GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 5 of 5 < 1234 5
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)

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
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.
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&#176; to 1500&#176;F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750&#176;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&#176;F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800&#176; 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&#176;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 11:13 AM.
Page 5 of 5 < 1234 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123