Danish chemist finds nano-explosive in WTC dust

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 41
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 41 template Next
  • xxxdesign-net
    My hips don't lie
    • Nov 2002
    • 10129
    #121
    Originally posted by Pleasurepays
    you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying.

    you fucking morons. ? lol That's wishful thinking but that's beside the point... Did you watch the video I posted? Heard what the construction manager said? Are you that much in denial?

    Here's a BBC article you might want to read before talking like you are some sort of authority on the subject..

    "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

    Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?




    CNN interview with the architects....
    ----------
    AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.

    HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?

    SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).

    Thats all you got? lol.. Yeah , that's definitive! Very detailed, not vague at all... Dismiss all the links I posted above...

    Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.
    You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient...

    http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/8687.php
    Last edited by xxxdesign-net; 04-14-2009, 08:46 AM.

      Comment

      • SmokeyTheBear
        ►SouthOfHeaven
        • Jun 2004
        • 28609
        #122
        what i always found strange was , if you wanted the buildings down and blame it on terrorists , why not just plant bombs and claim the terrorists did it , after all they have already tried this several times, why go thru some elaborate scheme to fly planes into them and THEN detonate explosives, makes no sense and makes the scam harder to hide and pull off.

        One of my theories from the beginning is that the collapse of the wtc's was nothing more than shoddy building, probably by mob contracts. exposing this would expose the fact that maybe a few hundred people would have died from terrorists and the rest from american stupidity.

        Whether america secretly trained/guided/advised or had forwarning about the plane terrorists i am on the fence about, you have to remember the terrorists HEAD dude once worked for and with the american intelligence community, thats just a tiny bit odd to start with.

        I'm not saying the usa had 100% complicity , just that they obviously knew/know more than what we hear about.
        hatisblack at yahoo.com

          Comment

          • Pleasurepays
            BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
            • Aug 2002
            • 11913
            #123
            Originally posted by xxxdesign-net

            "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
            so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?

            Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?
            you're right. the buildings suffered significant damage from the planes... then the fire sealed the deal ensuring that final structural failure. thanks for agreeing with the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA reports.



            You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient..
            i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.

            its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.

              Comment

              • XXXMovie4M
                Confirmed User
                • Sep 2008
                • 359
                #124
                of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

                can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in".

                so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash.

                the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early.

                this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse!

                btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?

                  Comment

                  • polle54
                    Confirmed User
                    • Jul 2004
                    • 4626
                    #125
                    I laughed my ass of to that fucktard the other day. jesus christ
                    ICQ# 143561781

                      Comment

                      • Pleasurepays
                        BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
                        • Aug 2002
                        • 11913
                        #126
                        Originally posted by XXXMovie4M
                        of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.
                        haha...

                        ok...

                        wow.................

                        you are stating it as fact, when its clearly not a fact.

                        furthermore, you are alleging that construction methods in the late 60's take into account 1000 plus passenger airliners in the year 2010 or space shuttles or whatever.

                        just... wow.

                        delusional much?

                          Comment

                          • WarChild
                            Let slip the dogs of war.
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 17263
                            #127
                            You can't win an argument with these far out there lunatics using logic, common sense or reason. The reason is because if they were capable of these traits in the first place they'd never have these outlandish theories backed up by one or two confused witnesses, random occurences of the numbers 9 and 11 in pop culture and visual evidence observed by laymen.

                            In short there's no possible way to educate these people and you're wasting your time.
                            .

                              Comment

                              • MIS
                                Confirmed User
                                • Jan 2005
                                • 127
                                #128
                                It's all Meg's fault!!


                                Do You Have USA Traffic? I want to buy ad space on your site(s).
                                Get paid fair market value. Serious sellers with a minimum of 20K daily USA visitors.
                                ICQ: 616-155-033 - Email: [email protected] - AIM: SellMeSpace

                                  Comment

                                  • Rochard
                                    Jägermeister Test Pilot
                                    • Dec 2001
                                    • 75733
                                    #129
                                    Originally posted by XXXMovie4M
                                    so how do you explain the hundreds of eye witnesses who reported hearing the timed explosions seconds before the building came down? reports from firefighters who obviously have seen demo jobs before said it was just like a building pull. oh, right...they must be "delusional beyond help".
                                    There were explosions from the moment of impact right up until the moment they fell. Elevator cables snapped, sending elevators crashing down to the ground level. This wasn't limited to top floors were the planes hit; It instantly spread to multiple levels including the ground floor and below.

                                    Originally posted by XXXMovie4M

                                    speaking of flying 757's into buildings, do you think it was ever possible for the average joe to go into a flight training facility and fly a 757 simulator? it was never possible regardless of the reason or amount of money paid, especially to a couple of rag heads. those facilities have strict guidelines set by the FAA.

                                    but lets say a few did get some underground training somehow, do you think they could hit those buildings pefectly the first try flying low level at 500mph?
                                    Sure, why not? I've played flight sim and it's pretty easy to hit a tall building.

                                    In fact, just yesterday a guy landed large plane after the pilot died.

                                    Doesn't seem difficult at all.

                                    Originally posted by XXXMovie4M
                                    have you seen their passports? they look like someone pulled it out of their pocket, not a pile of molten rubble.
                                    You didn't see all of the paper flying around WTC site moments after the planes hit? That shit drifted around for hours.....
                                    Herschel Savage
                                    Brooklyn, NY

                                      Comment

                                      • Vexes
                                        #130
                                        From what I have been told, the nano explosives were built INTO the building from the get go. That is how far back this nefarious plot goes back. These buildings were constructed to be future sacrificial pawns in a false flag operation by some of our own public officials.

                                        Pleasure Pays you are obviously some kind of government apologist. How can someone as "smart" as you have so much free time to spend on a retarded message board trying cover things up and always change the subject and make things personal. Who is paying you to do this? You are not a sig whore.....

                                          Comment

                                          • xxxdesign-net
                                            My hips don't lie
                                            • Nov 2002
                                            • 10129
                                            #131
                                            Originally posted by Pleasurepays
                                            so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?
                                            Not really... this was an article published september 13th, 2001.... The assumption was that a 800 C raging inferno made the building collapse... NIST later examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200 F... NIST claim on their part that this was enough for the building to collapse...





                                            i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.

                                            its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.

                                            what?!
                                            Frank DeMartini was an architect who works as the World Trade Center?s construction manager..
                                            Same thing with Hyman Brown...
                                            In other words... the builders...

                                              Comment

                                              • Rochard
                                                Jägermeister Test Pilot
                                                • Dec 2001
                                                • 75733
                                                #132
                                                Originally posted by XXXMovie4M
                                                of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

                                                can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in".

                                                so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash.

                                                the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early.

                                                this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse!

                                                btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?
                                                The WTC towers were designed in the 1960s and completed in 1971. They were designed to withstand the crash of a plane of that time - not an airplane built forty years later.

                                                No steel structured has ever collapsed like this? You think? With the exception of the Empire State building in the 1940s, no other skyscraper has ever had a large plane intentionally crashed into it! And the Empire State Building incident was completely different; The building is different, mostly concrete, and the plane was a 1940 bomber with little fuel in it.
                                                Herschel Savage
                                                Brooklyn, NY

                                                  Comment

                                                  • WarChild
                                                    Let slip the dogs of war.
                                                    • Jan 2003
                                                    • 17263
                                                    #133
                                                    Originally posted by Rochard
                                                    The WTC towers were designed in the 1960s and completed in 1971. They were designed to withstand the crash of a plane of that time - not an airplane built forty years later.

                                                    No steel structured has ever collapsed like this? You think? With the exception of the Empire State building in the 1940s, no other skyscraper has ever had a large plane intentionally crashed into it! And the Empire State Building incident was completely different; The building is different, mostly concrete, and the plane was a 1940 bomber with little fuel in it.
                                                    Again, you are trying to use logic and reason to convince someone who is not capable of either. Just let it go.
                                                    .

                                                      Comment

                                                      • Rochard
                                                        Jägermeister Test Pilot
                                                        • Dec 2001
                                                        • 75733
                                                        #134
                                                        Originally posted by XXXMovie4M
                                                        minor damage to WTC 7 jackass! the buildings were built to withstand a direct plane strike but WTC 7 had "minor" damage compared to it's structure but yet it crumbled like a deck of cards. how could such minimal damage to WTC 7 cause it to just collapse like a text book demo job. before you open your big trap, watch a demo job, then watch WTC 7 coming down and tell me what the difference is.

                                                        and, if these buildings did collapse from an aircraft hit then why wasn't the engineering firm sued? they were designed for it!
                                                        Your kidding me, right?

                                                        I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

                                                        How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.
                                                        Herschel Savage
                                                        Brooklyn, NY

                                                          Comment

                                                          • xxxdesign-net
                                                            My hips don't lie
                                                            • Nov 2002
                                                            • 10129
                                                            #135
                                                            Originally posted by Rochard
                                                            Your kidding me, right?

                                                            I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

                                                            How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.
                                                            but...

                                                              Comment

                                                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 41 template Next
                                                              Working...