.. But then you have your Microsoft 2000 flight simulator, so you are the authority... |
So let's cut to the chase with all these conspiracy threads.
What's the bottom line and what's anybody going to do about it? 1. We'll never know. 2. Nothing. That's the American way. :) |
Quote:
The real reason that no one has taken action on this one is because Congress was so mis-led by the Presidents advisors as the Iraqs seeking WMD and "the mushroom cloud terrorism" scenario, they all just signed off on it Now if you want to get into the real conspiracy theories - a bunch of people out there believe that the Anthrax attack was designed to further that fear in congress to insure approval of the War powers - it doesnt help that since 9/11 at least 10 of the leading microbioligists in this country have either dissapeared or been found dead (in kinda mysterious circumstances like floating in the Miss River) - and all were the top researchers dealing with biological agents ranging from Anthrax to Flu virii :) |
Quote:
You've watched to many Airport movies. There is a big difference between flying a single prop Cessna 152 and a turbine Boeing jumbo jet. http://www.militaryfactory.com/cockpits/imgs/152.jpg http://www.militaryfactory.com/cockpits/imgs/777.jpg First you think you can melt a spoon with a lighter and now you think you can fly a jumbo jet. I'm starting to believe you are clinically insane. Thank you, The Voice in Your Head |
im with you smokey. anyone who has done a bit of research will agree there are way too many unanswered questions. far more than you've pointed out here. imo the 9/11 commission was a joke. it IS the "conspiracy theory". just my $2c
|
poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:S |
100........
|
Quote:
who cares about wtc? youre writing like someone who dies there... you died there? no? so stfu and take care about your job... rednecks from america hehe... even not real peoples from there... where are indians/redskins now you wtc psycho? the real peoples of america you stupid motherfucker? hehe stfu biatch, dont post anymore please :pimp |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkster You might want to check your facts before you post stupid shit - like Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 which both lay down the exact requirements the President must follow in wars. I dont know where you got your misunderstanding of the law but its way off base Of course every president that has been involved with a war since Truman has neglected to follow the Constitution - most of them got around it by never actually declaring a "war" Also your "fact" about the time requirements is wrong - if the President does use force he must inform Congress within 48 HOURs and Congress must then either declare a war or disapprove of it within 90 days - again something they havent done but thats just because most Americans are just as misinformed as you are I am cognizant of Article I Section 8 and I am cognizant of the 1973 "resolution" known as the War Powers Act. The War Powers act is a non binding "resolution" as is the nature of a "resolution". Many constitutional legal scholars believe that the "resolution" is not within the Constitutional powers of Congress and I would assume that is why it was passed as a resolution. Many constitutional scholars maintain that the Congress does not have the power to over ride Article II Section II of the constitution which designates the President to be the Commander in Chief of the military. Maybe you can point out the "48 HOURS" that the "resolution" states the President must report to congress as I cannot seem to find it. As for me being misinformed, maybe you should rethink that position. |
Quote:
they said the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel.. Which is what I've said.. Oh no.. that means if you agree with that site, you agree with me! :) As for the rest of it... Lots of could have's and may have's.. like I responded earlier... You're right.. simple terms.. Keep digging :) |
Quote:
The difference between me and you is i post facts , you post nothing but your own ignorance.. Heres your first clue.. dead people dont write anything moron. Who knows what the fuck indians and redskins have to do with your fantasy , i think your on some serious wrong meds. i suggest you tell your doctor the pills aren't working Instead of showing any proof of even one of the things mentioned you bablle on like an incoherent idiot... Please do us a favour and dont breed. |
Quote:
duh driving a car is the same as a plane lol I nominate that for inbred statement of the year award |
"The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was." Do you have any idea how tight security was in the WTC. No you don't, because my bet is you have never been out of your redneck state, wherever that is. I went thru there on an almost daily basis, and you did not get into the upper areas without passing thru very tight security. Think about the amount of explosives it would have taken to bring those 3 buildings down. You are saying that not one person would have questioned anything.:helpme |
http://www.u-blog.net/COUFFINBAGAY/i...erson-jump.jpg
They should make it a mandatory law that all companies in office buildings this high up provide every employee with emergency evacuation chutes. And don't laugh. This is a real product on the market for only $1485. Its designed for exactly this situation where your only choice is to jump. http://www.lifelinesecurity.com/evacuchute.gif http://www.lifelinesecurity.com/rescuejump.jpg INFO: The EVACUCHUTE Parachute is a last resort means of escaping a building fire or bio attack. We have all seen horrific photos of people jumping out of building windows to escape fire. Well now there is the EVACUCHUTE emergency escape parachute. The EVACUCHUTE is intended for those who live or work in high rise buildings. It is specially designed just for jumping from buildings. Unlike a conventional sport chute that sways back and forth and tends to pull the jumper back toward the building, the EVACUCHUTE has a slow steady forward descent that pushes you away from the building and not back into it. The EVACUCHUTE opens automatically with no cord to pull. Rigorously tested and TSO-C23A certified. Comes complete with parachute, carrying bag, breathing hood and helmet. |
Quote:
false fact after false fact , just pile up as you speak.. I have posted several pictures.. "you even make sure its the only images you posted" so thats a lie.. "You know damn well when posting this shit you would get opposing views," yes and.... .... thats why i posted 3 facts to debate, you havent even started.. im waiting for someone to actually debate the topic posted in the thread.. perhaps you should go look back on page #1 and start from there. So far your still making up theories in your head. i have posted 3 facts that require an investigation , and nobody has given me any reason why they shouldnt be.. they just talk about bush and missiles and etc etc that hasnt been mentioned.. most people dont even read the first thread before they post I'm sorry if you got offended that i am frustrated with people who dont understand basic english , but it gets frustrating teaching people how to comprehend english. Half the people in this thread cant even understand the basic concept of what a conspiracy is.. |
Quote:
I didnt speculate as to what caused the collapse or who or why. All i asked for is an investigation to honour the unanswered question from the official report for the people that died. |
Getting sick of this now...
|
oh and speculating on where someone has been that you have never met is foolish to say the least. nor does it have anything to do with the 3 questions posed in this thread.. NOTHING at all
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites Flying a small plane is no more difficult than driving a car. Once you learn to fly a small plane learning to fly a large plane (having practiced on a simulator and learning certain characteristics) is no more difficult than flying a small plane. I am out of here. Please point out to me where I stated that "driving a car is the same as a plane"? You have obnoxiously complained about people having a reading comprehension problem when it appears that you have the very same problem. I have driven both a car and various planes. I have not flown a jumbo but I have flown twin engine planes. Once you have flown a small single engine aircraft (which is as easy as driving a car) stepping up to a larger aircraft is a very small step (once you have learned the characteristics of the aircraft). Maybe you do not drive or fly. This is the last statement I will make on this subject as I am not into arguing with an immature board whore. BTW, maybe you deserve the "inbred statement of the year award" rather than I. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you speak Martian or are you just drunk? |
Quote:
Quote:
How old are you ? |
Quote:
Your one of the growing number of people who seem to not understand english. You didnt even read the thread but you think you know how i feel ? stop smoking the crack son.. I idnt post any "theories" i posted 3 questions.. none of which you have answered or come close to answering.. |
Quote:
There were a lot of conspiracies involved in that escapade for sure. That's why it cracks me up in some other threads on the immigration issues, where people "This is OUR country!". WTF? The Indians were here long before us and we just came and settled on their land, slaughtered them all, and then forced the ones still alive onto Indian Reservations with some token BS compensation. :1orglaugh |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123