GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - 5 years 9/11

Page 4 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - 5 years 9/11 - what most likely happend! (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=652844)

Overload

09-07-2006 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

I almost took you serious till i read this.

Sorry.

Next.

i never took you serious coz you ignored all the physical facts of the story ... and i really doubt you ever considered anything else true but your own confession ... keep believing in the official lies ... even if the truth would be revealed in front of your eyes you'd still stick to the official crap and defend it ... sorry, but you need to open your eyes before you can see ... its so sad that so many people believe in the twisted lies of the administration ...

honest, look at the "pentagon impact" ... where are the engines of that jetplane ? they went up in smoke ? dude, i have friends working for honeywell and all told me they know about APUs and engines ... the fanhub found in the pentagon has NO affinity to a APU or any other device on a passenger airplane ... but its very simsilar to a cruise missile as mentioned before ... confirmed by another friend who has been in the armed forces ...

just quit all those lies and admit it ... this is a big construct of crap ...

Minte

09-07-2006 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

funny thread we have here. lot of people arguing. none of which are engineers or even have college degrees in the subjects related to this discussion.

stick to porn guys.

What makes you think no one in porn has an engineering degree?
I know of at least two of us that do.Shemp and I.

However,I only dabbled in metallurgy as a mechanical engineer primarily in tool steels,not construction grade matériels.There is quite a bit of technical information available online these days regarding the loss of tensile strength in low carbon(construction) steels when exposed to heat.It's certainly not a reach to see that the initial explosion destroyed enough of the ablative matériel on the truss clips to effectively reduce the holding power.Factor in that the plane itself severed at least 20% of the vertical structural members.The remaining columns took the load until the clips finally failed after being exposed to heat.(they anneal/get softer).
I've never heard anyone technically qualified talk about or run the numbers
on the inertia generated to calculate how fast a tower like that would actually collapse.My guess it would be iffy at best.These towers were not empty shells.Elevator shafts,HVAC,large diameter sprinkler pipes,furniture glass in tension.,etc....all these things would factor in.Logic says it would start slow,as each floor collapsed and the weight became greater it would gain momentum. If the planes would've hit lower on the structure,doing the same amount of initial damage,they would have collapsed much faster than they actually did.

Dirty F

09-07-2006 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

Cool, missile, sure...whatever you want.

Please tell me where the passengers and the crew and the plane are that is missing if that was actually a missile.

elitegirls

09-07-2006 04:46 PM

@vvg: common sense is engough to see that something can not be truth in the official story, got that?

@franck: overload and I answered you that question and you can easily answer it for you, too, when you'd watch the movies linked in this thread.

btw: your questions are very dumb and let see through your weak brain. but if you can sleep better i'll answer them for you again little kiddie:

Quote:

Question 1: The planes crashing into the building didnt make the bombs go off.

yes or no?

obviously no, overload explained that to you.

Quote:

Question 2: They were able to only detonate the dynamite or whatever planted BELOW the floor where the plane entered the building. The dynamite on the higher floors was "turned off" after the plane hit the wtc.

yes or no?

yes or no, neither is a possible answer for your question. gramma wasn't your best skill in class? ;) it's also no question, it's a phrase you would like to think it's true or reality.
but thats your fantasie, thinking explosions on toop of the entry holes where the plains hit would have been tourned off/defused(? did you mean that?/or exploded/failed to explode afterwards.

no yes/or no answer is possible, because you've already created your fantasie.

and again as overload pointed out, and many demolion experts also did, it's no problem to take such a building down, even when a plan hit it.
(actually the towers were build to resist a impact from a 747! and they did..)

there were also detonations beneath or on the floor, which many eyewittnesses feld like a 'earthquake'!

please explain now the building seven collapse!

or will you surrender little slave? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

elitegirls

09-07-2006 04:55 PM

cmon franck, it's clear it was no passenger jet in washington.. LOL

ronbotx

09-07-2006 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elitegirls

the point is franck, if you watched this short 13min video, you wouldn't ask your questions.

you get all your questions answered by this EXPERT.

but if you don't see the movie, which is the topic here.. :321GFY

You do realize that Jeff King .... EXPERT.... is an M.D. (thats medical doctor) and has a degree from MIT in bio-medical engineering.....

NO expertise in structural or mechanical enginneering. No experience with explosives.

You did know that didn't you?????

ronbotx

09-07-2006 05:40 PM

Actually I was slightly off on his degree. He had a combined major of chemical engineering and physical biology.

A REAL EXPERT in analyzing building construction and collapse, as well as demolitions.... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Webby

09-07-2006 06:24 PM

Pulling the words of the messenger apart - Jeff King - does not change the facts.

Construction like the WTC towers (and this is no different to similar construction elsewhere) comprises of a "mesh" of steel. Penetration of that mesh has never been known to cause the total collapse of a construction anywhere - even when forced with much higher impacts in earthquakes than that of an aircraft.

So far, there is no transparency - there are lies of course issued at various pionts - example being those of FEMA "the air is safe to breath" and where the FEMA report was edited by White House Counsel to avoid stating the truth.

This is like trusting a second user car salesman to be truthful. It was the same car salesman and sales staff who verified the evidence Iraq had WMD. It was the same car salesman and sales staff who made claims of no secret camps and torture centers. It was the same car salesman and staff who vowed to capture the alleged perp, bin Laden. It was the same car salesman and staff who helped in the aftermath of Katrina.

Bottom line.. the car salesman has no cred and can't be trusted. Whether the WTC towers have "meaning" attached or not, - the fact that there is no transparency will obviously lead to conjucture/conspiracy theories. It does not take a scientist to explain why such structures "should" not collapse - tho it may take a scientist to explain why the laws of gravity were suspended on 9/11.

John69

09-07-2006 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elitegirls

cmon franck, it's clear it was no passenger jet in washington.. LOL

it was a drone plane or tomahawk missle guided in,
the FBI stole all local video tapes from local merchants.

elitegirls

09-07-2006 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

right webby, good post!

elitegirls

09-07-2006 07:36 PM

franck vanished ;)

Dirty F

09-08-2006 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elitegirls

franck vanished ;)

Yeah i was gone because your arguments are so good i didnt know what to do anymore.

No i was out having beers you idiot. Dont flatter yourself too much retard. Youre not that interesting.

xcitecash

09-08-2006 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

and the pentagon:
"Plains are made of alluminium jadajadajada...." NO THEY AREN'T DO YOUR RESAERCH INSTEAD OF BELIEVING EVEYTHING SOME INTERNET MOVIE IS TRYING TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE.

Its not a case of believing "some internet movie" there is just more proof that it wasn't a plane than proof it was

face facts most of the stories of the "official" version are just plain stupid

Dirty F

09-08-2006 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xcitecash

Its not a case of believing "some internet movie" there is just more proof that it wasn't a plane than proof it was

face facts most of the stories of the "official" version are just plain stupid

Where did the plane go then and all its passsengers and crew? Dissapeared?

Dirty F

09-08-2006 02:40 AM

Oh wait, you cannot answer that ofcourse...but hey the official stories are bullshit right and the TONS of eyewitnesses all seeing a plane crashing into the building are hired by the goverment?

Dirty F

09-08-2006 02:42 AM

Compared to the many, many people who saw a plane entering the Pentagon how many exactly saw a missile?

elitegirls

09-08-2006 11:26 AM

lol franck, round 2.? ;)

bump 4 tha truth

Dollarmansteve

09-08-2006 11:57 AM

People deal with extreme, world-view-altering events in different ways. Some people cannot accept any of the realities of what happened on 9/11 and need to package the events in such a way as to make them feel good about their life.

What's funny about the above statement - is that it is completely unbiased and applies equally to both sides of the 'argument' - even though there is only one truth, whatever it is.

elitegirls

09-08-2006 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

interesting post dollarman!

but your statement implied that those, who saw the truth won't admit it, because the truth don't fit in to their believe system, their world view, their reality tunnel, to speak with the words of timothy leary.

also implied by the word 'reality' is, that there is just 1 reality, everything else is fiction.

so franck lives in his own fictional world, believing what he should believe.

Lykos

09-08-2006 12:36 PM

not bad video.,...

elitegirls

09-08-2006 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lykos

not bad video.,...

:thumbsup :thumbsup

Dollarmansteve

09-08-2006 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elitegirls

so franck lives in his own fictional world, believing what he should believe.

As do we all - but there is no denying the existence of events or things that are completely independent of analysis. For example there is no denying the existence of the sun - even a non-thinking entity such as an apple tree could, if able to communicate (yes im aware of the paradox of a non-thinking entity that can comminucate...), comfirm the existence of the sun.

So, in that light, if the concrete wall of the pentagon or the steel of the WTC could talk - what would they say? Would the pentagon say "damn that 757 fucked me up" or "why did i just get a missile shot at me?"

And no one could argue with that..

hoob	09-08-2006 02:00 PM

I'm not one to normally get in the middle of internet squabbles but:

Quote:

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

hoob	09-08-2006 02:03 PM

and also

Quote:

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

hoob	09-08-2006 02:05 PM

somebody asked about wtc#7

Quote:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

hoob	09-08-2006 02:18 PM

one more, but just a link this time

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17400

Serge Litehead

09-08-2006 02:27 PM

hoob, interesting posts, thanks

elitegirls

09-08-2006 02:30 PM

you trust fema hoob? trusting fema is like trusting the SS in the 3. reich..

elitegirls

09-08-2006 02:30 PM

oh i see, franck the little crank opened his own anti conspiracy, anti-truth thread.. that stand for itselfe :D

elitegirls

09-09-2006 01:00 PM

little bumper 4 franck

directfiesta

09-09-2006 01:05 PM

today's news:

Did the 9/11 hijackers have a U.S. accomplice?
Yemeni man under investigation two years after U.S. deported him

Amazing how this guy got shipped out, while innocents are kept in Gitmo or secret prisons ...

elitegirls

09-09-2006 01:19 PM

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/..._multiply.html
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...radiction.html

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=769

...

4. reich exposed

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 AM.

Page 4 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page