Solvent Celt Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 So are you saying that the twenty floors from the top of the building only managed to put a gash in this building ?These building are very strong or very weak and you can not have it both ways. Look at the broken windows and ask yourself how did falling lumps of metal manage to shoot sideways by 100's of yards and yeah the squibs where created by air presure rushing down ten floors before blowing out windows i guess and we will forget about path of least resistance. See the kink in the roof of WT7 that shows the core went first and yet you will still not beleive what you saw with your own eyes if it contradicts the offical story. try looking at the results of the poll on this thread if you are still having a hard time excepting the earth is indeed round. F@ck me Justice if THAT building HAD collapsed it would be more proof of the conspiracy! We'd be seeing video clips saying "Remember this building wasn't hit by a plane" Any way enough obfuscation Justice. I've no wish to play "conspiracy nut whack-a-mole" with you. Do you now accept that the building hadn't "turned to dust before it hit the ground" as you previously claimed? A simple yes or no will suffice. BTW I couldn't care if a majority of people here thought the world was flat... it wouldn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 The "Truthers" focus too much on the buildings and the physical damage. The real issues are things like the Bush administration ignoring countless warnings of such attacks. While on 9/11 there were live exercises simulating hijacked commercial aircraft. Cheney altering NORAD rules of engagement prior to 9/11. Half the hijackers still alive? They knew it was going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 The "Truthers" focus too much on the buildings and the physical damage. The real issues are things like the Bush administration ignoring countless warnings of such attacks. While on 9/11 there were live exercises simulating hijacked commercial aircraft. Cheney altering NORAD rules of engagement prior to 9/11.Half the hijackers still alive? They knew it was going to happen. Dom you raise some interesting point there. How many warnings of attacks does the President get that amount to nothing? On how many days do live exercises simulating hijackings occur without 911 style attacks occuring? How often before or after 911 are NORAD rules of engagement "altered". Did the alteration have any effect on 911, is there anyevidence to prove Cheney did it to assist the hijackers. Which hijacker is still alive? I went through the Saeed al-Ghamdi case with Justice a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Dom you raise some interesting point there.How many warnings of attacks does the President get that amount to nothing? On how many days do live exercises simulating hijackings occur without 911 style attacks occuring? How often before or after 911 are NORAD rules of engagement "altered". Did the alteration have any effect on 911, is there anyevidence to prove Cheney did it to assist the hijackers. Which hijacker is still alive? I went through the Saeed al-Ghamdi case with Justice a while ago. Well Bush slept on a heavily protected boat while attending G8 the month prior. This was in response to US intelligence reports indicating threats of commercial planes as weapons. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 F@ck me Justice if THAT building HAD collapsed it would be more proof of the conspiracy! We'd be seeing video clips saying "Remember this building wasn't hit by a plane" What like WT7 and lets forget why the building between the towsers and WT7 did not also come down. we are only taking about the first 3 steel framed sky scrapers in history to ever fall down due to fire Any way enough obfuscation Justice. I've no wish to play "conspiracy nut whack-a-mole" with you. Do you now accept that the building hadn't "turned to dust before it hit the ground" as you previously claimed?A simple yes or no will suffice. Nope BTW I couldn't care if a majority of people here thought the world was flat... it wouldn't make it true. No mate it's the other way around and people that look at the evidance where saying the earth is round and today these are not agreeing simply with what they are told by there leaders. All that weight as the 20 floors started to fall to the side would have been removed so why did the rest of the building still come down ? try it with a stack of bricks and let us know the results and do spare us the lesson on unique cercumstances about the trade centers else i might need to argue that every building brick is unique in some way. simple physics and yet you can not see above the offical story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 What like WT7 and lets forget why the building between the towsers and WT7 did not also come down. Yes like WT7. WHat you are saying is that if a building struck by falling masonry catches fire and collapses it's proof of conspiracy and yet if another building is hit and doesn't catch fire and collapse it's (yes you've guessed it) proof of conspiracy. we are only taking about the first 3 steel framed sky scrapers in history to ever fall down due to fire Except 2 were struck by airliners flying at high speed and the second was seerely damaged by falling masonry. Still don't let the facts stand in the way eh? Nope SO inspite of the being shown huge chunks of masonry you are basically putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I'm not listening". No mate it's the other way around and people that look at the evidance where saying the earth is round and today these are not agreeing simply with what they are told by there leaders. No mate it's the other way around. You've provided zero, zip, nada evidence to show your flat earth, conspiracy theories are true. I'm just patiently hoping that the evidence will persuade you that the earth is indeed spherical. All that weight as the 20 floors started to fall to the side would have been removed so why did the rest of the building still come down ? try it with a stack of bricks and let us know the results and do spare us the lesson on unique cercumstances about the trade centers else i might need to argue that every building brick is unique in some way. SO your modelling consists of piles of bricks and trying to set your barbeque on fire? Well at least your repetoire of experiments is improving. Why not simulate the plane impact with a scale model? simple physics and yet you can not see above the offical story Simple mind more like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basildonian Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 SO your modelling consists of piles of bricks and trying to set your barbeque on fire? lol - Thanks Solvent. My regular forums never fail to provide a least one post each day that make me **ss myself laughing. You win today's prize. Baz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOwner Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Buildings do not turn to dust and fall at near to free fail speed and i will spare you the details about the building only being sold a few weeks before the attack or the insurance cover being doubled or the asbestos as i could fill a book with all these strange factors. If the buildings fell at free-fall speed, why did debris fall faster? Where the CIA on the ground with ropes pulling chucks down at an accelerated rate to make it look like a conspiracy? I think I have it. Man didn't land on the moon. Elvis was roped into this to help provide entertainment and cover the conspiracy, and bury the bad news about those in the know being "bumped off". He wanted out, so the Argentinian government (secretly controlled by Hitler, who didn't die in the bunker) worked to frame his death and let him escape to Argentina where he lives to this day. Meanwhile, news of this leaked to several close friends with connections to the French government. To control this, the CIA had to blow up TWA 800 using a kenetic missle. Unfortunately, someone working for Morgan Stanley had secret footage of the launch and the identity of the "30-knot boat" so had to be taken out. The only way to do so without provoking suspicion was of course to do 9/11 and blame on a bunch of towel-head foreigners. At the same time, this gave the perfect opportunity for the US to create the NWO and chip us all under the vague threat of terrorism. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 lol - Thanks Solvent. My regular forums never fail to provide a least one post each day that make me **ss myself laughing.You win today's prize. Baz My pleasure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 SO your modelling consists of piles of bricks and trying to set your barbeque on fire? Well at least your repetoire of experiments is improving. Why not simulate the plane impact with a scale model? Simple mind more like I did and throw a toy plane at the bricks and they did not fall down so i set them on fire by poring petrol on them and again they did not fall down. You may like to know that a impact does all the damage in a split second and do spare me the bit about striping the fire proofing from the beams and so making the building fall as the fire profing was asbestos and the cost to remove and replace it was calculated as to be about the comercal costs of the buildings and it was just about as cheap to knock the buildings down and rebuild them as remove it all. Strange the buildings sold a few weeks before the attack and the insurance was bumped up just in time don't you think. 100 tons doing 500mph presented less stress to the building than 70mph windows over 110 floors that are 70m wide WT7 had a kink in the roof just before it fell over and this would only happen if the core of the building was pulled but don't take my word for it, see any slow motion cotrolled demolition. Again you keep going back to unique cercumstances as a smoke screen but physics is physics and some things are simply not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOwner Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 100 tons doing 500mph presented less stress to the building than 70mph windows over 110 floors that are 70m wide Ha ha. Are you now claiming that the force of impact was equally distributed over the entire surface of the building??? Again you keep going back to unique cercumstances as a smoke screen but physics is physics and some things are simply not possible. Forgive me for swearing, but after reading the part above, how the **** would you know!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I did and throw a toy plane at the bricks and they did not fall down so i set them on fire by poring petrol on them and again they did not fall down. I can visualize you in a white coat. Did you add verbal sound effects? You may like to know that a impact does all the damage in a split second and do spare me the bit about striping the fire proofing from the beams and so making the building fall as the fire profing was asbestos and the cost to remove and replace it was calculated as to be about the comercal costs of the buildings and it was just about as cheap to knock the buildings down and rebuild them as remove it all. WTF has the cost of commerically removing the fire proofing got to do with the price of chips? Strange the buildings sold a few weeks before the attack and the insurance was bumped up just in time don't you think. So you're claiming 9/11 was an "insurance job"? Ha ha...ha ha... stop it you're killing me here! 100 tons doing 500mph presented less stress to the building than 70mph windows over 110 floors that are 70m wide 70 mph windows? WTF? WT7 had a kink in the roof just before it fell over and this would only happen if the core of the building was pulled but don't take my word for it, see any slow motion cotrolled demolition. Justice with all due respect I don't think you're qualified to make that assertion. Just because an event resembles another event doesn't mean it has the same causes. Why are you using the word "pulled" out of context (look up the correct meaning in a dictionary) do you mean "demolished" per chance? Again you keep going back to unique cercumstances as a smoke screen but physics is physics and some things are simply not possible. No I'm just looking at plausible explanations for events for which others are intent on explaining by going through extremely complicated and convoluted steps. Steps which have no evidential basis that stand up to even the mildest scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Be careful arguing physics with a conspiracy theorist SC. Conspiracy theorists think Kennedy's head snapping back is proof thanks to the laws of physics that a bullet came from the front and right, even though they forget newton's third law. Conspiracy theorists say that the lack of stars in the photos from the Apollo programme are proof they were faked, even though simple physics says that if you wouldn't see stars on film on the moon. The laws of physics are different in conspiracy world. Next time they quote "the laws of physics", ask them what laws, and ask for equations, with numbers plugged into them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Be careful arguing physics with a conspiracy theorist SC. Conspiracy theorists think Kennedy's head snapping back is proof thanks to the laws of physics that a bullet came from the front and right, even though they forget newton's third law. Conspiracy theorists say that the lack of stars in the photos from the Apollo programme are proof they were faked, even though simple physics says that if you wouldn't see stars on film on the moon. The laws of physics are different in conspiracy world.Next time they quote "the laws of physics", ask them what laws, and ask for equations, with numbers plugged into them as well. I wouldn't try beyond something very simple (and even then I'd probably forget to square the speed ) You can't rationalise with a conspiracy nut. God knows I've tried. Penn & Teller did a great show on the Kennedy head shot physics inc demonstrating it on a melon with the same rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald. Needless to say the melon behaved in the same way as Kennedy's head when shot from the rear. No shooters on the "Grassy knoll" required. Sometimes things happen that are counter inuitive. Unfortunately we can't rebuild the twin towers and crash planes into them in controlled experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Sometimes things happen that are counter inuitive. Here's a counter intuitive bit of physics for you. In a fire, a timber frame builidng will stay up longer than a steel frame builidng, because a steel frame will become ductile quicker than the timber will burn through. So the WTC would have lasted longer if it had been made of wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Here's a counter intuitive bit of physics for you.In a fire, a timber frame builidng will stay up longer than a steel frame builidng, because a steel frame will become ductile quicker than the timber will burn through. So the WTC would have lasted longer if it had been made of wood. Justice will be building a BBQ from wood now to test this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.