9/11 Mysteries

Drowned Out · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

useless, meaning it was going to have come down one way or the other. sure I'd be curious to know why they lied. maybe it was liability reasons, maybe money reasons? I dont know. its much more important that not a single person was hurt or killed. but I also dont believe that such a lie could be kept secret. someone would have alot to gain but telling the story of how they took down the building on purpose. regardless, I believe it came down because of the damage sustained and design of the building.

If the whistleblower had a family, a career, a life, they would have a lot more to lose than gain by going public...
So which is it? You say it would be impossible to keep secret, but you won't commit to the "fact" that it wasn't demolished. Is it possible that WTC7 was "pulled" intentionally or not?
It would have come down one way or another? Like all the other steel highrises that have collapsed over the years?

jlew24asu wrote:

fell perfectly? WTF does that mean. I saw nothing perfect about it. allow me to throw some common sense at you. the planes hit about 2/3 or higher up on the building destroying some major support columns. a very hot fire weakened (not melted) other support beams. WTC was the tallest concrete structure in the world. when the support gives way, the building has no where to go but DOWN. we in the scientific community call that gravity.

I thought at first maybe I shouldn't have used the word perfectly….but do you really think those buildings could have come down more cleanly (in a single-stage) if they WERE demolished? Obviously I'm not a part of your scientific community, but I think not. Oh, and since we're talking proof....prove to me that the impact destroyed the support columns, and knocked the fireproofing off of the steel. If the steel was weakened, not melted, what was the molten material pouring out the side of the building before the collapse? What were the pools of molten metal found during the cleanup? I know you must've answered this here before, but I don't remember your excuse. 'round we go...

Yes, I saw the damage footprint….I also saw other buildings in the complex with WAY more damage than WTC 7, half buried in rubble, reduced to steel skeletons, but STILL STANDING.

jlew24asu · July 2007

HANKTHELANK wrote:

insulted?.......... get over it!!!!

Looked up Operation Northwoods yet???.....i'll make it easy on you, here's what Wikipedia has on it......don't trust wikipedia, keep looking, you'll find the offiial document in less then a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

yea yea yea I hear all about it. how many people died in the operation?

like I said, i'm digging my bunker now.

HANKTHELANK · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

yea yea yea I hear all about it. how many people died in the operation?

like I said, i'm digging my bunker now.

so a government which comes literally within one executive order away from killing it's people doesn't worry you. It doesn't open up the realm of possiblity, that it actually could happen.

You said that you were insulted that i suggested that your government was behind it, yet when i show you evidence that they had planned this in the past, you respond with a juvenile reply. Sad man......

jlew24asu · July 2007

Drowned Out wrote:

If the whistleblower had a family, a career, a life, they would have a lot more to lose than gain by going public...

how so? money, greed, power, and fame can drive a person to do anything.

Drowned Out wrote:

So which is it? You say it would be impossible to keep secret, but you won't commit to the "fact" that it wasn't demolished. Is it possible that WTC7 was "pulled" intentionally or not?

yes, its possible. what the fuck are you getting at?

Drowned Out wrote:

It would have come down one way or another? Like all the other steel highrises that have collapsed over the years?

yes, it would have been taking down manually like several other steel highrises that were set for destruction.

Drowned Out wrote:

I thought at first maybe I shouldn't have used the word perfectly….but do you really think those buildings could have come down more cleanly (in a single-stage) if they WERE demolished? Obviously I'm not a part of your scientific community, but I think not. Oh, and since we're talking proof....prove to me that the impact destroyed the support columns, and knocked the fireproofing off of the steel.

yes this has been proven. as if it needs much proof anyway. a 767 plane going 500+ mph hit the fucking thing. what the fuck do you think will happen? its going to bounce off the support columns?

Drowned Out wrote:

If the steel was weakened, not melted, what was the molten material pouring out the side of the building before the collapse? What were the pools of molten metal found during the cleanup? I know you must've answered this here before, but I don't remember your excuse. 'round we go...

I dont have an answer as to my there was. its possible after several days of constant heat and pressure, such things could happen. its possible right?

Drowned Out wrote:

Yes, I saw the damage footprint….I also saw other buildings in the complex with WAY more damage than WTC 7, half buried in rubble, reduced to steel skeletons, but STILL STANDING.

and? they werent as tall or as heavy as 1,2, or 7 and were designed differently.

jlew24asu · July 2007

HANKTHELANK wrote:

so a government which comes literally within one executive order away from killing it's people doesn't worry you. It doesn't open up the realm of possiblity, that it actually could happen.

that was 60 years ago. during a time when nuclear weapons hitting our soil was a very close reality.

HANKTHELANK wrote:

You said that you were insulted that i suggested that your government was behind it, yet when i show you evidence that they had planned this in the past, you respond with a juvenile reply. Sad man......

9/11 and operations northwoods are 2 entirely different scenarios and times in history. not to mention operations northwoods never even happened.

I always always always respect people for questioning the government. its our right as free people. so carry on.

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

No it would slow it down actually. The bottom parts of the building not affected pushes upwards to oppose any downwards force applied to it. The tensile strength of cold unaffected steel is incredibly high.

Not exactly comparable to thin air.

It's surprising how this eludes people.

So what are you trying to say here?

MakingWaves · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

I dont know dude. I wont argue with you about this. I do not know the physics or engineering enough to spare with you.

its just beyond me to think explosives were planted throughout 2 of the largest buildings in the world and then set off at such a perfect time without one single person noticing or saying something.

you would agree that money and power is a powerful thing. someone would have sooo much to gain by coming forward and saying they were involved. not only money but that person would go in the history books forever. this is all while having nothing to gain by staying quiet.

Yeah, but i know a little about the engineering and physics.
The tensile strength of that steel was probably about 36 kpsi and I would be willing to bet ANYTHING that the steel experienced forces greater then that. You know why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING COLLAPSED!
So the point of bringing up the tensile strength of the steel is useless and just another example of saying stuff that sounds good but has nothing to do with anything and then just thinking people will nod their heads and say "yeah, good point. Government must have blown it up"

jlew24asu · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Yeah, but i know a little about the engineering and physics.
The tensile strength of that steel was probably about 36 kpsi and I would be willing to bet ANYTHING that the steel experienced forces greater then that. You know why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING COLLAPSED!
So the point of bringing up the tensile strength of the steel is useless and just another example of saying stuff that sounds good but has nothing to do with anything and then just thinking people will nod their heads and say "yeah, good point. Government must have blown it up"

just seems like common sense to me.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Yeah, but i know a little about the engineering and physics.
The tensile strength of that steel was probably about 36 kpsi and I would be willing to bet ANYTHING that the steel experienced forces greater then that. You know why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING COLLAPSED!
So the point of bringing up the tensile strength of the steel is useless and just another example of saying stuff that sounds good but has nothing to do with anything and then just thinking people will nod their heads and say "yeah, good point. Government must have blown it up"

Show me how the tensile strength of steel (heck anything) is comparable to thin air, and I'll agree. Force is force. Negate it away if you want.

A lot of your arguments have just been shot down one after the other.

I'm heading out for a bit so think about it for a while and let me know

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Show me how the tensile strength of steel (heck anything) is comparable to thin air, and I'll agree. Force is force. Negate it away if you want.

A lot of your arguments have just been shot down one after the other.

I'm heading out for a bit so think about it for a while and let me know

Are you trying to say the buildings fell at Free Fall speed???

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Show me how the tensile strength of steel (heck anything) is comparable to thin air, and I'll agree. Force is force. Negate it away if you want.

A lot of your arguments have just been shot down one after the other.

I'm heading out for a bit so think about it for a while and let me know

and none of my arguements have been shot down. Please tell me one that has. It is the other way around. You have been proven wrong on so many accounts but you choose to ignore facts and just come up with another theory. Examples: You say the buildings were wired during a power down. 'Only one building had a power down, explain the other buildings?' Response: Well it could have been done over months and years. Notice how you come up with a new theory?? You say there were no remains at the Pentagon. I show you proof of remains. If this was a debate i would have kicked your ass!
Like i said before. You want there to be a conspiracy so bad it hurts you. You would refuse to see the truth no matter what.

MakingWaves · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Are you trying to say the buildings fell at Free Fall speed???

I will assume this is what you are trying to say. This is so idiotic. No one ever made this claim that they did but I have seen some conspiracy nuts say it fell in something like 8 seconds which would be impossible. Acceleration of gravity is 9.81 m/s^2. The buildings are 417 metes tall. That equals 9.2 seconds. So it would be impossible for them to fall at that speed. The time for collapse was more likely around 14-15 seconds which would make perfect sense.
But go ahead, find something in the report that gives another time and twist it however you like, but frankly this is getting boring. It gets tiring reading all of these bullshit theories with no facts to back them up.
Fact
A video taken of the collapse shows at 11 seconds that the collapse of the South Tower is still under way. The cameraman began running at that point, but the sound of the building collapsing continues for many more seconds.

Freefall video evidence
According to NIST, the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated was 11 seconds for WTC1 and 9 seconds for WTC2. NIST also points out that significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

NIST FAQ regarding "free fall"

El_Kabong · July 2007

...................

El_Kabong · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

has this been proven? or is this some nice internet rumor that you jack off to?

it was reported in a news paper or 2 and i don't jack off to internet rumors...not all ppl are like you

jlew24asu wrote:

you hoenstly believe that cheney and rummy personally "picked" the day that 4 jet liners would crash into our buildings and kill thousands of innocent people? I mean really? if you believe that, who in the world can you possibly live here?

why did cheney and rummy move the exercises to 9/11 instead of when they are held every other year?

you act like ppl like cheney would be hurt if they knew they caused harm to 3,000 ppl! don't be so naive! , what, 6 times that dies every year in the US from not having any health insurance! look at the regimes cheney and halliburton did work for, in fact when he was asked back then how he could do work for these ppl committing gross human rights violations he replied "it's easy, i don't think about it." they don't give a fuck about the regular person and they show that all the time...wake up from dream land where cheney sheds a tear over every stubbed toe

jlew24asu wrote:

I am failing to see the link here. rummy was trying to cut military spending. ok and?

yeah, rummy is gonna cut waste...how much did his company get for that bird flu vaccine???

and he said on 9/11 he would open an investigation to get to the bottom of all the missing defense money!

then....well, i guess post 9-11 there just wasn't ANY time to do this.....?

jlew24asu wrote:

and? they werent as tall or as heavy as 1,2, or 7 and were designed differently.

actually, building 7 was pretty short compared to all the other buildings surrounding it

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

and none of my arguements have been shot down. Please tell me one that has. It is the other way around. You have been proven wrong on so many accounts but you choose to ignore facts and just come up with another theory. Examples: You say the buildings were wired during a power down. 'Only one building had a power down, explain the other buildings?' Response: Well it could have been done over months and years. Notice how you come up with a new theory?? You say there were no remains at the Pentagon. I show you proof of remains. If this was a debate i would have kicked your ass!
Like i said before. You want there to be a conspiracy so bad it hurts you. You would refuse to see the truth no matter what.

I never said anything about a power down. You are confused. I did say they had complete access to every part of the buildings for weeks, months etc though, which is 100% undeniable fact...not some theory. You showed me no human remains at the pentagon. My post prior to that was clearly talking about human remains and fingerprint identification to prove who was on the plane like the govt claimed. This is fact as well not theory.

You see, I have no joy in being right. I wish I was wrong. If I could see something... just one thing that would change my mind I would gladly reconsider, but alas I haven't found it yet, nor has anyone been able to show me it yet (and it's been a few years). Quite the opposite in fact.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

Can someone tell me if vertical steel columns shatter similar to the stem of a wine glass when under excessive tensile load?

Am I wrong or is that what I'm being made to believe?

I'd like someone to clear that up for me.

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I never said anything about a power down. You are confused. I did say they had complete access to every part of the buildings for weeks, months etc though, which is 100% undeniable fact...not some theory. You showed me no human remains at the pentagon. My post prior to that was clearly talking about human remains and fingerprint identification to prove who was on the plane like the govt claimed. This is fact as well not theory.

You see, I have no joy in being right. I wish I was wrong. If I could see something... just one thing that would change my mind I would gladly reconsider, but alas I haven't found it yet, nor has anyone been able to show me it yet (and it's been a few years). Quite the opposite in fact.

If you go back to a link i posted earlier where i said it showed human remains and read the page you will find them.

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Can someone tell me if vertical steel columns shatter similar to the stem of a wine glass when under excessive tensile load?

Am I wrong or is that what I'm being made to believe?

I'd like someone to clear that up for me.

Once the ultimate tensile strength has been surpassed the steel column will fail. It would not shatter as dramatically as glass would but the steel would snap or buckle.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

If you go back to a link i posted earlier where i said it showed human remains and read the page you will find them.

What could they possibly have lifted the fingerprints from? They were lying about that obviously.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Once the ultimate tensile strength has been surpassed the steel column will fail. It would not shatter as dramatically as glass would but the steel would snap or buckle.

It would take longer than near free fall speed for those buildings to come down though. The tops just fell through the bottoms like warm butter. That's a stretch...especially in #7.

9/11 Mysteries

Comments

Categories