GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 33 of 37 « First < 14151617181920212223242526272829303132 33 34353637 >
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)
-   -   9/11 conspiracy theorists unite (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=986544)

Rochard 04-30-2012 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
Actually, 15% or less of the perimeter columns being damaged would not affect ALL floors or the core.
The perimeter columns supported all of the floors - from the ground level up to the top. They perimeter columns were damaged, and in some cases completely destroyed. The perimeter columns started to bend outwards due to the damage and the fires, pulling the trusses on every floor below it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
True, if a large number of perimieter columns were compromised top-to-bottom. But they were not. The damage WAS limited, as per engineers' and architects' expected designs...
You keep trying to minimise the damage to the perimeter columns. In some places they were completely destroy, so nothing was supporting the floors above. The perimeter columns were also pushed out, pulling the floors with them which not only affected the perimeter columns below, but also affected the perimeter columns on all sides being as the floor and the trusses holding the floor in place were being pulled away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
If that floor were more solid, uncompromised and structurally sound, then yes your top section would meet resistance and either take much more than one-tenth of a second to give way, or present the much more likely amount of resistance that would cause the toppling upper section to tilt towards the side where structure was most compromised and weak.
But not all floors were uncompromised or structurally sound.

And no, nothing would have "tilted to the side". The floors fell down. Not sideways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)

And this doesn't explain why the core disappeared, the perimeters shredded, and the whole building was destroyed as though the whole thing was hit by a 100-storey jet plane.
A massive one story building collapsed. This was so massive that it caved in ten levels underground, and was still ten stories tall above ground. Millions and millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god knows what fell.

This is where your points fail. Your making it sounds like the core magically disappeared, but that would have happened no matter what. Even if the building was brought down entirely by explosives, the core and everything else would have been pulverised and turned into debris.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
Yes. And no combustibles, and 50 columns thicker than your bathroom, which got thicker the further down you went, and whose shredding can in no way be accounted for by the official theory.
What do you mean by no combustibles? In the core itself were utility rooms with back up batteries and generators. Bathrooms had paper towels and rags and trash bins. Your making the core to be solid steel with the fact it was elevtaors and rooms full of combustibles with load bearing walls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
The two airplanes hit in completely different fashion. There is no proof that core columns were damaged, even if it's likely; in fact the impact that could be considered "glancing" had a titanium engine go right through, which removes the possibility that it hit any of the core columns.
Two large airplanes hit two tall buildings.

Saying they were different is like saying one car hit another car head on at 70mph opposed to one car hitting the passenger door head on at 70mph. Very different, but you still end up with the same result.

Planes crashed into the towers, destroying the support and hitting the core.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
An hour-long fire would not weaken steel unless it was approximately 6 times the reported temperatures.
So what your saying here is that thermite couldn't have been used to take down the buildings because the fire wasn't hot enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
Actually, this is precisely what it was designed to withstand. One of the building engineers is quoted as saying that they could withcstand multiple impacts of this sort, based on the largest airliner at the time, which contained more steel and less aluminum than modern air craft.
Key word here is "designed for".

My car is designed with a crumble zone so that I can survive a car crash. However, that doesn't guarantee that I will survive a car crash.

The buildings were designed to survive a plane crash, but not the kind of plane crash that happened. They were designed to survive an impact of a plan traveling at 300 mph - not a plane intentionally slammed into a building at almost twice that speed.

And the towers did in fact survive the impact. It was the impact and the resulting fires that took down the towers, not the impact itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)



The truth is, the building was designed to take your airplane hit.
No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand an impact at 180mph, not the 600mph. Planes don't travel 600mph at that height, and at the time it no one imagined someone would intentionally ram the towers at 600mph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916858)
Actually, neither have I, but it was the one conspiracy theory you didn't mention :P

It was also the instigator of the first "Patriot Act"....
And the Patriot Act did what?

Do you mean to tell me that the US government bombed buildings to enact a law? What exactly did that law accomplish? Can they read my email? Could they read my email before? Now? I'm sure they can.

2MuchMark 04-30-2012 11:40 AM
Hey Rockhard - next time you're in Montreal, you should come out with us for a beer... or 10...

Rochard 04-30-2012 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916980)
Really? How could explosions occur in the lobby before the collapse? How could they (as reported by other witnesses) occur before the impacts?
We discussed this before. Fireballs instantly raced down the elevator shafts at the moment of impact.

And no matter what... Let's just say that towers were taken down by explosives. Why would there be explosions in the basement an hour before the towers fell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916980)
Your fireballs are hypothetical, and could not take out basements. Explain those.
How can you call fireballs hypothetical - Everyone in the world saw massive fireballs. MASSIVE.

http://www.cookeonfire.com/Images/Fireball-on-WTC2.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916980)
The possible fireballs that you believe in would have descended the elevator shafts (possibly) and taken out either one of the sky-lobbies, the lobby or blown out the doors of the sub-basements. Not all of these, and certainly not the structural bases of the basements.
It's a documented fact that fireballs reached the lobby at the moment of impact. One woman getting into an elevator was nearly burned to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18916980)
A fireball is a ball of fire, not an explosive event. How could it have taken out (for example) the huge marble tiles of the walls in the actual labbies?
No one ever said anything about taking out huge marble tiles or walls in the lobbies. In fact, the lobbies were pretty much intact after the fireball. The glass was pretty much blown out, but because there was little to burn in the lobby - which was like four stories tall and for the most part empty - it quickly burned itself out.

MediaGuy 04-30-2012 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
The perimeter columns supported all of the floors - from the ground level up to the top. They perimeter columns were damaged, and in some cases completely destroyed. The perimeter columns started to bend outwards due to the damage and the fires, pulling the trusses on every floor below it.
Each floor was buttressed by the perimeter columns. The failure of these on one or multiple floors would not lead to their failure top to bottom of all floors.

The unlikely NIST theory is that the inner buttresses between the core and perimeter began to "sag" because somehow low temperatures for a short amount of time weakened the steel which they were made of.

The official conspiracy theory states the perimeter columns bent inwards, not "outwards" as you claim.

Regardless, this would not "pull" all perimeter columns all the way down to their undamaged and un-weakened base 80 stories below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
You keep trying to minimise the damage to the perimeter columns. In some places they were completely destroy, so nothing was supporting the floors above. The perimeter columns were also pushed out, pulling the floors with them which not only affected the perimeter columns below, but also affected the perimeter columns on all sides being as the floor and the trusses holding the floor in place were being pulled away.
"in some places they were completely destroy" meaning that on one side out of four of several floors of the tower there was damage - 25% or less on those floors. They didn't affect the perimeter columns below, as video and photographic evidence shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
But not all floors were uncompromised or structurally sound.
Exactly correct. Most floors were uncompromised and structurally sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
And no, nothing would have "tilted to the side". The floors fell down. Not sideways.
Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.

Out of three buildings, you'd think at least one would tilt and fall sideways, but none did.

One did start to fall sideways, but against all probability got "eaten up" and consumed in the vertical destruction.

There's nothing in these "collapses" that smacks of "origanic" or natural collapse...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
A massive one story building collapsed. This was so massive that it caved in ten levels underground, and was still ten stories tall above ground. Millions and millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god knows what fell.
A plane hit it at about the 80th level. How could that have any effect on the multiple sub-basements that were eradicated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
This is where your points fail. Your making it sounds like the core magically disappeared, but that would have happened no matter what. Even if the building was brought down entirely by explosives, the core and everything else would have been pulverised and turned into debris.
Well certainly if there had been a planned demolition the core would have been destroyed - it is one of the sturdiest parts of the structure, and would require special attention.

But your officially sanctioned theory would have it that the building fell by happenstance, and that the core somehow was pulverized along with the "accidental" destruction of the exterior columns and inner floors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
What do you mean by no combustibles? In the core itself were utility rooms with back up batteries and generators. Bathrooms had paper towels and rags and trash bins. Your making the core to be solid steel with the fact it was elevtaors and rooms full of combustibles with load bearing walls.
Toilet paper and plastic toilet seats will not melt steel. There were no office furnitures in the cores. Batteries and generators weren't detected or reported as having melted down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
Two large airplanes hit two tall buildings.

Saying they were different is like saying one car hit another car head on at 70mph opposed to one car hitting the passenger door head on at 70mph. Very different, but you still end up with the same result.
One building was hit head-on. Nothing erupted from the other side. The other was hit at an angle, and one engine apparently went through out the other side. Most of the Airliner fuel was ignited outside one building, whereas most was ignited inside the the other.

The buildings suffered very different impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
Planes crashed into the towers, destroying the support and hitting the core.
Nice, popular theory with no basis in reality. The support was not "destroyed" and the core was not "hit" or compromised. NIST report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
So what your saying here is that thermite couldn't have been used to take down the buildings because the fire wasn't hot enough?
What I'm saying is that the government theory cannot account for the behaviour of the steel and the building with its ridiculously low temperatures.

What I'm saying is that it would require exceedingly hotter temperatures than those accounted for by the government hypothesis to produce the results we were witness to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
The buildings were designed to survive a plane crash, but not the kind of plane crash that happened. They were designed to survive an impact of a plan traveling at 300 mph - not a plane intentionally slammed into a building at almost twice that speed.
The impact speed was secondary.

Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
And the towers did in fact survive the impact. It was the impact and the resulting fires that took down the towers, not the impact itself.
If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity. According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.

There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand an impact at 180mph, not the 600mph. Planes don't travel 600mph at that height, and at the time it no one imagined someone would intentionally ram the towers at 600mph.
About the intentional ramming of planes in the buildings - you're wrong. They were expected, and planned for.

The speed estimates have been exaggerated through ignorance. No commercial airliner can move at 600mph at this sea-level and air-pressure. Whether 200mph or 400mph, these sorts of incidents were considered.

Plenty of agencies were planning for such attacks. Only Condie Rice and Bush Jr. ever claimed that no one imagined attacks of this sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
And the Patriot Act did what?
Made your life so much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917027)
Do you mean to tell me that the US government bombed buildings to enact a law? What exactly did that law accomplish? Can they read my email? Could they read my email before? Now? I'm sure they can.
I didn't or don't conjecture what "the US government" did or didn't do. I know they can do a lot more now without legal or constitutional resort than they could before September 11, 2001.

Whether or not that's affected you yet I can't say. I can bet that it will sooner or later though...

:D

Rochard 04-30-2012 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
Each floor was buttressed by the perimeter columns. The failure of these on one or multiple floors would not lead to their failure top to bottom of all floors.

The unlikely NIST theory is that the inner buttresses between the core and perimeter began to "sag" because somehow low temperatures for a short amount of time weakened the steel which they were made of.

The official conspiracy theory states the perimeter columns bent inwards, not "outwards" as you claim.

Regardless, this would not "pull" all perimeter columns all the way down to their undamaged and un-weakened base 80 stories below.



"in some places they were completely destroy" meaning that on one side out of four of several floors of the tower there was damage - 25% or less on those floors. They didn't affect the perimeter columns below, as video and photographic evidence shows.


Exactly correct. Most floors were uncompromised and structurally sound.


Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.

Out of three buildings, you'd think at least one would tilt and fall sideways, but none did.

One did start to fall sideways, but against all probability got "eaten up" and consumed in the vertical destruction.

There's nothing in these "collapses" that smacks of "origanic" or natural collapse...


A plane hit it at about the 80th level. How could that have any effect on the multiple sub-basements that were eradicated?


Well certainly if there had been a planned demolition the core would have been destroyed - it is one of the sturdiest parts of the structure, and would require special attention.

But your officially sanctioned theory would have it that the building fell by happenstance, and that the core somehow was pulverized along with the "accidental" destruction of the exterior columns and inner floors.



Toilet paper and plastic toilet seats will not melt steel. There were no office furnitures in the cores. Batteries and generators weren't detected or reported as having melted down.


One building was hit head-on. Nothing erupted from the other side. The other was hit at an angle, and one engine apparently went through out the other side. Most of the Airliner fuel was ignited outside one building, whereas most was ignited inside the the other.

The buildings suffered very different impacts.


Nice, popular theory with no basis in reality. The support was not "destroyed" and the core was not "hit" or compromised. NIST report.


What I'm saying is that the government theory cannot account for the behaviour of the steel and the building with its ridiculously low temperatures.

What I'm saying is that it would require exceedingly hotter temperatures than those accounted for by the government hypothesis to produce the results we were witness to...


The impact speed was secondary.

Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.


If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity. According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.

There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.


About the intentional ramming of planes in the buildings - you're wrong. They were expected, and planned for.

The speed estimates have been exaggerated through ignorance. No commercial airliner can move at 600mph at this sea-level and air-pressure. Whether 200mph or 400mph, these sorts of incidents were considered.

Plenty of agencies were planning for such attacks. Only Condie Rice and Bush Jr. ever claimed that no one imagined attacks of this sort.


Made your life so much better.


I didn't or don't conjecture what "the US government" did or didn't do. I know they can do a lot more now without legal or constitutional resort than they could before September 11, 2001.

Whether or not that's affected you yet I can't say. I can bet that it will sooner or later though...

:D
You are right.

You have changed my mind.

It's obvious to me now that by smashing a jet airliner into a skyscraper it's impossible to bring it down. It didn't happen the way the government told us. Clearly the Jews wanted us to build a pipeline through Afighanistan.

Thank you for helping me see the truth.

MediaGuy 05-07-2012 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917389)
You are right.

You have changed my mind.

It's obvious to me now that by smashing a jet airliner into a skyscraper it's impossible to bring it down. It didn't happen the way the government told us. Clearly the Jews wanted us to build a pipeline through Afighanistan.

Thank you for helping me see the truth.
Glad to hear you've approached it from a science/physics point of view.

Though I don't know what you're talking about Jews for. I didn't even mention Zionists... what's your point?

:D

GFED 05-07-2012 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18917389)
You are right.

You have changed my mind.

It's obvious to me now that by smashing a jet airliner into a skyscraper it's impossible to bring it down. It didn't happen the way the government told us. Clearly the Jews wanted us to build a pipeline through Afighanistan.

Thank you for helping me see the truth.
Truth :thumbsup

Rochard 05-07-2012 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934019)
Glad to hear you've approached it from a science/physics point of view.

Though I don't know what you're talking about Jews for. I didn't even mention Zionists... what's your point?

:D
Oh no, I took science right out of it and now it makes perfect sense.

You told me that the fire didn't burn hot enough to bend the steel beams. But then you told me that Thermite must have been used, which means the fire was four times hotter than required to bend the steel beams. Once you take science out of everything, anything you say makes perfect sense.

MediaGuy 05-07-2012 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18934094)
Oh no, I took science right out of it and now it makes perfect sense.

You told me that the fire didn't burn hot enough to bend the steel beams. But then you told me that Thermite must have been used, which means the fire was four times hotter than required to bend the steel beams. Once you take science out of everything, anything you say makes perfect sense.
No, I said the government's version isn't consistent or logical because it's version has fires burning much below and for much less time required to soften/bend/weaken steel.

The only way the steel could have softened/bent/weakened so much - and so universally and equally - in such a short time is if the alternate theory were accurate.

:D

2MuchMark 05-07-2012 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18904421)
Actually that's not correct according to too much video and eyewitness testimony. If you don't see symmetry and global obliteration there, you're not watching enough videos.
You don't get it.

Let's say you were standing 10 feet away from any building as it fell apart. You would see pieces flying and falling all over the place: To the left, to the right, in front of and behind you. It would look like a cloud of debris.

Now imagine yourself a few miles away. It would appear to you that the building is falling straight down because from your point of view, it is. There's nothing to the left or to the right, or in front or behind.

The same analogy applies to anything. From a distance a snowflake looks like a single white dot. But under a microscope it is a highly detailed structure.

All of the up-close footage I have seen (and you have seen) looks like a cloud of frame-enveloping debris. All of the distant cameras look like a straight-down fall.

Even a true controlled demolition looks like a cloud of debris up close.

You are looking at the visual "evidence" and seeing only what you want to see, discounting everything else and / or finding excuses for things that do not fit your version of what happened. You are not truly skeptical, and you're not approaching this from a scientific or fact-finding point of view. Instead like most other conspiracy theorists you are looking for "evidence" that proves your pre conceived notions only.

Tisk tisk.

2MuchMark 05-07-2012 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.
The term "Vertically" would mean absolutely no movement on the X or Y axis of any component of the building. Any video of the collapse clearly shows debris going on all directions outward from the building.

It is not against all probability because it did not fall "perfectly, vertically".

Imagine yourself closer to the explosion, and you'll see that your statement is not valid and should be removed from any future arguments.

JFK 05-07-2012 05:11 PM
1500................conspiracies

2MuchMark 05-07-2012 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
The impact speed was secondary.
You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.
Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity.
Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.
Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams. WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18917176)
There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.
The amount of energy at floor level was 5 x 10^11 Joules. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf . More than enough energy to crash through the basement and destroy everything.

Rochard 05-07-2012 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934692)
No, I said the government's version isn't consistent or logical because it's version has fires burning much below and for much less time required to soften/bend/weaken steel.
Your right, the government's version isn't consistent at all. This is because it's not putting out a story at all, but instead, smaller government agencies are trying to explain what happened. These government agencies do not have anyone telling them what to say, and they come up with their own, independent versions of what happened.

It's like ten people seeing a car accident from different angles. Ten people will come up with three or four explanations of what happened.

The truth is they are trying to explained what happened on 9/11 without having enough information, and only going on clues. They can't explain why steel bent because they didn't have a camera up there recording what happened during that hour.

You can pick it apart so quickly because we don't have all of the answers - and we never will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934692)
The only way the steel could have softened/bent/weakened so much - and so universally and equally - in such a short time is if the alternate theory were accurate.
Not true at all. You assuming that only fire did damage.

At the moment of impact, some of the support was instantly destroyed while others were damaged. Yet other support beams were instantly supporting more and more weight. The already damaged beams, under a huge amount of stress, were then exposed to heat... Plenty enough to do further damage to the beams.

MediaGuy 05-07-2012 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".
I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.
Well if you want to venture into other areas of speculation, most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.

Radar and GPS data will not testify to whether an airframe's operator is human or programmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?
This is a good question I don't have the answer off the top of my head. What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support. Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams. WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.
"Projections" at the time and later (as late as 2010) were based on scientific detail and information. You should stop trying to cloud this info in disinfo....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
The amount of energy at floor level was 5 x 10^11 Joules. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf . More than enough energy to crash through the basement and destroy everything.
Isn't that the energy created by explosives rather than mass/volume failures...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18934855)
Your right, the government's version isn't consistent at all. This is because it's not putting out a story at all, but instead, smaller government agencies are trying to explain what happened. These government agencies do not have anyone telling them what to say, and they come up with their own, independent versions of what happened.
Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different? Why would that be? This is a single event coordinated by a single suspect and organization whose financing the 9/11 commission claims is not important and which you're now saying was actuated by a bunch of different groups? So who could have done it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
It's like ten people seeing a car accident from different angles. Ten people will come up with three or four explanations of what happened.
So why do you decide that the government theory/version/vision of facts is accurate? Since there are so many different versions, especially considering that before the firefighter testimonials were released no explosions were heard prior to collapse, for example, how do you make that decision? Faith in your government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
The truth is they are trying to explained what happened on 9/11 without having enough information, and only going on clues. They can't explain why steel bent because they didn't have a camera up there recording what happened during that hour.
You're right that they didn't have enough information. They were guessing before they had evidence. While they can't explain the way steel bent, and simply admit to it in the FEMA report as a "mystery", the NIST report simply ignores it all...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
You can pick it apart so quickly because we don't have all of the answers - and we never will.
We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it - though your suggestion that we "never will" is gratuitous and only serves to remove any consideration of a real investigation of the facts in the future...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
Not true at all. You assuming that only fire did damage.
Not true at all. I'm not assuming anything. I consider the facts that according to building designers and steel support construction, buildings such as WTC 1 and 2 as well as number 7 could not have collapsed due to the damage incurred by the foreseen airline impacts and fires which occurred...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ********** (Post 18934777)
At the moment of impact, some of the support was instantly destroyed while others were damaged. Yet other support beams were instantly supporting more and more weight. The already damaged beams, under a huge amount of stress, were then exposed to heat... Plenty enough to do further damage to the beams.
Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.

Whereas the opposite is true.... or truer...

Dirty F 05-07-2012 07:37 PM
http://www.cointalk.com/attachments/...ore-aliens.jpg

dgraves 05-07-2012 07:38 PM
I'd like to see at least one other camera angle of the Pentagon attack. My gym has 12 cameras monitoring the outside so I'm a little surprised that the Pentagon only has a parking lot gate camera keeping an eye on things.

Rochard 05-07-2012 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...
Of course speed matters.

If you ram your car into a brick wall at 10mph, you'll dent your car. Ram it at 60mph and your going right through it. A plan hitting a building at 300mph does a certain amount of damage, and a plane hitting a building at twice that speed does a lot more damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
....most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.
Not at all. A few hours of flight training and I'm pretty sure anyone can do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support. Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...
No, not at all. The steel was already bent, twisted, mangled, and damaged. Undamaged steel beams not under stress will start bend at between 600-800 degrees. The steel in the WTC was subjected to the same temp, but was damaged and under stress - a lot of stress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different?
There is no "single" version the government is putting out. There are multiple agencies and multiple private companies that have done investigations, and have come up with multiple reasons for the fall of the towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)

We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it....
And you think we should do what? Store it until the end of time? Your talking about millions of tons of debris. Where would you store it? And how much would it cost? And why? We've been over the debris, and most of it was sent off to various agencies, private and government, for testing. Multiple investigations was done, answers were handed out, and it's over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
Not true at all. I'm not assuming anything. I consider the facts that according to building designers and steel support construction, buildings such as WTC 1 and 2 as well as number 7 could not have collapsed due to the damage incurred by the foreseen airline impacts and fires which occurred...
Lies.

The buildings were in fact no designed to withstand such impacts or the resulting fires. They were designed to withstand impacts from smaller planes at lower speeds that hit the towers by accident - not by someone intentionally ramming the buildings at 600mph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy (Post 18934940)
Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.
Not at all.

From one of your friends: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/steel.html

They claim that steel will melt at 800 degrees. That is, of course, undamaged steel not under any pressure or stress. The fire was between 600-800 degrees... More than enough to cause the steel to bend or melt.

Rochard 05-07-2012 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18934956)
I'd like to see at least one other camera angle of the Pentagon attack. My gym has 12 cameras monitoring the outside so I'm a little surprised that the Pentagon only has a parking lot gate camera keeping an eye on things.
Yesterday in Costco I noticed a camera set up with 12 cameras with a recording system for $499. Pretty cheap.

But in 2001.... It was a bit expensive and their concerns were most likely more in tune to what was going on inside the building, not outside.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18934956)
I'd like to see at least one other camera angle of the Pentagon attack. My gym has 12 cameras monitoring the outside so I'm a little surprised that the Pentagon only has a parking lot gate camera keeping an eye on things.
Oh come on, there are STILL people out there who believe it was not a plane flying into the Pentagon? You have to be fucking kidding me?

dgraves 05-07-2012 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 18935063)
Oh come on, there are STILL people out there who believe it was not a plane flying into the Pentagon? You have to be fucking kidding me?
You saw it? I'd settle for a few pics of it and would love some video.

dgraves 05-07-2012 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 18935063)
Oh come on, there are STILL people out there who believe it was not a plane flying into the Pentagon? You have to be fucking kidding me?
clearly damage from a large aircraft. if you didn't know what happened that day and someone showed you these photos, would your first thought be that it got hit by a 757? it's obvious that it got hit by something but not a 757.

http://pentagon.spacelist.org/images...shot-after.jpg

Rochard 05-07-2012 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935147)
clearly damage from a large aircraft. if you didn't know what happened that day and someone showed you these photos, would your first thought be that it got hit by a 757? it's obvious that it got hit by something but not a 757.

http://pentagon.spacelist.org/images...shot-after.jpg
You need to put this into context here. This image makes it look like it took out a section of a warehouse, which is far from the truth. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world.

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.

dgraves 05-07-2012 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18935162)
You need to put this into context here. This image makes it look like it took out a section of a warehouse, which is far from the truth. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world.

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.
why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

epitome 05-07-2012 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935164)
why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?
Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 10:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935164)
why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?
Please explain all the pictures with plane debris. I can't believe i'm even asking this.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 10:58 PM
Actually, don't even bother. It will be the same old retarded shit you idiots been saying for the last 10 years.

dgraves 05-07-2012 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18935169)
Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.
buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:01 PM
The Pentagon didn't release videos showing it was a plane. Therefore it must've been a missile.
- The truther

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:02 PM
Dgraves, where did the plane and all it's passengers go if it didn't fly into the Pentagon? And why replace a plane on its way there with a missile.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:04 PM
The truther:
Yes, the American government flew planes into their own buildings.
No, they didn't fly a plane into the Pentagon. They made it dissapear and sent a missile instead.
I know this because the Pentagon didn't show it was a plane. Fuck the witnesses and the plane wreckage found in and around the building. Not relevant.
Yes, that makes perfect sense in my little fantasy world.

epitome 05-07-2012 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935176)
buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".
All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 18934955)
Funny how i post this picture to make fun of truthers and they don't even get it that they are doing exactly that.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18935183)
All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?
Yes obviously they were part of the conspiracy. They actually were there to quickly plant plane debris in and around the Pentagon seconds after the missile hit the building.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:09 PM
The truther:
No video it was a plane = evidence it was a plane.
Pictures of plane debris in and around the Pentagon = not evidence it was a plane.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:11 PM
Amazing how everything has to be a conspiracy. I mean it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever anymore. There were no hijackers, the American government flew into their own towers. And at the same time it's impossible one of those planes flew into the Pentagon. These people are just so fucking batshit crazy. Any form is logic is completely non existant.

dgraves 05-07-2012 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 18935172)
Please explain all the pictures with plane debris. I can't believe i'm even asking this.
i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact. are we expected to believe that's all the government has? everyone agrees it's a stout building with some important shit in it and it's a prime target for an attack. the government isn't concerned about security costs so you know that building is loaded with all kinds of surveillance equipment so why not show any other angle. at least something other than crappy "now you see it, now you don't" stills from a parking lot gate camera.

i doubt anyone would attack my gym but if they did, they would have multiple video angles of the event. surrounding buildings would even have some angles of it.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935197)
i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

God, this is just too much...

Fuck the plane debris, not important, who cares. Right?

On ignore, i can't handle this insanity anymore. Bye retardboy.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:15 PM
I think this one sentence sums up this whole thread and the insanity of truthers in general and why you never can win from them:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 18935197)
i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact.

Dirty F 05-07-2012 11:18 PM
You read it right. The pictures of plane debris is "just a theory". The PICTURES are just a theory. The debris itself also does not matter. That doesn't mean anything. It's better to completely ignore the pictures and the debris. It simply has to be a missile because the Pentagon has not shown us it was a plane through video. Period.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to the truther. Not ONE moment of doubt when thinking this way. This logic will actually be picked up by another truther and be repeated on another forum.

Like i said, there is no way of winning from this kind of thinking. Impossible.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM.
Page 33 of 37 « First < 14151617181920212223242526272829303132 33 34353637 >
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