Hoping to make your life's design a bit more dynamic!

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:20 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:55 pm
Posts: 844
I'll just say this much about this whole affair:
delicate subjects will knock on our doors sooner or later and having healthy discussions
about them among friends is a great way for us to learn different perspectives and
even through those, strenghten our common goals.

Its impossible to walk through life knowing only one path.
If anything, knowing other paths will remind you of what to avoid.
I don't mind anyone's religious or political standing here, as I have my own
and it doesn't mean such topics shouldn't exist among us, but simply that
enough tact is needed so it doesn't become overbearing for any given party.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 875
Location: South Florida
ultpaladin wrote:
Wildbill,

I am a political science/history major but a year or two ago this issue came up in class so I read through a lot of structural engineering journals.

Bongo

You should really read this, it deals with the issues of thermite and pretty much every feature of the collapse. These are the foremost demolition experts in the country

http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

As for Silverstein, pull is being used in a way that means pulling down a building with cables because all of the NYFD realized the building was going to collapse soon. "Pull" is not used in the demolition world to describe bringing down a building. In the link above, look at assertion 7 that deals with WTC7. In addition if you watch those demolition specials on National Geographic, you would see that all kinds of evidence of demolition is left over in the collapsed debris (wiring and other setup materials). This means that evidence of a controlled demolition would have been all over the WTC7 debris (and the Twin Towers too if it existed).

As for the picture, that could not be caused by thermite since it cannot cut vertical columns, especially ones that thick and in addition there is no way any thermite setup could have ever been put in place because the plane impact would have caused major chaos to such a setup and the resultant fires (up to 1600 Fahrenheit) would have easily done away with any charges. It would also have been impossible to bring in tons of thermite and put them into place without being seen. Again that link above has more info on this and they talked to Steven Jones about this.




I don't really mind if this topic goes on or not, but do I hope everyone here on this topic realizes I consider them a friend and we have many funner topics to talk about ;)


The columns cut at an angle are for demo purposes. A show I watched on the discovery chanel demostrated the cuts and placement of dynamite. They cut as in notch then boom!

As for thermite, firefighters admitted to seeing pools or molten steel at the bottom of ground zero weeks after the building fell. And again, look at building 7 when it fell and then look a controlled demo. The center needs to be imploded so the building falls onto itself. Besides, WTC7 was too far for ANY debris from a straight down falling building to hit it. Any explanation to why ony the Silverstein buildings ( all of them ) fell and the Hilton which was 48 feet away from WTC1 or 2 didn't budge? Not even a fire? If the fire was so hot, why didn't the people standing at the entry of the plane burn to death or suffocate from the heat before jumping to their untimely death?

1600 degrees?? Wow... Thermite mixed with sulphur can burn over than 2500 degrees celsius

I remember there was a movie that stated the ignorance of peopke and it said some thing like. "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he didn't exist". The question one should ask is, not who do you believe but who's to gain? The government NEVER telss youi that they made a mistake, but for example, Geitner would openly patronize the citizens and tell them that they should be mad at the puppets recieving money from us and have us work off the debt as slaves.

Ask yourself this question while you are at it. The US government, all powerful. Why do they have
to borrow money from the FED bank? Isn't the Federal bank bank FEDRAL? NO! It's not even part of the government! It's one thing to be lied to, but it's sad when we all believe in the lie.

My point? We the people build and operate this country that I love so much. I just ask to stop being told that the tooth fairy exist and anyone who says otherwise is a terroirst.


Last edited by Bongo` on Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 509
Here, here! I feel exactly the same way as you Bongo`! Damn debt! I'm starting to hate the very idea of money because of it! It truely sickens me that these rich higher-ups are making cash off of us who work and are soaked up to our knees in debt. If more people did more research for themselves rather than just beliving what they hear on TV, this would be a better world.

Edit: And yeah, Bongo` is right. 9/11 was just a setup by using bombs. Think about it. What does America need? Oil. Where can oil be found? The Middle East. Who has this oil? The Arabs. The solution? Brand them as terrorists and start a war. I'm not trying to defend terrorism or anything, I'm just saying that the Americans aren't exactly giving us the whole truth. And it seems that all who oppose or question American politics are also branded as terrorists and/or dissidents. That's not exactly freedom of free speech is it?

If you study history, you'll see that they've rewriten a lot of history to their advantage after winning wars.


"Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind."
- Edward D. Morrison (Tales of Phantasia)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 443
About keeping an open mind, I've probably read 3 times more conspiracy material than traditional theory materials. Its very useful knowing both sides of the argument in debating this issue.

I think what a lot of people forget is that an event like this has never happened in history and then they look at various things and think they are unusual but there is no class of events to compare 911 to. Its unique in human history. Some people are surprised that the buildings came straight down but you have to remember that gravity is the overwhelming force here and those compromised supports at the point of impact had 20-30 floors of weight pushing down against them.

The best people to look at a technical issue like thia are the top structural engineers in the world with PhDs from the top universities in the world at the most prestigious engineering journals in the world using the peer reviewed journal process. These are thousands of the top structural engineers from countries across the world whose work is critiqued first by a committee of elite engineers and then by the members that pay fees to these journals. Why would all these structural engineers whose job it is to improve building safety lie about this?

As for the molten metal, look at Blanchard's assertion 5. He was there along with his company Protec.

As for WTC 7, the building had a 20 story gash on one of its corners, had fires going for 7 hours, had multiple fuel tanks for generators inside the stucture that likely united and its design featured a change in plans partway through its construction that may have made it more vulnerable to collapse. Look at Blanchard assertion 7 from my earlier link and also the link below.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf

One also should think about what kind of incriminating evidence was in WTC 7 that was so important that they felt they needed to bring down the structure by controlled demolition but not important enough as to leave the building up for 7 hours. Anybody have a suggestion of what could have been in there to fit that criteria?




And even aside from the structural engineering journals all you have to do to prove a controlled demolition is impossible is engage in pure logic and to ask for someone to give a scenario of how it could possibly work. Its been almost 10 years and there are millions of conspiracy theorists. Yet there is no explanation. Its because it is scientifically impossible.

So can someone provide a possible scenario where it could work?

1. I hope everyone here agrees that the point of collapse was at the point of the plane impact and that is therefore the place where the primary charges would have to be placed whatever the type of explosive used. Even the all powerful US government (which is often pretty incompetent) cannot change the laws of physics, those charges had to be placed at the point of collapse.

2. So can anyone tell me how someone could setup demolition charges at the point of impact without being seen and how could all those wires and charges remain intact after a plane impact that severed many support columns and caused fires 800 to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit?


If someone cannot provide a possible scenario for point 2, then it nullifies all these other points on a CD (Controlled Demolition). You can't have a CD unless you are able to set up charges and keep them at the point of collapse at the time of the collapse.





I honestly wish I had not jumped into this debate, its like doing homework on a board I would just like to have fun on. And this topic in particular is very technically based and requires me to go into sources that are rigorous reads. :(


Winston Churchill in response to forming an alliance with the Soviet Union during World War 2:
If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 875
Location: South Florida
ultpaladin wrote:
About keeping an open mind, I've probably read 3 times more conspiracy material than traditional theory materials. Its very useful knowing both sides of the argument in debating this issue.

I think what a lot of people forget is that an event like this has never happened in history and then they look at various things and think they are unusual but there is no class of events to compare 911 to. Its unique in human history. Some people are surprised that the buildings came straight down but you have to remember that gravity is the overwhelming force here and those compromised supports at the point of impact had 20-30 floors of weight pushing down against them.

The best people to look at a technical issue like thia are the top structural engineers in the world with PhDs from the top universities in the world at the most prestigious engineering journals in the world using the peer reviewed journal process. These are thousands of the top structural engineers from countries across the world whose work is critiqued first by a committee of elite engineers and then by the members that pay fees to these journals. Why would all these structural engineers whose job it is to improve building safety lie about this?

As for the molten metal, look at Blanchard's assertion 5. He was there along with his company Protec.

As for WTC 7, the building had a 20 story gash on one of its corners, had fires going for 7 hours, had multiple fuel tanks for generators inside the stucture that likely united and its design featured a change in plans partway through its construction that may have made it more vulnerable to collapse. Look at Blanchard assertion 7 from my earlier link and also the link below.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf

One also should think about what kind of incriminating evidence was in WTC 7 that was so important that they felt they needed to bring down the structure by controlled demolition but not important enough as to leave the building up for 7 hours. Anybody have a suggestion of what could have been in there to fit that criteria?




And even aside from the structural engineering journals all you have to do to prove a controlled demolition is impossible is engage in pure logic and to ask for someone to give a scenario of how it could possibly work. Its been almost 10 years and there are millions of conspiracy theorists. Yet there is no explanation. Its because it is scientifically impossible.

So can someone provide a possible scenario where it could work?

1. I hope everyone here agrees that the point of collapse was at the point of the plane impact and that is therefore the place where the primary charges would have to be placed whatever the type of explosive used. Even the all powerful US government (which is often pretty incompetent) cannot change the laws of physics, those charges had to be placed at the point of collapse.

2. So can anyone tell me how someone could setup demolition charges at the point of impact without being seen and how could all those wires and charges remain intact after a plane impact that severed many support columns and caused fires 800 to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit?


If someone cannot provide a possible scenario for point 2, then it nullifies all these other points on a CD (Controlled Demolition). You can't have a CD unless you are able to set up charges and keep them at the point of collapse at the time of the collapse.





I honestly wish I had not jumped into this debate, its like doing homework on a board I would just like to have fun on. And this topic in particular is very technically based and requires me to go into sources that are rigorous reads. :(


Engigeering: Engineers, majority ( including the builder ) stated that those buildings were made to
withstand TWO plane impacts.

Anyone remember when Clinton was in office and WTC was bombed from the garage?
How did those explosives get in there? I'll tell you how, because the culprits don't operate on the 'fly' they plan. :)I'm a black male and I will tell you that seeing Obama in office is a double edge sword. Blacks can't pull the race card anymore because they have their pacifier in office. All other races can't critize him because they would be labelled racist. So he is the perfect puppet. :)


As for no other event to compare 9/11 to, that ois true.
1) The effort and resources needed to pull this off was possibly not available. Eveyone knows that they have been trying to pass the Patriot Act for YEARS!

2) Hitler set flame to his own palace and guess what "act" he passed the "Enabling Act" And I'm sure people know what the heck that guy did. So yes, corruption is a nasty word. But power consumes those who seek power.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 443
The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 perhaps lost in the fog flying at landing or take off speed of 180 mph which is one third the speed of what the 767s flew at which was between 470 and 590 mph. Thats a big difference in the force of the impact. The 767 is also larger and carries more fuel. And despite this the towers did "withstand" the impact for a period of time. What ultimately brought down the tower was a combination of severed load bearing support columns, the weakening of steel throughout the impacted floors and the distortion of steel due to temperature differentials. Steel weakens by 50 percent at about 1200 F, a few parts were probably exposed to higher heat, others to lower heat. This differential itself caused problems. A difference of 300 degrees F between various support columns will cause all kinds of stress on the load-bearing capacity. Check out this article from the Journal of Metals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html


As for the comparison to the original WTC bombing, the first bombers just parked a car bomb. They did not have to wire up the place and attach charges to the various support columns that would have been seen by many people. Most importantly, they did not have to deal with a plane impact disrupting a demolition setup nor its resultant fires and debris that would have made such a setup completely impossible. No demolition setup could have been put up without being seen considering how long it would have taken. No demolition setup with all of the wiring and charges placed on support columns would have survived the plane impact intact. No demolition setup could have been put in place after the plane strikes because of the intense heat and scattered debris. Finally structural engineering journals have put forth models of the collapse that prove the plane strikes were sufficient to bring down the buildings.



Again the million dollar question: Can anyone give a possible scenario of how the Twin Towers were brought down by a CD considering the point of structural failure occurred at the exact spot of the plane strikes? I'm not asking for the real way it happened, just any possible way in the same sense that the JFK conspiracy has several possible scenarios.


Winston Churchill in response to forming an alliance with the Soviet Union during World War 2:
If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 875
Location: South Florida
ultpaladin wrote:
The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 perhaps lost in the fog flying at landing or take off speed of 180 mph which is one third the speed of what the 767s flew at which was between 470 and 590 mph. Thats a big difference in the force of the impact. The 767 is also larger and carries more fuel. And despite this the towers did "withstand" the impact for a period of time. What ultimately brought down the tower was a combination of severed load bearing support columns, the weakening of steel throughout the impacted floors and the distortion of steel due to temperature differentials. Steel weakens by 50 percent at about 1200 F, a few parts were probably exposed to higher heat, others to lower heat. This differential itself caused problems. A difference of 300 degrees F between various support columns will cause all kinds of stress on the load-bearing capacity. Check out this article from the Journal of Metals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html


As for the comparison to the original WTC bombing, the first bombers just parked a car bomb. They did not have to wire up the place and attach charges to the various support columns that would have been seen by many people. Most importantly, they did not have to deal with a plane impact disrupting a demolition setup nor its resultant fires and debris that would have made such a setup completely impossible. No demolition setup could have been put up without being seen considering how long it would have taken. No demolition setup with all of the wiring and charges placed on support columns would have survived the plane impact intact. No demolition setup could have been put in place after the plane strikes because of the intense heat and scattered debris. Finally structural engineering journals have put forth models of the collapse that prove the plane strikes were sufficient to bring down the buildings.



Again the million dollar question: Can anyone give a possible scenario of how the Twin Towers were brought down by a CD considering the point of structural failure occurred at the exact spot of the plane strikes? I'm not asking for the real way it happened, just any possible way in the same sense that the JFK conspiracy has several possible scenarios.


When someone figures that out then they could explain to the rest of us
how in THE world did G.W.B win the election in 2000. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:58 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Korea
Wow, look what happened to this thread!

Again, I'll state that the best thing that Zeitgeist did was to raise awareness/educate about money and economics. The rest is really a bunch of conspiracy theory inspired tidbits (not saying that they aren't possible). If you want to learn more about the money system, I highly recommend the documentary titled "Money as Debt". I believe that you can watch the whole thing right on youtube if you want.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:53 pm
Posts: 875
Location: South Florida
Draken wrote:
Wow, look what happened to this thread!

Again, I'll state that the best thing that Zeitgeist did was to raise awareness/educate about money and economics. The rest is really a bunch of conspiracy theory inspired tidbits (not saying that they aren't possible). If you want to learn more about the money system, I highly recommend the documentary titled "Money as Debt". I believe that you can watch the whole thing right on youtube if you want.


Don't you love the FED bank? For every dollar we eran / possess, debt tags along for the ride.
The money system stinks.

I may be wrong but isn't 'Loan Sharking' illegal in america? I know it is, yet I am applying for a home loan on a house that will cost $135,000 / 30 year. By the time I'm done paying for it, I ould have paid $280,000 for the house. :( What a system we have here in america...

I agree about the conspiracy theories. It makes for fun conversation, but nothing as serious as the Elite bankers and their thorough screwing of the American people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Post subject: Re: I wish I can unwatch these documentaries...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 2340
Location: Virginia
Bongo` wrote:
Draken wrote:
Wow, look what happened to this thread!

Again, I'll state that the best thing that Zeitgeist did was to raise awareness/educate about money and economics. The rest is really a bunch of conspiracy theory inspired tidbits (not saying that they aren't possible). If you want to learn more about the money system, I highly recommend the documentary titled "Money as Debt". I believe that you can watch the whole thing right on youtube if you want.


Don't you love the FED bank? For every dollar we eran / possess, debt tags along for the ride.
The money system stinks.

I may be wrong but isn't 'Loan Sharking' illegal in america? I know it is, yet I am applying for a home loan on a house that will cost $135,000 / 30 year. By the time I'm done paying for it, I ould have paid $280,000 for the house. :( What a system we have here in america...

I agree about the conspiracy theories. It makes for fun conversation, but nothing as serious as the Elite bankers and their thorough screwing of the American people.
If you want to move to Chapel Hill, I've got a three BR home I'll let go for only $125,000, 1200 sq ft. interior, deck, fireplace, 1/2 wooded acre (tax appraised at $126,578) 7 miles from the University of North Carolina campus. I'll even throw in a $1000 carpet credit to makeover the living/dining area. Identical homes on the street have been listed at $138,000, so it would save you a bit of money over your proposed Florida real estate acquisition! My older son, who has lived here for almost five years, was supposed to take command of this property when he graduated from Duke, but he was determined to rent a place in Durham close to his new job.


Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group