Something for Swede and all the leftwing nutjobs...

[hazatude]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/31046/reopen_9_11/

[CID]

Interesting link. Immature thread title.

[bob sacamano]

About the highjacked planes having 20% pax load, I came across the theory that the terrorists booked a shit load of seats, that way they'd have lesser pax, i.e. fewer resistance.

Read it somewhere back ago, not sure how credible.

p.s. This video is lacking in the scientific department.

[. ._]

That's interesting.

I haven't heard of Cheney mentioned in the mainstream media for years. And he's the vice-president. I never noticed that until now.

Follow the money, haz. Follow the money...

-istp

[mellow_pilot]

I just watched the link. I think that some of the conclusions about VIPs knowing, and the small amount of money invested in the investigation are probably true. Istp is right, Cheney is a sneaky bastard. Based on the hooked nose and evil voice, he's probably a good pick for the villian in Spiderman 3.

The crap about temperatures of fire based on smoke and such, are bogus. These guys need to watch discovery channel more often. The bull about all the jet feul being burned off in the initial explosion, I'm sure I'm not the only one that watched an A340 at Pearson burn for hours on the feul left over after a flight from Paris. I don't claim to have a type rating on any airliners, but in my experience aircraft tend to have more feul on board right after take-off than shortly before landing.

In short these guys made arguments and gave facts backed up only by, 'cause we say its true'. Oh there was the odd quote out of context from obscure sources, but on the whole it seemed to be like this:

"Concrete can only be pulverised by an explosion.. it's true... I'm right, you can't argue with me!"

These guys are full of it. The sad thing is that most people wouldn't even question it. It's a video, huh? Well it must be true if the pictures move.
The general public is a heard of fucking sheep.


Watch, read, THINK, then decide for yourself what is true.

End of rant.

[swede]

That video encap's some of the more glaring anomalies of 911. It would have taken another hour of video to address the premise that flight 93 was shot down and that the pentagon was not hit by a 757 or anything vaguely similar in terms of size. Well done Haz, except for the immature title..

[Dust Devil]

any rightwing rednecks suprised at who takes offence at the mention of leftwing nutjobs.

[CID]

The bull about all the jet feul being burned off in the initial explosion, I'm sure I'm not the only one that watched an A340 at Pearson burn for hours on the feul left over after a flight from Paris

The A340 had tanks of fuel that slowly fed the fire. The 767s that slammed into the WTC towers were immediately torn to shreds and the fuel was released.

Try this. Take a plastic jug full of jet fuel. Take a rag or paper towel and put in in the top and light it. It will burn like that for friggen days.

Now take a shot gun, stand way back and shoot the jug. Instant huge fireball for about 2 seconds then a few tiny ground fires that last about a minute.

The crap about temperatures of fire based on smoke and such, are bogus.

Oh really? Pretty much any 12 year old farm boy knows that black smoke indicates a choking fire. If you have black smoke coming from jet fuel (yes, even when it's being ejected from a JT8D) it means that that fire cannot be as hot as possible for the specific fuel.

Ever wonder why older jets belch more black smoke than newer ones? Could it be that the newer ones burn fuel more efficiently and completely?

Concrete can only be pulverised by an explosion...

That's true. Conrcrete can handle tremendous compression loads. It can get crumbly after exposure to extreme heat however. There is no evidence that the structural supports of WTC7 were in any extreme heat and there is video showing vertical puffs coming from primary structural members. So what else would have caused the pulverization of the concrete? The building didn't suddenly get super heavy beyond the ability of the supports to support it.

[grimey]

Now take a shot gun, stand way back and shoot the jug. Instant huge fireball for about 2 seconds then a few tiny ground fires that last about a minute.

Which is long enough to light all of the crap filling the offices on fire.

Chop up a wooden desk, light it, at see how long it burns.

Oh really? Pretty much any 12 year old farm boy knows that black smoke indicates a choking fire. If you have black smoke coming from jet fuel (yes, even when it's being ejected from a JT8D) it means that that fire cannot be as hot as possible for the specific fuel.

It can, however, be hot enough to weaken and warp the steel supports.

[mellow_pilot]

CID, with exterme-in-depth-knowledge-of-everything, strikes again.

First of all I'd like to say congrats on taking quotes completly out of context to support your ideas. I underestimate the sneakyness.

On with your, once again, superior knowledge.

Try this. Take a plastic jug full of jet fuel. Take a rag or paper towel and put in in the top and light it. It will burn like that for friggen days.

Now take a shot gun, stand way back and shoot the jug. Instant huge fireball for about 2 seconds then a few tiny ground fires that last about a minute.

Is anyone else concerned about CID using firearms?

Well I gotta get me a shotgun and try this. Course, ramming a plane into building and unloading a round of buckshot into a jug are exactly the same. Scientific fact.

In truth, you can't actually say that jet feul was the cause of the black smoke. Ever seen a house fire? Black smoke sometimes, usually no Jet-A. Soot, a common result of burning paper (which is often present in an office buliding) is also black. Remember it's not just smoke from burning jet feul, there's all sorts of dust and crap floating around after you 757-shotgun a building.


Moving on, I do have to thank you for proving my point so eloquently...

Conrcrete can handle tremendous compression loads. It can get crumbly after exposure to extreme heat however. There is no evidence that the structural supports of WTC7 were in any extreme heat and there is video showing vertical puffs coming from primary structural members. So what else would have caused the pulverization of the concrete? The building didn't suddenly get super heavy beyond the ability of the supports to support it.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? There is no proof of anything here!!! I've worked around a few construction sites and I can tell you from experience, you don't need heat to make concrete explode. Concrete infact tends explode into dust when enough pressure is applied. (had a lot of fun exploding cinderblocks on Fridays before going home) "Vertical puffs of smoke" do not stand as irrefutable evidence of explosives. It simply means that's the direction the smoke went. Believe me, chuncks of building material can fly in all sorts of directions.

You're right the building didn't magically get heavier. But since it was hit by falling debris, you know the towers next to it falling down, it was weakened. Not weakened by fire, but by impact. With the structure damaged, a highrise building can fall quickly due to the increased load on the rest of the supports. If you still don't understand, got to your basement and takeout all your load bearing walls, you'll see.

Back to fire. The National Fire Laboratory is located in a rural area south-west of Ottawa. They investigate fire behaviour. One of their tests was shown on Discovery channel a while back. Seems that house fires will sometimes go from a somewhat docile condition to a raging inferno instantly and unexpectedly. What happens is that smoke, soot, and gases will become trapped in a room. Once a certain temperature is reached, they ignite and send the temperature soaring to well above that of the maximim heat produced by the original feul materials. Surprise, surprise, there is alot of black smoke too, and the building incinerates fairly quickly there after.

I'm not saying that this is what happened to the WTC. What I am saying is that the video in question gave real evidence, but rather relied on inference as proof. The video did very little to prove it's claims.

It reminds me of people who start speculating on reasons for airplane crashes right after they happen. It could be brake failure, or could be the pilot didn't fly the approach properly... ya, well it could be alot of things. The absence of fact, and questions unanswered, do not constitute proof of anything.

Oh and work on your analogies... a jug of jet feul will not burn for days, the jug will melt and feul will spill over the place. Ever 12 year old farm-boy knows that!

I repeat my earlier statement; Just cause the pictures move, doesn't make it true. Even if you like what the dancing pictures say.

[Dust Devil]

CID, with exterme-in-depth-knowledge-of-everything, strikes again.

First of all I'd like to say congrats on taking quotes completly out of context to support your ideas. I underestimate the sneakyness.

On with your, once again, superior knowledge.

Try this. Take a plastic jug full of jet fuel. Take a rag or paper towel and put in in the top and light it. It will burn like that for friggen days.

Now take a shot gun, stand way back and shoot the jug. Instant huge fireball for about 2 seconds then a few tiny ground fires that last about a minute.

Is anyone else concerned about CID using firearms?

Well I gotta get me a shotgun and try this. Course, ramming a plane into building and unloading a round of buckshot into a jug are exactly the same. Scientific fact.

In truth, you can't actually say that jet feul was the cause of the black smoke. Ever seen a house fire? Black smoke sometimes, usually no Jet-A. Soot, a common result of burning paper (which is often present in an office buliding) is also black. Remember it's not just smoke from burning jet feul, there's all sorts of dust and crap floating around after you 757-shotgun a building.


Moving on, I do have to thank you for proving my point so eloquently...

Conrcrete can handle tremendous compression loads. It can get crumbly after exposure to extreme heat however. There is no evidence that the structural supports of WTC7 were in any extreme heat and there is video showing vertical puffs coming from primary structural members. So what else would have caused the pulverization of the concrete? The building didn't suddenly get super heavy beyond the ability of the supports to support it.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? There is no proof of anything here!!! I've worked around a few construction sites and I can tell you from experience, you don't need heat to make concrete explode. Concrete infact tends explode into dust when enough pressure is applied. (had a lot of fun exploding cinderblocks on Fridays before going home) "Vertical puffs of smoke" do not stand as irrefutable evidence of explosives. It simply means that's the direction the smoke went. Believe me, chuncks of building material can fly in all sorts of directions.

You're right the building didn't magically get heavier. But since it was hit by falling debris, you know the towers next to it falling down, it was weakened. Not weakened by fire, but by impact. With the structure damaged, a highrise building can fall quickly due to the increased load on the rest of the supports. If you still don't understand, got to your basement and takeout all your load bearing walls, you'll see.

Back to fire. The National Fire Laboratory is located in a rural area south-west of Ottawa. They investigate fire behaviour. One of their tests was shown on Discovery channel a while back. Seems that house fires will sometimes go from a somewhat docile condition to a raging inferno instantly and unexpectedly. What happens is that smoke, soot, and gases will become trapped in a room. Once a certain temperature is reached, they ignite and send the temperature soaring to well above that of the maximim heat produced by the original feul materials. Surprise, surprise, there is alot of black smoke too, and the building incinerates fairly quickly there after.

I'm not saying that this is what happened to the WTC. What I am saying is that the video in question gave real evidence, but rather relied on inference as proof. The video did very little to prove it's claims.

It reminds me of people who start speculating on reasons for airplane crashes right after they happen. It could be brake failure, or could be the pilot didn't fly the approach properly... ya, well it could be alot of things. The absence of fact, and questions unanswered, do not constitute proof of anything.

Oh and work on your analogies... a jug of jet feul will not burn for days, the jug will melt and feul will spill over the place. Ever 12 year old farm-boy knows that!

I repeat my earlier statement; Just cause the pictures move, doesn't make it true. Even if you like what the dancing pictures say.

Thumbs Up Man.

[mellow_pilot]

Thumbs Up Man.

Thanks, it was a labour of love...

[CID]

mellow_pilot,

I applaud your reply. It was quite entertaining and it demonstrates just how much you know about these things!

I know lots of people who have "worked around construction sites". Some of them layed bricks. Others empited the porta-potties. Every one of them was an expert structural engineer in their own minds.

[Dust Devil]

mellow_pilot,

I applaud your reply. It was quite entertaining and it demonstrates just how much you know about these things!

I know lots of people who have "worked around construction sites". Some of them layed bricks. Others empited the porta-potties. Every one of them was an expert structural engineer in their own minds.

Well that reply was a disapointment. Mellow Pilot responded to your claims and in return you basically comeout with a how do you know everything kind of statement. Sounds like your out of ideas. Thats ok though. That happens when people just pull theories out of thin air.

[Hedley]

mellow_pilot wrote:

Is anyone else concerned about CID using firearms?

That's bad enough, but I'm terrified that CID might actually have a pilot's licence. The idea that someone who has such difficulty comprehending cause and effect, might actually be in control of an aircraft, gives me nightmares.

It's bad enough that CID might drive a car, though I suspect that CID is one of those urban fruitcakes that doesn't have a driver's licence (thank god).

[mellow_pilot]

mellow_pilot,

I applaud your reply. It was quite entertaining and it demonstrates just how much you know about these things!

I know lots of people who have "worked around construction sites". Some of them layed bricks. Others empited the porta-potties. Every one of them was an expert structural engineer in their own minds.

Folks she's right, I obviously claimed that I possesed a degree in structural engineering and should therefore be ashamed of my lie. Wait, no I didn't. I was responding, "as any 12 year old farm boy would know", with my own personal experience.

Out of curiosity, do you empty porta-potties for a living? It would explain the source of your copious amounts of...

[grimey]

It's bad enough that CID might drive a car, though I suspect that CID is one of those urban fruitcakes that doesn't have a driver's licence (thank god).

I resent being called an "urban fruitcake".

[CID]

Mellow Pilot responded to your claims and in return you basically comeout with a how do you know everything kind of statement. Sounds like your out of ideas.

Oh come now. We all realize that this thread has deteriorated to a bunch of childish insults. I mean look at the title of the thread. It was a cry for attention. Or possibly help. What's the sense of debating any further? I'll just let the rest debate amongst themselves. Sort of a self debate. Or is it a mass debate? Maybe circle-jerk is the proper term.

There's no sense arguing for the sake of argument so I'll just let the fire burn itself out. With lots of black smoke.

[mellow_pilot]

well that's no fun

[hazatude]

The Americans had JFK's head pre-wired with explosives just incase anyone ever took a shot at him...

[Hedley]

CID reminds me of this quote:

"Confucious say, ensure brain is loaded before shoot off mouth".

Another wonderful quote from Shakespere comes to mind: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

If CID is so much smarter than the rest of the human race, why ain't she as rich and powerful as the people she derides?

[CID]

Hedley,

Shut down the MSN, stand up, step away from the computer, pull up your pants, and go to work.

[Hedley]

You first!

[mellow_pilot]

Mellow Pilot responded to your claims and in return you basically comeout with a how do you know everything kind of statement. Sounds like your out of ideas.

Oh come now. We all realize that this thread has deteriorated to a bunch of childish insults. I mean look at the title of the thread. It was a cry for attention. Or possibly help. What's the sense of debating any further? I'll just let the rest debate amongst themselves. Sort of a self debate. Or is it a mass debate? Maybe circle-jerk is the proper term.

There's no sense arguing for the sake of argument so I'll just let the fire burn itself out. With lots of black smoke.

And a couple posts later:

Hedley,

Shut down the MSN, stand up, step away from the computer, pull up your pants, and go to work.

Everybody now! "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.":smt034

I'm Uber-mature and won't be drawn into a pissing match... b!tch.