Stereotype V.001 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 hobo knife- (this is going back a bit) That interview with Cheyney did not mention any dates, or state that they made the call to shoot down a commercial airliner while the last hijacked plane was in the air. Also, it was assumed that there had been some sort of mistake and not a terrorist attack until the second plane hit the world trade center. The pentagon was struck shortly thereafter, and fighter jets were immediately in the air even before that. The problem was they were looking for aircraft an hour or so out over the Atlantic. That's all according to the 9-11 commission's report though, which is obvious Bush propaganda even though their interviews with the Bush admin were extremely critical and damaging to him. About the recent video ect, I will ignore the fact that you don’t seem to mind the obvious bias, and aren’t questioning any of the “facts� for yourself. Too easy. But don’t worry, I’ll question them for you! �Its demolition placed in the building. You can watch the floors collapse one after another.� Actually, building demolitions do not detonate floors level by level. This would possibly cause one the top levels to become top heavy if there is no time interval. That is why building demolitions that use strategically placed explosives are detonated SIMULATENOUSLY, not level after level like seen on the WTC. Buildings collapse level after level, but explosives are set off at the same time. For example.... �Why does each level seem to blast outwards right before it collapses??wtfomfg?!� Because as the weight from the above levels starts coming down, all of the air and matter in between the levels and the floor has to go somewhere. Some of this is bound to go outwards as the space rapidly decreases, also blasting the windows in an outward direction. Drop a book on a table with dust and the same thing will happen. Unless your table is part of the massive CIA conspiracy. Which it obviously is. �Jet fuel could not burn the steel supports� No, but a building that just had three quarters of its upper-mid section taken out by a commercial air liner has NO structural integrity. The buildings designer’s also argued that the world trade center was built so it could withstand a plane crash from a commercial air liner, but anyone who has seen the video can watch the plane cut through it like a knife through butter. With the building only left with one support, and massive structural damage, the levels above the damage are inevitably going to come down after the remaining supports start to buckle. The top half of a sky scraper moving with its own momentum just might crush the rest of the building, while moving downwards instead of sideways since there was no external force pushing it out. Only gravity, pulling it down. That also explains why it didn’t fall over, but collapsed on itself. This shit is high school physics. Get all sides of the story and try thinking for yourself before you let someone else make up your mind for you. -Bill Nye the science guy. PS- Bob, no need to get angry over the internet. Just sit back and laugh at what the 18-25 year old college “hip� graffiti white suburbanite demographic actually thinks. Because on the internet, you can’t cave people’s faces in for making comments like the ones above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Well, since my explanations don't hold water....look at this, or this and then tell me what you think. I'm just trying to make sense of it myself. Two buildings, identical in almost every way, are both hit by 767s with half-empty fuel tanks within an hour of each other. About an hour after that, the south tower collapses into itself, and the north tower follows suit a half hour later. Then, if that wasn't enough, another building a block away (WTC-7) does the exact same thing eight hours later, without the aid of a 767. Or- Three buildings, all in the same zip code, collapse due to fire and/or plane crashes within eight hours of each other. I wonder what the odds of that are? I mean, I did pretty good in science...well, I know enough to comprehend that there's no way this could have happened three times in one day without some kind of intervention. However, since the "official" explanation dovetails so well with what everyone wants to believe, I guess I'm a crank for thinking otherwise. Maybe someone didn't pay the physics bill in Lower Manhattan? Mmmm....nahhh...four-fold dimensional cross-rip? UFOs? L. Ron Hubbard? Could be anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest im not witty Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 heres the info youve all been looking for in one neat package. be warned its an hour and a half long everyone who keeps trying to refute the conspiracy nuts with "oh wow so youre a scientist now", should sit still and at least consider the information here. including discussions of melting points of the steel used to build WTC vs the maximum temp of burning jet fuel, comparisons of other skyscraper fires throughout history, including one where a fucking plane hit one...for those who refuse to watch. lets just say that in the history of large scale skyscraper fires, only 3 buildings have ever collapsed on themselves. ill let you guess which 3. interviews with the people responsible for building it (WTC), and also with people such as NYC firefighters and employees of WTC, who might i add, have alot more insight than any of us. granted its a documentary with an agenda, but even if you buy one or two of the facts presented out of the hundreds jammed into this film, its enough to make you scratch your head. keep an eye out for osamas "confession" tape towards the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest im not witty Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 i know this part of the forum is slow, but im bumping anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 “everyone who keeps trying to refute the conspiracy nuts with "oh wow so youre a scientist now", should sit still and at least consider the information here.� I have read about this topic from the Jones side and watched most of these videos a while back as they originally came out, with an open mind. I also got the “official� side of the story with an open mind, minus the sarcastic quotes and preconceived notions of it being government lies that some of you obviously have. Then I made up my own mind. For example, like stated earlier if the WTC was demolished using professional explosives, it would have been simultaneous. Also, if it was blown up with strategically placed explosives some of the survivors would have seen people on multiple areas of every floor placing them there. There have been zero reports of any kind from survivors of the WTC attacks about that, or any strange occurrences from the time before the attacks. Its also common sense that after the massive structural damage and loss of supports, the section above is going to eventually come down and take the building with it, so all of these videos ect rely entirely on the fire theory and ignore the actual damage and loss of more than 3/4ths of the building’s supports. The conspiracy theories are full of holes, and don’t add up with what actually happened. Sparo- If it wasn’t a terrorist attack but pilot errors both hitting the world trade center, then yes the odds would be extremely poor. But keeping reality in mind, the WTC is a symbol of American power that was already attacked less “successfully� some years prior by the same group. And there were two air liners manned by terrorists who had extensive flight training and planned every detail of hitting the world trade center heading towards them determined to die. That makes the odds of 9-11 increase dramatically. Also they had full fuel tanks, they specifically got on flights headed for the other side of the continent and across the Atlantic. After a building is hit by a commercial air liner in the way the WTC was, it would be highly unlikely if it didn’t crash. Here are some clips, not from a biased documentary, that shows the plane hitting the first tower, and a close up of the initial collapse. Decide for yourself. 1 You can see the plane cut through the building, and taking out more than 3/4ths of the building’s supports and severing the top and bottom portions. 2 You can see the supports buckle inwards from the pressure, and then the top section build momentum up until it crumbles down. A demolition wouldn’t have buckled the support inward, but sent it outward. There are a lot of clips from video.google, I don’t feel like looking at them anymore so search for more and watch for yourself. And WTC7 was directly next to the world trade centers, not a block away. It was damaged by falling debris and fire, if you have a video of its collapse I would appreciate it because I can’t find one (although I remember watching it before). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I have to hand it to Alex Jones, he is an excellent public speaker. Very enthralling. He is selling conspiracy theories to rich American college kids that previously were only bought into by dirt poor, illiterate Pakistani madrassa students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by Sparoism@Feb 11 2006, 04:55 AM hit by 767s with half-empty fuel tanks within an hour of each other. Quoted post this is wierd to me, one of the planes was headed to san francisco, the other to los angeles, i looked around but couldnt find any info on whether there were any stops on the way, so im gonna go ahead and say there were non. so how could a plane have a half empty fuel tank, when it hadnt even gone a fourth of its way. from the time flight 11 was hijacked around 8:15am to the time it hit the north tower, 8:46am. i seriousl doubt it spent that much fuel. likewise, flight 175 was hijacked around 8:45am, it hit the south tower around 9:03am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest im not witty Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 stereotype im laughing at you because all of these things youre adressing and saying havent been talked about and youve never seen are in the video i just fucking posted. i know youve had your fill of conspiracy talk and arent inclined to watch it...but its still funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well, all I'm saying is that what I've seen doesn't square with what I know about physics or engineering. I'll agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that. I'm not too interested in the conspiracy theories regarding the motives behind 9/11, but I am fascinated by the cover-up. I believe that whoever was behind it had a lot of juice w/the FBI and NSA, though- before, during, and after the fact. I also believe that if Bin Laden was involved- I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't rule him out- and the feds REALLY, REALLY wanted to find him, he would have been picked up by October of 2001. Instead, he gets ghost for five years...not only that, he's hiding among a high concentration of US and UK troops. Sometimes I wonder if he's "hiding in plain sight"- all he'd really need to do is get a shave and a haircut, start herding goats, and keep his mouth shut. It doesn't sound any more unlikely than some of the other scenarios I've heard. I just doubt that he could go more than a year without saying "Neener neener neener, can't get me...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 what would capturing/killing him accomplish though? al qaeda isnt just gonna go away and sparo the reason im not gonna argue on the negineering stuff is that when it comes to that and the proof thats abounded i dont have the knowledge to credit or disprove it so rather than pretend like i do, im gonna leave it at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by CACashRefund@Feb 12 2006, 12:51 AM what would capturing/killing him accomplish though? al qaeda isnt just gonna go away and sparo the reason im not gonna argue on the negineering stuff is that when it comes to that and the proof thats abounded i dont have the knowledge to credit or disprove it so rather than pretend like i do, im gonna leave it at that Quoted post Numer 1. I'm drunk. Number 2. Killing motherfuckas that deserve it makes me feel realllll good. Number 3. Motherfuckas like Saddam, osama, motherfuckas that are raveging african nations need a good ol' bullet to the fcae. For csure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Also fuck al-qudiea an muslim extremeist.... killing those bitches for days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~KRYLON2~ Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 i did shhhhh dont tell anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 i'm not witty... i watched that vid with my girl last week. pretty interesting, however, apart from the narrator's irritating as shit voice(whiney white college kid?), i really can't stand how these sorts of 'documentaries' put all this effort into debunking some official part of the 9/11 storyline, then flippantly make their own totally speculative and unfounded assertions as a counter storyline. like..for one...the pentagon hit..they spend all this time on forensics, rummaging around to pull out expert opinions on exotic little details and such, then in the span of 2 seconds claim it was not a plane, but a cruise missile. PFFFF. seriously ruins shit for me. not to take away from the fact i think there are serious flaws with parts of the story that have yet to be answered, but this type of shit is kneejerk irresponsible skewage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I watched some of that video, the nasally pre-pubescent voice and that annoying hip hop instrumental was killing me. And "im not witty", the bulk of my post adressed the central theme of that video and all the other links ect posted on here, that the WTC was taken down with high explosives, would be impossible given the videos of the collapse. I'm personally laughing that noone mentions that part on here, or how a plane severing the building just might be related with the collapse. And that kid's voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mikinbin De Miami Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The twin towers, theres' no denying what happened...The Pentagon, is a whoole other story. THIS SHIT STINKS REAL BAD! Video is great. What I dont get is...WHY??? Why would our own government want to cover up what happened there?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 for those of you loving this, first of all, welcome to last year, heh, had to say that, har ahr ahr i'm cooler than you because i saw it before you lawlezj12 anyway, this thing has poor quality pictures and absolutely no credible sources, interesting theory, anything is possible, but anything shown on that thing could easily be bullplop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 yeah im not buying that shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I don't get why people are saying "oh the building should have fell this way" or something like that. More than likely it is impossible to tell how a building is going to fall. Unless it's a controlled demolition (i'm not saying it was) there is no definite way to tell how and when a building is going to collapse. It's pretty unpredictable. Also, the planes were going over 500 miles per hour when they hit (which is over the maximum speed they are supposed to go without having a structural failure.) The designers who said the towers would be able to withstand an airplane attack were most likely thinking of a plane trying to land at LaGuardia or Kennedy or Newark, not a plane going over it's maximum speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by CACashRefund+Feb 11 2006, 09:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CACashRefund - Feb 11 2006, 09:15 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sparoism@Feb 11 2006, 04:55 AM hit by 767s with half-empty fuel tanks within an hour of each other. Quoted post this is wierd to me, one of the planes was headed to san francisco, the other to los angeles, i looked around but couldnt find any info on whether there were any stops on the way, so im gonna go ahead and say there were non. so how could a plane have a half empty fuel tank, when it hadnt even gone a fourth of its way. from the time flight 11 was hijacked around 8:15am to the time it hit the north tower, 8:46am. i seriousl doubt it spent that much fuel. likewise, flight 175 was hijacked around 8:45am, it hit the south tower around 9:03am. Quoted post [/b] Well there's some 767 variants that could fly from Boston to LA on roughly half their full fuel load. Some 767's (the planes that hit the towers) can fly up to about 6000 nautical miles non stop. Boston to LA- San Francisco is roughly about 2000 nautical miles. It's definitely possible that the planes weren't carrying the maximum fuel load. And one more thing: The whiney kid on the video, all these conspiracy theorists, and so on are probably not engineers, architects, construction workers, or pilots. Chances are they are probably making uneducated guesses about what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 and have art majors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mikinbin De Miami Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 So I have no party affiliation..no hidden agenda...I'm just asking..What's up with all the conspiracy theories and the controversy?? Been seeing ALOT of it lately...Like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...&q=loose+change THere's alot of crazy shit in there that gets me thinking.. So I went into the Wash DC thread and asked if anybody was on that highway and saw what happened...Thought it would be better here for Chan. Zero. So can anybody talk about this without having a titty fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunm Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GamblersGrin Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 i saw an internet video where they said 9-11 was made up and didnt even happen, kind of like how people say the holocaust never happened. i think i may be beginning to believe 9-11 never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shitz Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 WTF? 911....as in the planes?! oh..........wtf the jews made up the holocaust didnt they? edit* i retract that holocaust statement, i dont want to get fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 the holocaust is overrated, stalin killed more jews than hitler ever did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mikinbin De Miami Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 obviously planes crashed into the towers...But what the hell was that in the pentagon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunTimePartyTeam Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 www.911proof.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Originally posted by El Mikinbin De Miami@Mar 13 2006, 12:08 PM obviously planes crashed into the towers...But what the hell was that in the pentagon? Quoted post explosive nerf ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shitz Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 a lady that worked in the pentagon had her hands amputated because the heat that came from the explosion made it like she was in a microwave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.