For those of you left wondering about 9/11....

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last
  1. Doctor Science
    Board Sponsor
    LakeMountD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Answers
    0

    For those of you left wondering about 9/11....


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

    I am a conservative but DAMN did this video make me THINK!!!!! It is an 1 hour 20 mins. long but it is a GREAT video to watch that gets better and better as time goes on.

  2. Gold Member
    xxtruxx1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    999
    Answers
    0

    Good find bro. My roomate & me are watching it now as I write this.
  3. Board Supporter
    doggzj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    952
    Answers
    0

    basically it just rounds up everything most people already know. I mean the people who care to know. It's a good video.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    entertaining, but those reports.. well .. most were already debunked.

    people just don't want to understand that it was a handfull of islamists that flew a plane into a building.... its not that hard to do.


    but yet.. i am one who doesn't think oswald killed JFK so.. we all fall into the theories.. they are more romantic
  5. Registered User
    Salyers1121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    not really debunked....just a government official saying what "really" happened. im a firm believer that something is definitely being hidden from us. i have debated to people till i was blue in the face. guys, there is scientific evidence, eye witness accounts, etc etc bla bla bla. you seen it in the video. research it yourself, i did on alot of things they touched in the video. it makes sense and all the pieces fit together. you cant agrue scientific evidence, you cannot. simple as that. too many people are close-minded, if you would just think and put two and two together, you would see a different side of it.
  6. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    LMAO! Sounds like prepubescent Oliver Stone.

    Where are the Men in Black?


    Oh god....that is just funny.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  7. Doctor Science
    Board Sponsor
    LakeMountD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Answers
    0

    I will tell ya though. The thing that absolutely got me on this was the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. That was NOT 757!!! You could see that it wasn't, it is impossible that it was. Plus there is no way a 757 could have hit the side of the building like that with such little damage.

    I don't know if you watched the whole video Bobo, the beginning is pretty boring and slow but the facts brought up from the Pentagon crash was quite compelling.

    I am not saying I believe it but it raises SERIOUS doubts.
  8. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    one would think that the center of the United States military would be built a little stronger than most other buildings. I think people should do more research on how a structure like that stands up to force due to either what it was build with and how the shape takes in pressure...
  9. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by LakeMountD
    I will tell ya though. The thing that absolutely got me on this was the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. That was NOT 757!!! You could see that it wasn't, it is impossible that it was. Plus there is no way a 757 could have hit the side of the building like that with such little damage.

    I don't know if you watched the whole video Bobo, the beginning is pretty boring and slow but the facts brought up from the Pentagon crash was quite compelling.

    I am not saying I believe it but it raises SERIOUS doubts.
    Bro, this is propaganda at its finest. I wouldn't believe one thing in this video. He contradicts himself a million times then takes various assumptions as proof of a grand conspiracy.

    Did the gov. hide something? Probably. Anytime national security is threatened its a complete lockdown.


    Sorry, you don't creat an entire video based on context then sell T-Shirts on your website. Give me a break.

    The number of points you could pick apart in thie video is too many to count.

    I watched it all. The Pentagon "facts" arne't facts at all.

    Generally when a plane crashes its wings get ripped right off and it becomes a missile. Wings are lightweight compared to reinforced concrete. THe guy on the video says the hole was only 16ft wide.

    EDIT: I figured he was talking about the aftermath which isn't even close to 16ft. Even so, read the link below. The actualy hole before everything collapsed should be around 13-16ft according th the specs of a 757.

    Take a look. He's lying.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  10. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html


    Read.



    "This photo taken just minutes after the explosion clearly shows the right wing impact hole and some depth inside of it. The right edge of the center hole is again at column 15 and the uprooted support columns 15, 16, and 17."
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  11. Registered User
    Salyers1121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    ok, flight 93, several people made successful calls from their cell phones, at the time flying at the average height of 32000 feet. several studies after the fact were conducted to test the odds of those cell phone calls actually occurring. 0.006 percent. not likely. and the funny thing about that is after that occurrence, airlines installed state of the art cell phone "technology" to help cellphones aboard the planes get better signals and service. why do that if they already worked so well? hmmm.....the billions of dollars of gold being transported out of the towers in underground tunnels on transport trucks. if that is true, which i dont know, then they obviously knew the towers would be struck and collapse. not to mention the billions of dollars in stocks alone being "cashed out" before anything occured. bush's brother collecting billions in insurance from the towers.....the list goes on. also, many people believe the towers were rigged to blow up in a controlled detonation. im not sure about that, but why would the hundreds of firemen in the building report of many many explosions occuring before the towers came down?? why would they lie? how is it that the support beams at the lower level of the building turned to molten steel, when the hottest part of the fire was obviously at top? you would have to double the temp. of the main fire to cause the steel beams to melt the way they did. alot of things dont make sense.... it sounds crazy to believe, but common sense would tell you otherwise.
  12. Doctor Science
    Board Sponsor
    LakeMountD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,253
    Answers
    0

    That first picture though was after the roof collapsed, the hole was much smaller... But again the main and really only important thing I saw was the fact that there is no way in that video that it was a 757. IN THAT VIDEO, not saying in general. There are more videos out there but 100% in that video you can tell that is no 757, they are huge.
  13. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    heres an even better question for you. WHY THE HELL WOULD OUR OWN COUNTRY KILL THOUSANDS OF OUR OWN PEOPLE?! MONEY?! Bull****! Seriously this is one farfetched conspirecy theory, my god I cant even believe it. You said put two and two together, yea you get four when you do that, not 5 which is what this theory would be. In reality this crap theory does not add up to actual reports.
  14. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    Another thing, it is always so easy to believe these things when you just watch these kind of videos. How many of you have actually looked for videos that are out there specifically to disprove this theory? I'm guessing they are out there and I bet there evidence is even more compelling.

    Also I have my own theory now. The world trade centers were planned to come down even before they were ever made. It was a GRAND conspiricy from the beginning to rally our country together. I have so much compelling evidence too. If this theory wasn't true, than how come when I fold a $20 bill the right way, the trade center is on fire? See I got proof of my conspiricy too. (Just poking fun now).
  15. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Salyers1121
    ok, flight 93, several people made successful calls from their cell phones, at the time flying at the average height of 32000 feet. several studies after the fact were conducted to test the odds of those cell phone calls actually occurring. 0.006 percent. not likely. and the funny thing about that is after that occurrence, airlines installed state of the art cell phone "technology" to help cellphones aboard the planes get better signals and service. why do that if they already worked so well? hmmm.....the billions of dollars of gold being transported out of the towers in underground tunnels on transport trucks. if that is true, which i dont know, then they obviously knew the towers would be struck and collapse. not to mention the billions of dollars in stocks alone being "cashed out" before anything occured. bush's brother collecting billions in insurance from the towers.....the list goes on. also, many people believe the towers were rigged to blow up in a controlled detonation. im not sure about that, but why would the hundreds of firemen in the building report of many many explosions occuring before the towers came down?? why would they lie? how is it that the support beams at the lower level of the building turned to molten steel, when the hottest part of the fire was obviously at top? you would have to double the temp. of the main fire to cause the steel beams to melt the way they did. alot of things dont make sense.... it sounds crazy to believe, but common sense would tell you otherwise.

    people can call out just fine in airplanes.. try it for yourself and you will disprove their claim.

    also when a building catches on fire, and fire spreads.. parts and areas of that building may have things in it that are highly dangerous if put next to a flame... secondary explosions are prob. such said things.

    As for the towers falling in a "controlled" way. Sure they did.. but that is what happens when you have a very cheap, light, building that is introduced to very very high levels of heat. it melts.. down...
  16. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    heres an even better question for you. WHY THE HELL WOULD OUR OWN COUNTRY KILL THOUSANDS OF OUR OWN PEOPLE?! MONEY?! Bull****! Seriously this is one farfetched conspirecy theory, my god I cant even believe it. You said put two and two together, yea you get four when you do that, not 5 which is what this theory would be. In reality this crap theory does not add up to actual reports.
    The reason is the same that Mcnamara gave in his report that was mentioned in the early part of the video-to give us a reason to get involved in a war that would be unpopular here an abroad. The same reason some people believe that pearl harbor was allowed to happen. Most people don't want to believe our government would ever do anything like this, but the fact is we have done worse in the history of our country. Whether or not you believe in the so called conspiracies, there are TONS of facts out there that simply do not add up with the governments official story. This is not the first or only video of it's kind. I'm as sceptical a person as anyone, and a Marine, but there is no way that I believe it happened the way the government says.
  17. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    people can call out just fine in airplanes.. try it for yourself and you will disprove their claim.

    also when a building catches on fire, and fire spreads.. parts and areas of that building may have things in it that are highly dangerous if put next to a flame... secondary explosions are prob. such said things.

    As for the towers falling in a "controlled" way. Sure they did.. but that is what happens when you have a very cheap, light, building that is introduced to very very high levels of heat. it melts.. down...

    Name one other building in the history of modern architecture that collapsed that fast, in such a controlled manner, from fire damage. The owner of building(edit- forgot what the correct number was. It was a smaller building nearby) was recorded on pbs saying that they PULLED it, which is a term for controlled detonation. He later retracted his story, but made out like a bandit from his insurance claim.

    edit-sorry, I'm being redundant here, I just watched more of that movie and some of this was mentioned.
  18. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead
    The reason is the same that Mcnamara gave in his report that was mentioned in the early part of the video-to give us a reason to get involved in a war that would be unpopular here an abroad. The same reason some people believe that pearl harbor was allowed to happen. Most people don't want to believe our government would ever do anything like this, but the fact is we have done worse in the history of our country. Whether or not you believe in the so called conspiracies, there are TONS of facts out there that simply do not add up with the governments official story. This is not the first or only video of it's kind. I'm as sceptical a person as anyone, and a Marine, but there is no way that I believe it happened the way the government says.

    One thing I will agree with is there are some things that add up. But I also do not believe this is a grand conspiracy from our government. What happened to all the people on the plan than. They just decide to kill them in that NASA building or what? There are things that are fishy about it, I just do not agree that it happened the way that video or most out there say it happened.
  19. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    One thing I will agree with is there are some things that add up. But I also do not believe this is a grand conspiracy from our government. What happened to all the people on the plan than. They just decide to kill them in that NASA building or what? There are things that are fishy about it, I just do not agree that it happened the way that video or most out there say it happened.

    All of the videos out there like this are just theories when it's all said and done. I'm trying not to look at it being a huge conspiracy, but just that the governments story is the one that is the hardest to believe. If they have nothing to hide, they could have done a better job to placate the minds of people wanting answers. But they don't have to-they're the government.

    The problem is if you look at either side long enough, you canstart to believe either story. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely we will ever know 100% what really happened.
  20. Registered User
    Salyers1121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead
    All of the videos out there like this are just theories when it's all said and done. I'm trying not to look at it being a huge conspiracy, but just that the governments story is the one that is the hardest to believe. If they have nothing to hide, they could have done a better job to placate the minds of people wanting answers. But they don't have to-they're the government.

    The problem is if you look at either side long enough, you canstart to believe either story. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely we will ever know 100% what really happened.
    quoted for the truth, he is absolutely right. we will never know. maybe when our generation is dead and gone, things will finally leak to the surface. but till then all we can do is ask questions and have opinions. and i have stated mine. and yes, i do think the government is fully capable of doing something of this magnitude. whats stopping them? they had toooooo much to gain from it. end of my rant, i have stated my piece.
  21. Registered User
    Salyers1121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    people can call out just fine in airplanes.. try it for yourself and you will disprove their claim.

    also when a building catches on fire, and fire spreads.. parts and areas of that building may have things in it that are highly dangerous if put next to a flame... secondary explosions are prob. such said things.

    As for the towers falling in a "controlled" way. Sure they did.. but that is what happens when you have a very cheap, light, building that is introduced to very very high levels of heat. it melts.. down...
    the building itself was designed to withstand extremely strong winds, hurricanes, bombs and explosions, and yes, even to survive a plane crash. all of those possibilites were looked at when designing the towers. in the past, extremely large buildings have also caught on fire, and burned for more than 24 hours, and never collapsed. the towers burned for 56 min. and both fell. hmmmmm. man, i can go all day with this. there are too many things.
    and the other explosions......according to those firefighters, there were many many other explosions on several different floors BEFORE it collapsed and on floors where the fire hasnt spread too. there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the other explosions. i doubt everyone is lying.
  22. Board Supporter
    Rage (SoCal)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,930
    Answers
    0

    I think the purpose of this video is to raise questions. Of course, it is powerful propaganda and who know's how much truth it hold. But if anything is for certain, it's that a lot of this sh!t just don't add up.

    For example, the explosions in the Towers, the other building that collapsed in the other perfectly control manner, the stock actions, the timing of his insurance policy and what he covered his towers for, why the block boxes weren't retrieved, why hasn't the insider trading been investigated deeper, Why isn't there more video of what happened to the Pentagon being released, why the hell were the hostages phone calls so secretive and so damn strange....just a few. The government is hiding a LOT and of course this is expected but seriously, if you can sit there and eat up everything that the government has told us about 9-11, you're just as dumb as the next person. I'm not saying to go believe this video but rather start asking questions.
  23. Gold Member
    EEmain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    882
    Answers
    0

    I was given this and "In Plane Site" on DVD Mon. but haven`t watched these yet. This weekend maybe.

    http://www.911inplanesite.com/
  24. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    The Bush Administration is full of scum but I don't believe they helped the crashes in any way.

    I'm a Civil Engineer so I've done all kinds of problems where it could result in whats going on. A small nick could very well be the fracture point and that doesn't have to be the point of impact.

    With a plane going thousands of pounds per inch in a compressive load, in a certain direction, it produces pressure and a torque, since its unlikely the impact was a perfect angle. Odds are it twisted the bar. If there was a weak spot...anywhere, it would break there.

    I've done many labs where we did a load on one side and it fractured near the other side.

    The fact that there was fire definitely could defeat the "plane crash." I doubt the Engineers took into account the temperatures accurately. If its hotter than anticipated, the building is going to fall.

    I could ramble on about this but I don't really believe the theories.
  25. Board Supporter
    Rage (SoCal)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,930
    Answers
    0

    Then how do you explain the other building across the street that was demolished in the same exact manner?

    Seeing the explosions happening in slow-motion, hearing testimonials of people hearing and seeing explosions, it recording as a 2.1 on the rictor scale....all so damn fishy.
  26. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    those buildings had major part flaws etc clips that held the beams together, costly and hindering the economy of NYC. They amount of heat caused by those planes caused the frames to melt and fall.

    Someone wants me to name a building in history that a near by fire made another building fall... well name me another time in history where two fully fueld air liners crashed into a city set up like that.

    " Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways"


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html




    NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

    Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

    That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for—a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

    On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

    NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

    Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

    Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
  27. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    I agree with the video for asking questions. But if it was truely our government, mainly bush heres a good question for everyone. Why would there be reports sitting on his desk months ahead saying al-queda was gonig to try and attack using planes. Why make those up, all those reports did was make Bush look bad. They could have had it be a spontaneous event if they were the ones behind it and they wouldn't look so bad. Also if bush was behind it, why would he not use the oportunity to make himself look good. Instead he sat in a class room for minutes after it while other people ran the country for him. He has gotten INCREDIBLE amounts of crap for this. If he or the government planned it, why not make yourself look good? Why make yourself look like a douche? I agree things don't add up to what the government said, but things also do not add up to what that video says as well.

    My point is that we are not getting the whole story from the government, but that video and vidoes like it are now where near the story either. I agree we should question, but Im not about to start believing one crack head theory over another. I will just continue to question without making certain assumptions until there are actual facts to back it up, instead of just possibilities to what it MIGHT have been.
  28. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    those buildings had major part flaws etc clips that held the beams together, costly and hindering the economy of NYC. They amount of heat caused by those planes caused the frames to melt and fall.

    Someone wants me to name a building in history that a near by fire made another building fall... well name me another time in history where two fully fueld air liners crashed into a city set up like that.

    " Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways"


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html




    NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

    Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

    That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing fora fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

    On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

    NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

    Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600F or 1,700F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200F or 1,300F.

    Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200F. Most fires don't get above 900F to 1,100F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300F or 1,400F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

    According to this it would also make it possible for the plane in the pentagon to "vaporize". In the video it was said that the fire could not have reached 1,100 C, above it is stated that it is. The thing with many of these videos is they are just opinions with exerpts from papers, most of the exerpts are not from experts, just someone else's opinion. It is just regurgitating (sp?) someone elses opinion. That is always how these things start is become people don't know what is really possible.

    (I still think something is fishy, just not to the extent the video made it out to be)
  29. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    he did the right thing by not leaving those children... there was no need for him to go anywhere. He was pretty much safe there, and he has to await the word of the people that are around him and every other president to tell him what was going on. He didn't camp out, he kept calm.. and if you ever watched the movie twins, you know what the first rule is in this sort of situation
  30. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    [

    (I still think something is fishy, just not to the extent the video made it out to be)[/quote]


    I'll take real science over someone trying to sell his theory on a T shirt any day..
  31. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by LakeMountD
    That first picture though was after the roof collapsed, the hole was much smaller... But again the main and really only important thing I saw was the fact that there is no way in that video that it was a 757. IN THAT VIDEO, not saying in general. There are more videos out there but 100% in that video you can tell that is no 757, they are huge.
    In what video? The REAL photos are right in that link along with others.. WHo cares what they had in some simulation video. The hole measures up to what it should be with a 757. The main and really only important point is you shouldn't shouldn't believe what some ****ups with an agenda want you to believe who will butcher facts and ignore anything that goes against ther arguement. They aren't interested in the truth, they are only interest in pushing their anti-government, anti-authority viewpoints.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  32. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    [

    (I still think something is fishy, just not to the extent the video made it out to be)

    I'll take real science over someone trying to sell his theory on a T shirt any day..[/QUOTE]


    Not sure if you think I believe what is being said in that video. Some things i do believe dont add up, but I agree with things that have real science to them, like why the twin towers fell straight down or why the plane was vaporized in the pentagon. My favorite part about this is how he states that the fuel burned around 2000 C in the twin towers and 3000 C was need to bring them down, but the fuel at the pentagon could only burn at 1,100 C and it would take 1400C to vaporize the engines. He contradicts himself over and over in the movie, that is what I find funny about it.
  33. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    According to this it would also make it possible for the plane in the pentagon to "vaporize". )
    Wrong. Please read the link on the first page about how the Pentagon is contructed.

    And also about how that video is complete bull****.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  34. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    I'll take real science over someone trying to sell his theory on a T shirt any day..

    My favorite part about this is how he states that the fuel burned around 2000 C in the twin towers and 3000 C was need to bring them down, but the fuel at the pentagon could only burn at 1,100 C and it would take 1400C to vaporize the engines. He contradicts himself over and over in the movie, that is what I find funny about it.
    And he's wrong again. 3000 degrees is what it takes to MELT steel, as in completely liquifiy, not weaken it to the point it can't support the floors anymore. You don't have to melt steel for it to loos its load bearing capacity. Its a classic exmaple of taking things out of contexnt and wrapping it in a nice little package so it looks like what he is saying is true. It BS, pure an simple.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  35. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    The Bush Administration is full of scum but I don't believe they helped the crashes in any way.

    I'm a Civil Engineer so I've done all kinds of problems where it could result in whats going on. A small nick could very well be the fracture point and that doesn't have to be the point of impact.

    With a plane going thousands of pounds per inch in a compressive load, in a certain direction, it produces pressure and a torque, since its unlikely the impact was a perfect angle. Odds are it twisted the bar. If there was a weak spot...anywhere, it would break there.

    I've done many labs where we did a load on one side and it fractured near the other side.

    The fact that there was fire definitely could defeat the "plane crash." I doubt the Engineers took into account the temperatures accurately. If its hotter than anticipated, the building is going to fall.

    I could ramble on about this but I don't really believe the theories.
    You are part of the conspiracy. Fess up.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  36. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    And he's wrong again. 3000 degrees is what it takes to MELT steel, as in completely liquifiy, not weaken it to the point it can't support the floors anymore. You don't have to melt steel for it to loos its load bearing capacity. Its a classic exmaple of taking things out of contexnt and wrapping it in a nice little package so it looks like what he is saying is true. It BS, pure an simple.
    I never said this was fact, I was just pointing out that he contradicted himself and according to what he said it would make it possible for the plane to be destroyed in the crash. I dont agree with the video in any way, not sure why you think I do. Either way, I see this movie as something michael Moore would do. Complete bull**** that looks real.
  37. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    And he's wrong again. 3000 degrees is what it takes to MELT steel, as in completely liquifiy, not weaken it to the point it can't support the floors anymore. You don't have to melt steel for it to loos its load bearing capacity. Its a classic exmaple of taking things out of contexnt and wrapping it in a nice little package so it looks like what he is saying is true. It BS, pure an simple.
    I think his point was that jet fuel only burns at 1100 degrees and will burn hotter than anything it could come into contact with. Having worked in the airwing in the marine corps, I also know that it burns quickly. For it to sustain the temperatures to melt the titanium in the fuselage or steel, it would have had to have more jet fuel or some other fuel that would burn hotter, longer. It is essentially as the video states, kerosene. There are experts that are not associated with these conspiracies that have said that it is improbable if not imposssible for jet fuel to raise the temperature enough to bend steel let alone vaporize titanium. What is unlikely is that the relatively small structural damage from the impact into the wtc and resulting fires caused a collapse. What is easily explainable is that they collapsed from a controlled detonation. also Add in the fact that the " pancake theory" makes no sense scientifically since the buildings basically fell at freefall speed, and you've got the makings of a conspiracy.
  38. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    I never said this was fact, I was just pointing out that he contradicted himself and according to what he said it would make it possible for the plane to be destroyed in the crash. I dont agree with the video in any way, not sure why you think I do. Either way, I see this movie as something michael Moore would do. Complete bull**** that looks real.
    Ok guesss i was mistaken. I think this video raises some interesting questions regardless of why, or by whom you think these attacks were orchestrated. Besides what we have discussed there are so many other questions.

    Another thing I found odd that was unrelated to this video or any conspiracy- on penn and teller the other night they interviewed a firefighter that was at the scene and tragically lost a friend. He said over the radio the kept getting a warning that a collapse was immenent. How could they anticipate this due to the fact that a building had never collapsed like this? Add in the fact that the 9/11 commision report states that fire inspectors and engineers never thought that the buildings would collapse, and were shocked when they did, and you have to ask why then were they getting orders to evacuate? It does not add up.
  39. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    t

    Someone wants me to name a building in history that a near by fire made another building fall... well name me another time in history where two fully fueld air liners crashed into a city set up like that.
    Empire state building was hit, did not come close to falling. A b-25 hit in july of 1945 , killing 14 people but did not compromise the integrity of the building.
  40. Registered User
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    In what video? The REAL photos are right in that link along with others.. WHo cares what they had in some simulation video. The hole measures up to what it should be with a 757. The main and really only important point is you shouldn't shouldn't believe what some ****ups with an agenda want you to believe who will butcher facts and ignore anything that goes against ther arguement. They aren't interested in the truth, they are only interest in pushing their anti-government, anti-authority viewpoints.
    The questions come in when they expect you to believe that a 757 skidded off the grass and punched thru over 9 feet of steel enforced concrete, leaving behind an almost perfect circle and little debris. Planes do not disappear to that extent when they crash no matter what they hit. These aren't all conspiracy theory whackos that question these things. There have been victims family members, and people simply wanting accountability from their government that have come foward as well.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2013, 08:32 PM
  2. Storage of LR3 IGF-1 for those of you wondering.
    By LakeMountD in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-18-2006, 04:22 PM
  3. For those of you with questions about NO supplements
    By str8flexed in forum Supplements
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 08:25 PM
  4. For those of you who take Serzone for depression...
    By windwords7 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2003, 01:45 AM
  5. For those of you with Windows XP...
    By Sheesh in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-23-2003, 04:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in