tomcatjones
Active Member
okay..
not cool.
almost made me blow out my bowl...
that was too funny. the whole exchange was very entertaining.
anyways... a FEW went down... continue, please
The Story of 9/11
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
not cool.
almost made me blow out my bowl...
that was too funny. the whole exchange was very entertaining.
anyways... a FEW went down... continue, please
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
There is nothing (outside the opinion at the beginning) nonfactual there. Research it.
doc111
Well-Known Member
You are misrepresenting my position on 9/11. Nice try though!Well i appologise to the Doc if i'm thinking of a different person, but he (if i'm correct) always goes on about how he was a firefighter at the scene and spoke to people, and as such it would not be possible for the real story to be antyhing other than the "official" story (might as well call it unfounded instead of official lol). i was always under the idea of him being a firefighter at the scene being of fuck all emrit to whether it was or wasn't such and such an incident. So far as i'm concerned, little to nothing of what the US government has stated makes any credible sense, so seems odd to simply agree with it, one would think if it was as they said they would have viable evidence to prove it, and as such justify the slaughter of thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. But hey, they're just rag heads, fuck em, right?
Even if it were as the government states, they blew up some buildings, the US went to war. It's not hard to work out who is more evilLast time i checked murdering untold thousands of innocent families was not a moral, ethical, or justified means of retaliation.
Hohum, they're all terrorists though, gotta bomb em!
While it is true that I was there, I have NEVER said anything like "it would not be possible for the real story to be anything other than the "official" story ". I have my opinions and having actually been at the scene for nearly a month helping with the search and recovery efforts, and I believe that having seen with my own eyes some of what I saw, gives me a bit more credibility than some of these kooks that come on here spouting their conspiracy b.s. with nothing but youtube videos and "Loose Change" or "Zeitgeist" to back them up, saying shit like "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about dude!" I try real hard not to disparage others simply because of their beliefs. Much of what the conspiracy folks try to put out there are half truths and outright lies. I don't like it when people lie or further misinformation in an attempt to make themselves look "smart" or "in the know". It's true, I have NO idea who REALLy perpetrated this tragedy. Many of the "theories" though, make little sense and fall apart very quickly when examined closer. Let's also keep in mind that I have a LOT of training in building collapse and explosives. These 2 things also give me a little more insight than the average person into the events of 9/11.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I have been to hundreds, maybe thousands of fires in my 15 years as a firefighter. I've seen fires burn down entire city blocks! I've seen fires that burnt human bodies so bad they didn't even look like skeletons! What is my point? My point is, there are almost always things that don't get completely burned up. Given the violence of the impacts, it seems reasonable that some debris may have been blown far enough away from the hottest parts of the fires to not be consumed entirely. Weird things happen in fires, explosions and collapses. How can a 5 story building fall on top of a toddler and the toddler doesn't get a scratch on them? Seems unlikely to me, but it happens.
http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/ctv-building-survivor1/1280786/
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
The entire story is absurd. You will realize it one day.
We just happened to find the passports and we're certain they're the hijackers - hours after the entire event. Right. Those planes exploded, no other passports were found. Just the hijackers. What luck!
9/11 considers calling in the Dept of Justice in regards to Pentagon testimony about the fact because they suspected deception.
Trillions announced missing the day before from the Pentagon and a plane crashes into the section where they are investigating it the next day.
Events being simulated identical to the events that occurred that day. Thereby conveniently allowing planes to fly for over an hour without any kind of interception (never would have happened if not for this). Run by Dick Cheney, who happened to be a member of a policy group with extreme goals who seized on the opportunity (one of a few in the admin who were members) to put make these goals happen and wrote a paper which stated that these goals would never get implemented without either a) a tonne of time (war of attrition), b) a Pearl Harbor like event or c) never because they are insane.
Then we have the NIST who has made their model secret and whose leadership is appointed by the President.
Then we have the President and Vice testifying in secret, not under oath... because that's reasonable.
The entire thing screams for deeper investigation.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Even with all of this "evidence" it still hasn't been PROVEN that it happened any other way than the official version. I've examined most of this "evidence" and IMO most of it doesn't hold up. By some of the conspiracy theorist's logic, it's just as plausible that malevolent aliens did it simply for their amusement! lol!
Let's say that the conspiracy theorists are correct and it didn't happen according to the official version, what are YOU going to do about it? What is ANYONE going to do about it? It's been almost 11 years and still no smoking gun. Nobody has stepped forward and admitted to being part of some "crew" that might have rigged the towers. I've never said I believe everything in the official version either. Certain things were perhaps taken for granted in the investigation and IMO should have been looked at more thoroughly. Some things seem a bit sloppy. I'm no detective though, so I wouldn't want to assume I know better than the professionals.
I DO understand fire behavior and building collapse though. IMO, the towers and building 7 came down due to impacts and fires. The fires didn't have to be hot enough to melt steel, only to weaken it enough to initiate failures in the structural members of the towers. Once enough of these members fail, the remaining members can't support the loads above and the collapse initiates. In the simplest terms, this is how it works. The variables that go into precisely how buildings collapse makes in nearly impossible to pinpoint precise things that contribute to or cause a building to collapse in a different manner. Duplicating collapses in laboratory settings is near impossible due to the scale and variables like bldg. contents, fire load, etc. Not every question can be answered satisfactorily to all parties. A couple of facts we do know: The buildings sustained MASSIVE impacts and fires that burned unchecked. Bldg. 7 also sustained massive impacts as huge pieces of the towers struck it. I was there, I witnessed bldg 7 coming down and I didn't hear any explosions like what you hear in demos. I've seen multiple controlled demos of buildings as well. Thermite? Sorry, not buying it. If more evidence that I am unaware of comes to light, I may change my opinon on this, but I don't believe it was necessary given the impacts and fires in the buildings. Never underestimate the impact of fire on steel structures. Most firefighters I know would rather fight fire in a wood or concrete structure as opposed to a steel structure........and most felt this way even BEFORE 9/11. Now, who flew the planes that crashed into the buildings???? I have no clue who did it or why. IMO, if there was a cover up or conspiracy in any of this, I would think this would be the most likely part of it where a bit of fiction MAY come into play.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Maybe you and Charlie Sheen can get together and figure the whole thing out.
Skyscrapers can't develop enough heat in them to weaken steel. All the steel is connected to every other piece of steel acting like a giant heat-sink. For example, a butane lighter burns hot enough to weaken steel (3600F), now take a frying pan and hold the lighter on a spot at the bottom there for 1000 times longer than the twin towers burned, will anything happen? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel either unless it is compressed and mixed with air in the correct ratio.
You can get all the building collapse experts in the whole world together and combined they will have absolutely ZERO skyscraper collapse experience. Skyscrapers don't collapse.
You can get all the building collapse experts in the whole world together and combined they will have absolutely ZERO skyscraper collapse experience. Skyscrapers don't collapse.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Weird......I watched them collapse on live tv.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So, do you have any actual links to any of this information? Perhaps a reputable source the rest of us could verify? I don't particularly believe the gov. was ignorant of the attacks, however I have never borne witness to anything compelling.
doc111
Well-Known Member
No you didn't! You were "mass hypnotized" with the rest of us "sheeple" to think that the towers collapsed. In fact, they are still there! Try to prove me wrong! lol!
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
How many other skyscrapers had commercial airliners flown into them again? Not saying you're wrong, just saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Also your frying pan analogy is horribly skewed, you aren't scaling back to remain proportionate to the building in terms of all the effects. All your analogy really demonstrates is that enough steel will disperse heat that otherwise could weaken it, not the structural effects of a plane burning inside of a building after having crashed into it at full speed. Apples and oranges my good man. Your analogy is a starting point to proving what you intend it to (The structure could have acted as a heat sink, why didn't it?), but it does not prove that it isn't possible. Link me a structural engineer that says there's no way it could have happened without outside help, with good science to back it. Then you have a solid point.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Structural steel is NOT a great conductor of heat. The entire structure does NOT act like a giant heat sink preventing the structural members actually exposed to fire from failing! lmfao!!!!! This can be easily demonstrated by taking a small propane torch and heating one end of a tire iron or wrecking bar. See how long it takes to heat up the entire thing simply by exposing one end to the flame. The one end will be glowing red hot and you will be able to hold the opposite end in your hand........I know, because I've tried it! lol!
*BUDS
Well-Known Member
The only gov conspiracy is the last plane that was shot down by 2 US fighter jets prior to conveniently crashing into a field, witnesses saw a mid air explosion near the tail and 2 white unmarked jets screamed off into the horizon, imagine the gov having to explain to the American people that they killed 250 or so people by shooting down the plane, much easier to say some heroes(office workers )over powered Al qaeda terrorists and it crashed. The protection of the White house/president was crucial.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Could you please explain to me how that explains anything about structure fire? That's single point for a few minutes vs.multiple floors of a building engulfed in flames for 50+ minutes. Plus the fact that I doubt your tire iron was wrapped in all of the other stuff that steel support was, and I doubt you actually placed a load on it. You would be better off finding at what temp your tire iron folds under a load when heated. Still not accurate, but it would be closer to what actually was the case.
You are right about the frying pan thing, the pan would actually need to be about 200 feet in diameter to be the equivalent to 1/3 of 2 floors on fire out of 144.
The Empire State building had a bomber plane fly into it, nothing happened but fire and minor damage.
FYI Commercial aircraft are very soft, the only hard parts are in the engines. I would be amazed if the plane even severed a single column. Of course the NIST report ASSUMES the plane severed many columns, but there is no proof of this, and of course the model they used to determine all this cannot be released to the public or someone might get the wrong idea and start demolishing skyscrapers with airplanes.
Skyscrapers don't collapse, they are demolished.
Compared to what? Metals are the best conductors of heat in the entire known universe.
Carbon steel is the 17th best conductor in the known universe there buddy.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You've proven quite emphatically you do not understand anything that you talk about.Even with all of this "evidence" it still hasn't been PROVEN that it happened any other way than the official version. I've examined most of this "evidence" and IMO most of it doesn't hold up. By some of the conspiracy theorist's logic, it's just as plausible that malevolent aliens did it simply for their amusement! lol!
Let's say that the conspiracy theorists are correct and it didn't happen according to the official version, what are YOU going to do about it? What is ANYONE going to do about it? It's been almost 11 years and still no smoking gun. Nobody has stepped forward and admitted to being part of some "crew" that might have rigged the towers. I've never said I believe everything in the official version either. Certain things were perhaps taken for granted in the investigation and IMO should have been looked at more thoroughly. Some things seem a bit sloppy. I'm no detective though, so I wouldn't want to assume I know better than the professionals.
Now, who flew the planes that crashed into the buildings???? I have no clue who did it or why. IMO, if there was a cover up or conspiracy in any of this, I would think this would be the most likely part of it where a bit of fiction MAY come into play.
Thermite residue has been found and verified by more than one source btw. You are way too emotionally invested in this to look at it objectively and you prove it with most of your arguments. You dismiss points you don't like as ridiculous (even though they are true) and ignore the motive and suspicious behavior of US government leadership at the time completely.