For your consideration. 9/11 conspiracy video. A bit long but the author raises some interesting points
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ange+recut[/url]
dubya did it
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Everytime I see one of these I am amazed at the maliability of some peoples minds... 
Let's just throw logic and science out the fraqing window. Crap like the melting point of steel vs the max heat produced by jet feul. To say nothing of contained fires and flashover, steel doesn't have to be liquid to lose strength. Simple things like this are apperently beyong the conspiracy theorists.
As are simple things like, maybe it happened just the way 'the official story' says, except that they knew ahead of time and did nothing. That's alot easier to swallow, and prove.
BTW, most of America still thinks the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada. Not one had ever set foot in this country, yet US politicians seem interested in perpetuating this myth to further their own goals (ie identity cards, boarder fences). Now there's a fraqing conspiracy.
Let's just throw logic and science out the fraqing window. Crap like the melting point of steel vs the max heat produced by jet feul. To say nothing of contained fires and flashover, steel doesn't have to be liquid to lose strength. Simple things like this are apperently beyong the conspiracy theorists.
As are simple things like, maybe it happened just the way 'the official story' says, except that they knew ahead of time and did nothing. That's alot easier to swallow, and prove.
BTW, most of America still thinks the 9/11 hijackers came through Canada. Not one had ever set foot in this country, yet US politicians seem interested in perpetuating this myth to further their own goals (ie identity cards, boarder fences). Now there's a fraqing conspiracy.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
I find it funny how all the evidence of no remains, justa a hole, etc. ergo, it wasn't a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, happened with the planes in the WTC, they just disentgrated into nothing, by their logic, the engines should have gone through the building,.....morons
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
I got through more than half of that movie today. I got to say...
BULLSHIT!!! This guy couldn't string together proof if he had a needle and thread.
Same old crap about time to fall... I mean seriously... there's a huge fucking cloud of debris... how can you tell exactly when the last floor collapses... retard.
Jet feul wasn't the only combustable in the damned building... ever hear of flashover duchebag? Try visiting the National Fire Labratory. When gases produced by the combustion of various feul sources in common structures ignite themselves, the temperature of the fire instantly jumps several thousand degrees.
Sounds like bombs going off? Well I would imagine that the whole building collapsing on the floors above you would be pretty loud, not to mention the sound of concrete failing in compression...
Everytime this guy came up with some wild claim I had an answer that made way more sense than his disjointed, out of context quotations...
But I suppose the sheep will say baa, just like they're supposed to.
The only part that may have some merit is the pentagon stuff, even then, I'm more than a little skeptical.
Can someone please slap these idiots. They really need to do some better research if I can refute their claims based solely on my limited life experience.
BULLSHIT!!! This guy couldn't string together proof if he had a needle and thread.
Same old crap about time to fall... I mean seriously... there's a huge fucking cloud of debris... how can you tell exactly when the last floor collapses... retard.
Jet feul wasn't the only combustable in the damned building... ever hear of flashover duchebag? Try visiting the National Fire Labratory. When gases produced by the combustion of various feul sources in common structures ignite themselves, the temperature of the fire instantly jumps several thousand degrees.
Sounds like bombs going off? Well I would imagine that the whole building collapsing on the floors above you would be pretty loud, not to mention the sound of concrete failing in compression...
Everytime this guy came up with some wild claim I had an answer that made way more sense than his disjointed, out of context quotations...
But I suppose the sheep will say baa, just like they're supposed to.
The only part that may have some merit is the pentagon stuff, even then, I'm more than a little skeptical.
Can someone please slap these idiots. They really need to do some better research if I can refute their claims based solely on my limited life experience.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
I'll bet the next two of my paychecks that the retard that came up with this hasn't shaved in several days.
I'll also bet that they also spent more time playing Final Fantasy than paying attention in high school science class.
Swede, have you ever believed something the government has told you?
I'll also bet that they also spent more time playing Final Fantasy than paying attention in high school science class.
Swede, have you ever believed something the government has told you?
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Nark & Mellow,
Here's a video you may enjoy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... teller+911
And a couple of websites you might find amusing.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons
Here's a video you may enjoy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... teller+911
And a couple of websites you might find amusing.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
See Swede, now you're gettin' it!
I'm gonna put this one to bed forever. The whole thing hinges on WTC7 falling down. Here's a thought. Huge-assed chunks of concrete and steel fell off the towers (some of the tallest structures in the world). Some probably hit 7. 7's structure is weakened at the base. The whole weight of the blood building is now unsupported in sections. Building falls down...
Wow, what a stretch.
Fully loaded aircraft hit the WTC. Damage building on impact, structure weakened. Start fire. Fire consumes offices, burns furniture, paper, carpet... causes gas build up... gases flashover. Upper sections of building fall down (wow, straight down, not up or directly sideways, must be a demolition... unless there's some sort of gravity or something pulling down... I don't know) Several floors of weakened structure collapse on to floor below, floor fails. Repeat. Unlike a controlled implosion, debris and outside walls are ejected with some lateral force (as seen in video). I may have to explain that last part, see buildings are made with an outter support wall and an internal core. Looks to me like the outter wall lasted a touch longer in places and then, by virtue of friction, gravity, and tipping point of the remaining structure, it happens to fall out, rather than in. Notice the huge chunks falling faster than the rest of the building? That's cause they're not hitting anything on the way down...
All this crap about controlled demolitions. If you buy into it, you've obviously never watched tv. They look nothing like wtc. Infact, where are the myriad flashes and shattered windows? Why isnt' there a detonation sequence from bottom to top? Seriously, turn off CNN and watch the discovery channel for a change, careful, you might learn something.
Here's a big question. If they rigged the towers to blow, fired a missile into the pentagon, hid a bunch of flights and pax...
How come no one has said shit? Don't you think someone would have noticed the guy boring into the wall and setting a charge in the towers. Do you have any idea how much explosive would be needed to do what these idiots are claiming? With the litterally thousands of people that would have to be in on the conspiracy, do you really think it could be kept a secret.
Here's a more plausible scenario. Terrorists did it, Bush knew, let it happen so he could push his agenda. A lot fewer people have to be in on this one.
I'm gonna put this one to bed forever. The whole thing hinges on WTC7 falling down. Here's a thought. Huge-assed chunks of concrete and steel fell off the towers (some of the tallest structures in the world). Some probably hit 7. 7's structure is weakened at the base. The whole weight of the blood building is now unsupported in sections. Building falls down...
Wow, what a stretch.
Fully loaded aircraft hit the WTC. Damage building on impact, structure weakened. Start fire. Fire consumes offices, burns furniture, paper, carpet... causes gas build up... gases flashover. Upper sections of building fall down (wow, straight down, not up or directly sideways, must be a demolition... unless there's some sort of gravity or something pulling down... I don't know) Several floors of weakened structure collapse on to floor below, floor fails. Repeat. Unlike a controlled implosion, debris and outside walls are ejected with some lateral force (as seen in video). I may have to explain that last part, see buildings are made with an outter support wall and an internal core. Looks to me like the outter wall lasted a touch longer in places and then, by virtue of friction, gravity, and tipping point of the remaining structure, it happens to fall out, rather than in. Notice the huge chunks falling faster than the rest of the building? That's cause they're not hitting anything on the way down...
All this crap about controlled demolitions. If you buy into it, you've obviously never watched tv. They look nothing like wtc. Infact, where are the myriad flashes and shattered windows? Why isnt' there a detonation sequence from bottom to top? Seriously, turn off CNN and watch the discovery channel for a change, careful, you might learn something.
Here's a big question. If they rigged the towers to blow, fired a missile into the pentagon, hid a bunch of flights and pax...
How come no one has said shit? Don't you think someone would have noticed the guy boring into the wall and setting a charge in the towers. Do you have any idea how much explosive would be needed to do what these idiots are claiming? With the litterally thousands of people that would have to be in on the conspiracy, do you really think it could be kept a secret.
Here's a more plausible scenario. Terrorists did it, Bush knew, let it happen so he could push his agenda. A lot fewer people have to be in on this one.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
For the most part this guys full of shit. b-52 into empire state building not quite it was a b-25. Where is wreckage from the plane that crashed in pensilvania. HMMMMM must a hit really hard ya ya that sounds about right. HmMM space explodes at MACH 12 and they find wreckage. Plane hits field........nothing............ just a smokin hole...
Refering to wtc7, prior 911, a steel highrise has never collapsed due to fire. There is no way that structure was compromised to the point of collapse due to fire, a small one at that - the fire explanation is so absurd it is laughable. Numerous high rises have burned for hours and in some cases, days, with no collapse. http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296The Mole wrote:For the most part this guys full of shit. b-52 into empire state building not quite it was a b-25. Where is wreckage from the plane that crashed in pensilvania. HMMMMM must a hit really hard ya ya that sounds about right. HmMM space explodes at MACH 12 and they find wreckage. Plane hits field........nothing............ just a smokin hole...
The 911 commission was a complete farce that never even mentioned wtc 7. Interesting point you make about the Space shuttle wreck, Mach 12 and lots of wreckage strewn around, Shanksville crash Mach .7 and nothing left, except for wreckage a mile away from the smoking hole - apparently the laws of physics were suspended on 911. Regardless, the biggest smoking gun to do with the answer to who was behind 911, and the starting point for any proper investigation, should be at wtc7.
I'll agree with you that prior to 9-11, no high rise had collapsed due to fire...but then again, prior to 9-11, no high rise fire had incorporated that much FREAKING JET FUEL!
Give yer head a shake, swede. I'm not one to blindly follow the party line, but how does a blacksmith shape metal? He heats it until it becomes ductile. Not until it melts, but just until the metal is soft enough to be malleable. Do you think that the same concept just might work on a bigger scale?
I routinely work in natural gas plants during the summer. Since 9-11, many of those plants have begun using refractory fireproofing on the structural steel girders that support the overhead pipe lines used to move product from one place to another within the plant. Do you seriously think that a profit-driven oil company would lay out the huge amount of cash needed to do this if there wasn't a bloody good reason with plenty of engineering facts to back it up?
Give yer head a shake, swede. I'm not one to blindly follow the party line, but how does a blacksmith shape metal? He heats it until it becomes ductile. Not until it melts, but just until the metal is soft enough to be malleable. Do you think that the same concept just might work on a bigger scale?
I routinely work in natural gas plants during the summer. Since 9-11, many of those plants have begun using refractory fireproofing on the structural steel girders that support the overhead pipe lines used to move product from one place to another within the plant. Do you seriously think that a profit-driven oil company would lay out the huge amount of cash needed to do this if there wasn't a bloody good reason with plenty of engineering facts to back it up?
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
There was more than just the little fire in the picture of the north side of the building every conspiracy theorist loves to use as their only proof. Seeing as the south side was the one facing the main towers, and it was the one hit by falling debris, it kind of stands to reason that the north side wouldn't show much damage.swede wrote:So your saying wtc 7 collapsed due to a fire caused by jet fuel
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20I ... 0Final.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Of course the conspiracy nuts will have you believe that it is possible to compare the WTC buildings and their unique designs to other high rise fires. The phrase "comparing apples to oranges" comes to mind.
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Go talk to these guys, http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/aboutUs/index_e.html they'll explain about how gases produced by combustion of common materials will ignite once their flash point is reached, burning hotter than the original materials. This is how firefighters are caught and killed in what seem like controlled fires. This is also why house fires sometimes seem to explode into an inferno all of a sudden.
Commonly refered to as flashover.
As Wsquared pointed out, steel doesn't need to be molten to be weakened. Did you never take any shop classes in school?
Now quit bitching about the stupid jet feul. Everytime someone says that crap I want to scream.
Commonly refered to as flashover.
As Wsquared pointed out, steel doesn't need to be molten to be weakened. Did you never take any shop classes in school?
Now quit bitching about the stupid jet feul. Everytime someone says that crap I want to scream.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
You're pretty quick to call other people names. I'll admit I knew very little of flashover, though I did see backdraft an eon ago. So having seen backdraft I believe you and I were on the same level. I looked up flashover and no one, NO ONE claims temps increase by several thousand degrees. Can you comprehend a temperature jump of several thousand degress? A raise in temp of several thousand degrees C would put it in the ball park of a solar flare (the surface of the sun), or ground zero below the hiroshima bomb.mellow_pilot wrote:
Jet feul wasn't the only combustable in the damned building... ever hear of flashover duchebag? Try visiting the National Fire Labratory. When gases produced by the combustion of various feul sources in common structures ignite themselves, the temperature of the fire instantly jumps several thousand degrees.
If the average temperature of the hot gas layer exceeds 600 degrees Celsius (with or without the flaming ignition of the hot smoke called flameover or rollover) the radiant heat from the layer exceeds the minimum igntion radiant heat flux for exposed fuels and those fuels char and then ignite. This is the transition to flashover. If flashover occurs, temperatures throughout the room go to maximum (1000 degrees Celsius is not uncommon)
the average temperature in a room that flashes over is 1000' to 1500' F.
So we're talking about an increase of 400C not "thousands". You also failed to mention that a flashover exists for a very brief period of time. It's not like it's sits at 1000C for 30min. We're talking seconds in most cases.
We won't even touch on the fact that your beloved national fire research centre says that flashover in large spaces is nearly impossible. I think it's fair to say that most offices are pretty open spaces. Though I'm sure you're more familiar with the WTC than anyone.
I'm not claiming cruise missiles downed buildings or bush was behind this, but the loose change guys seem a universe more credible than you.
get a clue boy.
an interesting side note I found while researching mellow's horrible inaccuracies:
Carbon doesn't melt at any temperature. It's the only element that won't melt. It sublimates at approx 3600 C though.
Helium under standard pressure will not freeze even at temperatures within 1/1000th of a degree of absolute zero. It takes 20 times standard pressure to get helium to freeze.
Carbon doesn't melt at any temperature. It's the only element that won't melt. It sublimates at approx 3600 C though.
Helium under standard pressure will not freeze even at temperatures within 1/1000th of a degree of absolute zero. It takes 20 times standard pressure to get helium to freeze.
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Penchant for hyperbole, admitted. Sorry. I'm also sorry I called the guy in the video a duchebag, didn't know anyone here was his friend.
What I've seen regarding secondary gas ignition would dispute what you've presented. (no, it's not based on back-draft )
As for open spaces... Given the amount of combustable materials relative to the size of room, I wouldn't say that your average office is any different than a room in a house. More space sure, but way more furniture too.
My point in bringing it up was that it's not just the jet feul as these ninnies claim. There is lots more feul than that which was on the plane, and the temperature range they quote is misleading at best. As W2 mentioned, temperature to render steel ductile vs that necessary to render it molten is quite the step.
For every wild claim the conspiracy crew makes, there is a quick and easy logical explanation. I have yet to see indisputable proof of action taken by the US government in 9/11. Inaction on the other hand is self-evident.
What I've seen regarding secondary gas ignition would dispute what you've presented. (no, it's not based on back-draft
)As for open spaces... Given the amount of combustable materials relative to the size of room, I wouldn't say that your average office is any different than a room in a house. More space sure, but way more furniture too.
My point in bringing it up was that it's not just the jet feul as these ninnies claim. There is lots more feul than that which was on the plane, and the temperature range they quote is misleading at best. As W2 mentioned, temperature to render steel ductile vs that necessary to render it molten is quite the step.
For every wild claim the conspiracy crew makes, there is a quick and easy logical explanation. I have yet to see indisputable proof of action taken by the US government in 9/11. Inaction on the other hand is self-evident.
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
i found a graph from your beloved national fire labratory that showed temperature curve vs. time during a flashover. They didn't have specific temperatures on the chart, but said in the text that commonly temperatures are 600C at flashover. The chart showed the temperature increase what looked like 25% to it's max before the fuel was exhaused. So based on that even if my guess of 25% was off by 100% the temps still wouldn't get to 1000C.
To be honest, I think you have a very poor concept of higher temperatures. You also fail to account for the thermal inertia that a steel structure the size of the WTC has. It's not like you're heating a spoon with very little mass with a hot flame. You're heating millions of tons of steel. So yes there was more fuel than normal with this fire, but there was also more steeel too.
Again, I'll note that I'm not saying I agree with loose change. I'm just here to point out glaring holes in your counter argument.
To be honest, I think you have a very poor concept of higher temperatures. You also fail to account for the thermal inertia that a steel structure the size of the WTC has. It's not like you're heating a spoon with very little mass with a hot flame. You're heating millions of tons of steel. So yes there was more fuel than normal with this fire, but there was also more steeel too.
Again, I'll note that I'm not saying I agree with loose change. I'm just here to point out glaring holes in your counter argument.
