(For a really chilling look at reality) http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which South African brand or product do you wish would make a return?
911 Pentagon Video Released
- Thread starter kilo39
- Start date
kilo39 said:
You guys are really pathetic.... stick to your ".fi" sites and I will stick with scientific bodies like MIT and NIST
Show me any legitimate scientific body that backs you up.
EDIT: You do realise that that .fi site says it was a nuclear bomb? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha breathe hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah makes you sound sane in comparison!!
Last edited:
As you know ignacio - dozens of independent studies have been done by 'credible' experts. That is besides the plain old human eyeball, ears - and shockwave through the feet.
I am not going to repeat LG's exhaustive list: A Coincidence Theorists Guide to 911
I posted that previous link because it is fairly recent.
In the light of JFK - and the others - your credibility - lacks scientific basis: there have been few studies by the officials; reports have been withheld, squashed - not in the public domain. The people that should know what happened, New York Fire Department - are ignored and quashed.
You cannot deny previous conspiracies - why go out of your way to deny this one?! Which - if you can't see what is before your eyes - cannot hear what credible experts are telling you - then where is you credibility?
I suggest you follow your own philosophy: Occam's Razor.
/edit/ I suggest you look at the whole site - instead of jumping to conclusions: The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n There is very little radiation. You yourself know - fires burned in the basement for weeks, deep underground. FBI refused to go near. But as always - usa is great!! (and can do no wrong.) Can kill a president but do no wrong. You work it out.
I am not going to repeat LG's exhaustive list: A Coincidence Theorists Guide to 911
I posted that previous link because it is fairly recent.
In the light of JFK - and the others - your credibility - lacks scientific basis: there have been few studies by the officials; reports have been withheld, squashed - not in the public domain. The people that should know what happened, New York Fire Department - are ignored and quashed.
You cannot deny previous conspiracies - why go out of your way to deny this one?! Which - if you can't see what is before your eyes - cannot hear what credible experts are telling you - then where is you credibility?
I suggest you follow your own philosophy: Occam's Razor.
/edit/ I suggest you look at the whole site - instead of jumping to conclusions: The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n There is very little radiation. You yourself know - fires burned in the basement for weeks, deep underground. FBI refused to go near. But as always - usa is great!! (and can do no wrong.) Can kill a president but do no wrong. You work it out.
Last edited:
kilo39 said:JFK = Proven Conspiracy
911 = conspiracy ?
Now I wonder where the link is to JFK?
None so blind.
Oh - I finally get it - you somehow think that if you prove JFK was a conspiracy, then WTC is a conspiracy. You need to brush up on your scientific method.
Here is a quick summary of your "logical" process:
A = Conspiracy
Therefore, B = Conspiracy
Again, I could care less about JFK - shooting someone is a lot easier and SIMPLER to believe than what you are suggesting.
Here is my latest theory:
Tom Cruise is a scientologist [FACT!]
Xenu is an alien [FACT!]
Therefore Xenu was responsible for 911.... it is so obvious I don't even want to give you any credible support for this. I know MIT did a comprehensive study on Xenu's involvement, but the government had those scientists killed (by Xenu's orders). Damn you, Xenu, damn you to hell!!
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Wasn't there too little rubble at the wtc sites too? Didn't I hear something about vaporise as well at the time?kilo39 said:
I also noticed that part when it happened and found it quite strange, but didn't pay much attention to it as we were all stumped.killadoob said:
It has very much to do with the topic. If they would kill their own president then there is nothing they wouldn't do to their ordinary citizens. It also proves that there are conspiracies despite you wanting us to believe otherwise.ignacio said:
The first one has too many assumptions. How did 4 planes liquefy when planes seldom liquefy? How did most of a building liquefy or even vaporise? Why did a plane disappear from the radar? Where are the plane wreckage people claim was there? How did a plane go through six layers of carbon-steel and possibly titanium reinforce concrete while making a neatly sized hole? Why did skyscrapers neatly collapse as with the controlled explosions of the past? How did all of this and a few other things happen? And oh yes where are the cars that should have been swept off the highway if it was indeed a plane? Possibly there were no cars at that and only that moment, another assumption?
The second one explains why everything happened the way it happened. You can't exclude the first one just as you can't exclude aliens, but according to Occam's Razor it is the least likely one of the two. Your own link points us towards the conspiracy theory.
Last edited:
supersunbird
Honorary Master
My theory is that its a sort of big bizness jet that had some kind of explosive (maybe even nuclear) device that failed to go off, and the US government is trying to cover up how close they came to going BA BOOOM!
Another good laugh: you laugh at the hydrogen bomb scenario - but that is the kind of power needed to bring the buildings down - but according to you it was 2 pesky aeroplanes! Also on that page: a fire in Barcelona - similar steel construction - raging inferno (worse than WTC) burns for 20 hours! Building still standing. Other similar cases around the world. But no - according to you - 2 aeroplanes (the impact of which the buildings were designed to withstand) - uum buildings fall down - totally destroyed. Fires burn in basement for weeks. But no - it was 2 aeroplanes.
And yes igancio - I watched tv - I saw the second impact. I also saw the pinnacle of engineering vapourise and collapse in front of my eyes. Twice. But no - it was 2 little old airliners...
If forces within America can kill a president/and the exalted powers of the fbi, cia, nsa, etal can't solve it/feed us Lee Harvey/and the files are all locked: what does that tell you of the 'official' story of 911?
kilo39 said:Another good laugh: you laugh at the hydrogen bomb scenario - but that is the kind of power needed to bring the buildings down - but according to you it was 2 pesky aeroplanes! Also on that page: a fire in Barcelona - similar steel construction - raging inferno (worse than WTC) burns for 20 hours! Building still standing. Other similar cases around the world. But no - according to you - 2 aeroplanes (the impact of which the buildings were designed to withstand) - uum buildings fall down - totally destroyed. Fires burn in basement for weeks. But no - it was 2 aeroplanes.
And yes igancio - I watched tv - I saw the second impact. I also saw the pinnacle of engineering vapourise and collapse in front of my eyes. Twice. But no - it was 2 little old airliners...
If forces within America can kill a president/and the exalted powers of the fbi, cia, nsa, etal can't solve it/feed us Lee Harvey/and the files are all locked: what does that tell you of the 'official' story of 911?
This is pretty pointless... yes according to ME... no, not really, according to scientists from MIT and NIST - go read their reports for a scientific explanation of why the buildings collapsed the way they did. Doesn't require nuclear weapons or aliens or multinational conspiracies.
But fine, you keep believing ".fi" homemade wackjob sites and I will stick with credible scientists...
Let me know when you come up with one credible expert, and we can debate his/her views then.
If I posted my "Xenu was behind 911" site, would you believe it then? I still don't know why you don't believe me... maybe you are just a conspiracy snob... my fantasies are not as cool as yours, eh? Take another look at the Xenu information. LOOK at the design of his space planes... ahhhhhh - PLANES went into the WTC!! COINCIDENCE? - I think not! It is all coming together now, isn't it? Forget missiles - Xenu's space planes were responsible.
Q.E.D.
Last edited:
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
No, too many assumptions just like the official 911 story.ignacio said:
The experts (according to ignacio)
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member.
"It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said.
So - the worlds top engineers designed a building to be hit by a 707 (similar fuel load, weight) - but didn't calculate that the 707 would be carrying fuel?! To be hit by a 707 but was designed for fires of "desks, drapes, paper."
Your experts:
Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage.
Given the lack of firm conclusions regarding how the collapses occurred
my theory
proposed an alternative
FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers
probably burned out in less than 10 minutes
combustibles near the cores (read drapes and desks)
The lightness and hollowness of the towers allowed the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate far inside the Towers
Fires resulting from the aviation fuel spread widely through the impact zone and ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Subsequent modeling suggests
However later analysis by NIST dispute this claim stating "that observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation."
Some facts:
Boeing 767-200ER: Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 US gal
Quantities of steel (structural steelwork in one tower)
total: 78,000 tonnes
1 gallon of fuel = melted 3+ tons of steel
The experts:
The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
Fact: 767 Maximum Takeoff Weight, 255000 lb = 127 tons.
A building with a load bearing of 500,000 tons = collapses under 127 tons. Pulverised.
Fact: hydrants for active fire-fighting operations. Water for extinguishing fires is available in tanks, each of 18,500 litres capacity, which are installed on the technical services floors. Additional riser pipes are installed in the core.
both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads: the first 8 + 6 = 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses.
40,000-square-foot cross-braced floors, each nearly an acre in area
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
In summary: Do you have any real comprehension of the scale and structural engineering of this building? The plane is a small thing in comparison. Your experts admit the fuel fire probably burnt out in 10 minutes. The pinnacle of engineering - designed to withstand a 707 (and duh, don't think they forgot the fuel onboard) - was brought down by burning drapes, 150 tons of metal and 24000 gallons of fuel. Pulverised concrete. Fires in the basements for weeks. All in: "One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes."
1 gallon of fuel = 3 tons of steel = 47 minutes. Uum what is wrong with this picture?
1 acre floorspan verse 156ft wingspan (scale)
150 ton aeroplane = 500,000 tons load bearing (reality)
Thus, if two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is valuable.
Unfortunately ignacio - the conspiracists have the overwhelming simplicity. The overwhelming fact. And never forgetting the good old no.1 eyeball. 1 gallon = 3 tons. Xenu is less challenging.
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member.
"It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said.
So - the worlds top engineers designed a building to be hit by a 707 (similar fuel load, weight) - but didn't calculate that the 707 would be carrying fuel?! To be hit by a 707 but was designed for fires of "desks, drapes, paper."
Your experts:
Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage.
Given the lack of firm conclusions regarding how the collapses occurred
my theory
proposed an alternative
FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers
probably burned out in less than 10 minutes
combustibles near the cores (read drapes and desks)
The lightness and hollowness of the towers allowed the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate far inside the Towers
Fires resulting from the aviation fuel spread widely through the impact zone and ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Subsequent modeling suggests
However later analysis by NIST dispute this claim stating "that observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation."
Some facts:
Boeing 767-200ER: Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 US gal
Quantities of steel (structural steelwork in one tower)
total: 78,000 tonnes
1 gallon of fuel = melted 3+ tons of steel
The experts:
The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
Fact: 767 Maximum Takeoff Weight, 255000 lb = 127 tons.
A building with a load bearing of 500,000 tons = collapses under 127 tons. Pulverised.
Fact: hydrants for active fire-fighting operations. Water for extinguishing fires is available in tanks, each of 18,500 litres capacity, which are installed on the technical services floors. Additional riser pipes are installed in the core.
both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads: the first 8 + 6 = 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses.
40,000-square-foot cross-braced floors, each nearly an acre in area
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
In summary: Do you have any real comprehension of the scale and structural engineering of this building? The plane is a small thing in comparison. Your experts admit the fuel fire probably burnt out in 10 minutes. The pinnacle of engineering - designed to withstand a 707 (and duh, don't think they forgot the fuel onboard) - was brought down by burning drapes, 150 tons of metal and 24000 gallons of fuel. Pulverised concrete. Fires in the basements for weeks. All in: "One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes."
1 gallon of fuel = 3 tons of steel = 47 minutes. Uum what is wrong with this picture?
1 acre floorspan verse 156ft wingspan (scale)
150 ton aeroplane = 500,000 tons load bearing (reality)
Thus, if two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is valuable.
Unfortunately ignacio - the conspiracists have the overwhelming simplicity. The overwhelming fact. And never forgetting the good old no.1 eyeball. 1 gallon = 3 tons. Xenu is less challenging.
I will stick with scientists from MIT and NIST - even IF they can't figure out everything to the exact detail. Saying your theory is "equally accurate" is total and utter bullsh!t - when on earth was it verified as such? Again - which expert scientists have given it any credibility at all? Some random .fi who has the laughable suggestion that nukes were used? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?kilo39 said:
Saying this theory:
It is a huge multinational conspiracy involving Al Qaeda, US intelligence, martyrs/willing-suicidal participants, programmers, US military, planes, missiles, nuclear weapons, collusion amongst dozens of government bodies like FEMA, NSA, FBI, CIA - cover up all the nuke stuff, hide evidence etc)... and all of this without a single leak from anyone involved in this massive operation (hmmm... and yet covert CIA prisons, gitmo treatment, Abu Gharib crimes are all revealed - so maybe your "theory" involves massive mind control, executions or imprisonment)
is "overwhelmingly" simpler than:
Militant Arabs planned and executed hijackings, and then flew the hijacked planes into buildings.
makes you either:
a. incapable of rational evaluation
b. delusional
c. insane
My vote is for a combo of all 3.
Oh - and stop dropping my "equally accurate" Xenu theory. How is it equally accurate, you ask? Well, I just wrote that, so it must be. (remember: the irrefutable proof is that space planes were involved, Tom Cruise is a scientologist and Xenu is an alien.... overwhelmingly simple if you ask me.. it requires minimal participants, just one very naughty space alien, who really deserves a good talking to)
Nom Chompsky
High Tory
Well let me take this issue by the horns:
Controlled demolition theory: DEBUNKED
WTC 7:
Controlled demolition theory: DEBUNKED
WTC 7:
Jet fuel ignition temperature = 425°C
but - all of a sudden - against all reality - we have temperatures reaching 1832°F, 1000°C. On the basis of what - oh, the steel melted, softened - it was the burning drapes and desks (according to the experts.)
So - in a smelter - a specific built object - they "induce" steel to rise to 1700°C. But WTC they expect us to believe that "pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C)" On the basis of burning drapes, desks and papers. Tell me - who is deluded here?
Jet Fuel = Ignition Point = 425°C
Steel smelter = 1700°C
WTC = 1000°C = building melted, pulverised (425°C?) Oh yeah, the drapes burning.
Boeing 767-200ER: Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 US gal
767 Maximum Takeoff Weight, 255000 lb = 127 tons
Quantities of steel (structural steelwork in one tower)
total: 78,000 tonnes
WTC = 110 stories/40,000-square-foot cross-braced floors, each nearly an acre in area
Load Bearing Weight (at the foundation) 500,000 tons
I could go on - amount of flex - redundant construction - designed for - fire resistant cladding - jet fuel safety - etc.
1 gallon of fuel (3 litres) = melts 3 tons of steel per gallon = in 47 minutes
Pulverised - little left - falls at the speed of gravity.
Plain fact: the experts the conspiracists bring to the table - are as qualified - as legitimate - as the 'official' ones.
The officials don't really have a story. They surmise - to explain the phenomena - twice in one day - within an hour and a half (based on 24 000 gallons of fuel)
Who is deluded?
And - before you start the critique - I suggest we deal with one issue at a time. This issue: twin towers (not WTC7, or the likelihood etc) - (we can take that apart bit by bit later.)
Twin Towers = 47 minutes = 24000 gallons = 78000tons of steel
1000°C = 425°C x Burning drapes
Total: Slag Heap. Basement fires burning for weeks. Pulverised Dust. Nothing left.
You work it out.
Xenu/Crushing intellectual exercise = "The Experts".
Deluded? My experts = Your experts.
My experts = Reality (1 gallon 425°C 78000 tons 47 minutes)
Your experts = Xenu/equivalent of (1000°C, burning drapes, slag heap, Maximum Takeoff Weight, Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 US gal, 1832°F)
/burning drapes 1000°C = smelter 1700°C/3 tons of steel per gallon/etc.
"You are not even wrong."
One thing I never understood about the conspiracy theorists point of view is this:
If I was plotting to create this event to justify my future actions, which would be easier? Massive planning required to plant explosives in the buildings and create a show of how terrorists did it like has been suggest by some conspiracy theorists...
Or - just pay off some whack-job fantatical nut that already exists to do it and say he did it?
So, seeing as the second option is far far easier, cheaper and more likely to succeed, why bother contemplaiting option number one?
If I was plotting to create this event to justify my future actions, which would be easier? Massive planning required to plant explosives in the buildings and create a show of how terrorists did it like has been suggest by some conspiracy theorists...
Or - just pay off some whack-job fantatical nut that already exists to do it and say he did it?
So, seeing as the second option is far far easier, cheaper and more likely to succeed, why bother contemplaiting option number one?
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Um, there's one thing to this debate I'd like to point out : How long do you think that jet fuel took to burn? Considering the huge fireballs you saw when the planes hit the towers, I don't think it was more than a few seconds.
The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes; what did burn over the next hour, or hour and a half, was much of the contents of the buildings, according to the lead investigator of the NIST investigation.Xarog said: