but how could they have planted the explosives??

1…1415171920

Comments

  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    does anyone have any links about the hologram theory? not that i believe it's credibile (i'm undecided between a few theories), i'm just curious about their rationale for believing this...so are theys aying the gapping holes were holograms, too?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    i think we're forgetting that all things must be taken into consideration. the first investigation of any incident is done quickly because people want answers. after that investigation; those who do not accept it will question those results. this brings more testing of the evidence and sometimes rebuffs the original conclusion. this comes mostly from scientists and forensic experts doing controlled experiments to prove or disprove theories.
    after 5 years the experiments are done and the results are in. if you look at ALL of the experiments you can come to an educated and informed decision. one group saying explosives does not cancell out the current evidence. hell; conspiracy sells books and brings attention to someone. i can throw a spin on this and manipulate the evidence to show aliens were responsable. it would make a hell of a book and i'm sure it would be a top seller. that's what people want to hear.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    off this topic, but related,...

    did they claim to find plane remains in the trade center wreckage?
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    El_Kabong wrote:
    does anyone have any links about the hologram theory? not that i believe it's credibile (i'm undecided between a few theories), i'm just curious about their rationale for believing this...so are theys aying the gapping holes were holograms, too?

    The hologram theory is that the planes were holograms that disguised missiles that hit the buildings. A bit too Star Trek for me.

    One question I have is that if the heat was burning as hot as they say it was, why didn't the people hanging out of the windows near the hole not burn up?
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    sonicreducer wrote:
    off this topic, but related,...

    did they claim to find plane remains in the trade center wreckage?

    They found bits and pieces mostly on the ground that shot "through" the WTC. I remember seeing an engine and a couple scraps of the sides.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sourdough wrote:
    The hologram theory is that the planes were holograms that disguised missiles that hit the buildings. A bit too Star Trek for me.

    One question I have is that if the heat was burning as hot as they say it was, why didn't the people hanging out of the windows near the hole not burn up?

    they did. many bodies were creamated in the fire; thus explains the missing bodies.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sonicreducer wrote:
    off this topic, but related,...

    did they claim to find plane remains in the trade center wreckage?

    the plane parts remaining in the building were melted in the heat. only the parts blown threw were collected.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    onelongsong wrote:
    they did. many bodies were creamated in the fire; thus explains the missing bodies.

    Yes, but on the videos there are people hanging out the windows up until the time the buildings collapsed. If a fire was burning that intensely as they say, how were those people alive to sit in the windows to begin with? At that heat wouldn't they all have been incinerated (and therefore not be able to hang out the windows)?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sourdough wrote:
    Yes, but on the videos there are people hanging out the windows up until the time the buildings collapsed. If a fire was burning that intensely as they say, how were those people alive to sit in the windows to begin with? At that heat wouldn't they all have been incinerated (and therefore not be able to hang out the windows)?

    and where were these people in relation to the epicenter? when beams designed to hold up a floor of (let's say 50 tons) of concrete fails and that floor lands on the lower floor making the load weight 100 tons (doubling the carrying capacity); those beams will fail no matter how hot or cold they are. it's simple science and physics. when that floor falls onto the next it triples the carrying capacity and so on. this gives the "straight down" effect we saw.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    onelongsong wrote:
    and where were these people in relation to the epicenter? when beams designed to hold up a floor of (let's say 50 tons) of concrete fails and that floor lands on the lower floor making the load weight 100 tons (doubling the carrying capacity); those beams will fail no matter how hot or cold they are. it's simple science and physics. when that floor falls onto the next it triples the carrying capacity and so on. this gives the "straight down" effect we saw.

    I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sourdough wrote:
    I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?

    as a kid we had parties in gravel pits. we'd build a big bon-fire and set up a few kegs and most of the school would show up. not once did someone die instantly or burn up while standing next to this massive fire.
    to answer your question scientifically; the open windows were sucking in the cooler outside air during the chimney effect thus shielding them from the intense heat. the same as a campfire burns up and draws air from the base to feed the fire. the more air; the hotter the fire. those people were standing in a wind tunnel of cooler fresh outside air.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.
  • The Illinoisemakers
    The Illinoisemakers Posts: 461
    sourdough wrote:
    I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?


    For all we know, and I know it sounds horrible, but those people who were hanging out windows could have had there skin melting off of them. No one was up there with them, so we really don't know what the conditions were like. I'm sure it was burning them while they were up there, that's why many choose to take their chances jumping then staying close to the fires.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    The Illinoisemakers wrote:
    For all we know, and I know it sounds horrible, but those people who were hanging out windows could have had there skin melting off of them. No one was up there with them, so we really don't know what the conditions were like. I'm sure it was burning them while they were up there, that's why many choose to take their chances jumping then staying close to the fires.

    Its possible, but I don't recall anyone jumping with burning clothes. I'm sure it was hot as hell, but not as hot as I would expect considering the magnitude and intensity of the fire.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sourdough wrote:
    As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.

    if you strike a wooden match and hold your finger over it; will you get burned? from that little fire??? if you light a pine log (same material as the match) on fire; does it burn hotter than the match? no; pine burns at approx 2000 degrees. now start a fire in a wood stove. when you open the door the fire blazes and burns hotter. like a blacksmiths bellow or blast furnace. the fuel burns at a constant but the air forced into it raises the temp.
    any fire at all will burn flesh. even a little match.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sourdough wrote:
    Its possible, but I don't recall anyone jumping with burning clothes. I'm sure it was hot as hell, but not as hot as I would expect considering the magnitude and intensity of the fire.

    take a piece of metal; let's say rebar (concrete reinforcement) about 3 feet long. heat the center with a torch until red hot. you can still hold the ends and bend the metal in half.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    onelongsong wrote:
    the plane parts remaining in the building were melted in the heat. only the parts blown threw were collected.

    do you have a link with some info?
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • Survo-
    Survo- Posts: 72
    Steel melts at 1525 C.
    Jet fuel burns at 825 C.

    You think im trying to prove that there was no attack dont you.

    Steel loses 1/2 of its strength at 648 C.

    Like some one else said, once those few floors fall, all that added weight.... its going to fall.

    Some people are too paranoid.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    sourdough wrote:
    As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.


    Aw, dude. They got you too!?
  • Survo-
    Survo- Posts: 72
    sourdough wrote:
    I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?


    At my school we douse a boat in zippo fluid (tons and tons of it) and we spray paint it for home coming. Then we light it on fire. And I mean a pretty big boat, probably 15 feet long, 10 feet wide usually.

    Not as hot as jet fuel, but a pretty big flame and added chemicals makes it bigger and hotter than the average fire.
    No ones ever melted there.

Categories