Osama Bin Laden is DEAD :)
Have a read here madscoob, explains a lot about thermite.
All facts in how it works right down to proving every theory regarding it being used.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
All facts in how it works right down to proving every theory regarding it being used.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
From: Scoobynet
fair play but that doesnt explain the freefall time frame 10.2 seconds vs 8.1 very little difference and the max temps of av gas oh and the fact that the building was designed to withstand multiple plane hits . how about the fact that ni on identical sky scrapers made in the 70s by the same cinstruction companies have had fires that heve raged for up to 25hours without colapsing not just 18minutes , oh and i notice no one has offered or submited a explanation for building 7 nothing hit that one
The plane hitting the Pentagon was odd from the start - massive amounts of CCTV cameras must have captured that, yet why not release the footage? A 757 making only a small hole in the wall and almost no wreckage at all? Does seem very odd.
The towers falling does also look like a controlled explosion, with the 'squibs' exploding out the side of the building clealy visible as it fell.
The building 7 collapsing is maybe the strangest - no massive damage, and surrounding buildings ok, then suddenly in collapses in a controlled explosion fashion...
So you're saying that the government started a war so that the banks could make more money from lending the government more money, to then give to an arms company costing the government even more money and as most believe that these wars cost countries money?
So if the US government and banks were making all this money by going to war, how did the the recession start in the US?
Or am I missing something?
So if the US government and banks were making all this money by going to war, how did the the recession start in the US?
Or am I missing something?
fair play but that doesnt explain the freefall time frame 10.2 seconds vs 8.1 very little difference and the max temps of av gas oh and the fact that the building was designed to withstand multiple plane hits . how about the fact that ni on identical sky scrapers made in the 70s by the same cinstruction companies have had fires that heve raged for up to 25hours without colapsing not just 18minutes , oh and i notice no one has offered or submited a explanation for building 7 nothing hit that one
idiots selling mortages to other idiots on a grand scale . to put it in easy terms . i have a mortage and owe 100thousand dollars i have paid mortage for five years and bank has made nice earner on intrest , they then offer my debt to another bank for lets say 120thousand knowing that by the time i have paid mortage back i will pay back 16thousand with intrest , mortage buying bank thinks oh this looks good 120tho for a 160thos debt bargain , ile have some of that , origional bank puts 20k plus 5years of mortage repayments in bonus pot and says thank you , only problem is 8months down the line i loose my job and cant pay mortage house gets repoed and so the story goes on but on a much larger scale , this was explained to me by a accountant who tryed to put it in plain english when in fact its more complex but i hope you get the idea
I know how toxic debt was involved.You said the government went to war to make money, then said the banks make all the money and the arms company leaving the government with the bill. Almost saying that CR convinced the US to go to war to get bigger dividends
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
I never said I believe September 11th to be a conspiracy. You presumed it. All I'm saying is that there is a significant lobby that suggest that there were a lot of unexplained events. In the case of invading Iraq under the pretext of war on terror who was set to gain?Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rice. The one decent bloke in their midst was soon displaced, Colin Powell.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
In response to TDW BTW.
You presumed it. All I'm saying is that there is a significant lobby that suggest that there were a lot of unexplained events. In the case of invading Iraq under the pretext of war on terror who was set to gain?Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rice. The one decent bloke in their midst was soon displaced, Colin Powell. http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
In response to TDW BTW.
like i said av gas burns at 1500 the steel was built to withstand 2000 temperature of up to 3000 recorded weeks after by site clearers but the video forgets to debunk those facts believe what we want is the best i think
one last thing i forgot 19 hijackers , would someone like to explain why 6 of them are still ALIVE AND BREATHING thier ids have been proven 1had his passports stolen while on holiday in egypt and in 3 cases thier parents have spoken to them since thier almost certain deaths . oh and how would a passport made of paper survive 1500degrees , as one of the hijackers passports was supposedly found in the aftermath days after the event if the passport holder was in the cockpit how the *** would his passport survive the cockpit being vaporised at 1500degrees
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Choudary's latest venture:
http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/
You've used the word 'crusade' several times when discussing the British mission in Libya and I think that really is ambiguous; it's the same narrative used by the people in the link.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
the simple way of solving this whole issue is pull the troops out of the Muslim countries let them sort there own problems out. why should my hard earned be wasted there.
Islam doesn't agree with terrorism many scholars have said it's forbidden, jihad means when your been oppressed youfight backand that means you can't go to a country where there is peace and cause havoc it's forbidden. it's basic Muslim knowledge, yes there is some nutters out there who do things in the name of Islam but in 29 years I'm yet to come across one.
Islamism isnt the problem or the route of the problem it's the individuals weather Osama existed or not mr Obama. it'll be so nice to chuck em all in one room and let them fight it put between them lol
Islam doesn't agree with terrorism many scholars have said it's forbidden, jihad means when your been oppressed youfight backand that means you can't go to a country where there is peace and cause havoc it's forbidden. it's basic Muslim knowledge, yes there is some nutters out there who do things in the name of Islam but in 29 years I'm yet to come across one.
Islamism isnt the problem or the route of the problem it's the individuals weather Osama existed or not mr Obama. it'll be so nice to chuck em all in one room and let them fight it put between them lol
Disclaimer: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE ISLAMISTS. ISLAMISM IS NOT ISLAM.
Last edited by JTaylor; May 5, 2011 at 12:57 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
not bad good effort but again another controlled demolition allmost freefall speed and if 1corner fell first why didnt the building fall in that direction like a tree would if you remove a wedge from the left law of physics states it will fall to the left . the building fell straight to the deck the only way this can happen is in a controlled demolition . blocks of flats and offices and towers have been demolished without any damage to surrounding buildings 50ft away let alone 300ft away . take a look at the top gear toyota on top of tower vid do you see the surrounding flats colapsing and catching fire i didnt
No he's not
But these guys know a thing or two
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
But these guys know a thing or two
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Just picking up on the distinction between an Islamist and a Muslim. People get confused about it and get the wrong end of the stick on a fairly regular basis. All Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists. Ambiguity is only a problem if one doesn't understand the nuances and definitions, if one does, these words are actually concise. A little knowledge is dangerous. A good example is the Newsnight discussion between Anjem Choudary, Paxman and another chap whose name escapes me, but who was a scholar from Oxford and who also happens to be a Muslim. Both Muslims, but one is an Islamist and the other not.
If you want a more detailed read of some very interesting 'facts' then have a read.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
Aaron
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
Aaron
If you want a more detailed read of some very interesting 'facts' then have a read.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
Aaron
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html
Aaron
Only problem is there seems to be more evidence to support the conspiracy theory than there is to disprove it ?
Can I ask have you watched loose change ? Can you counter argue everything they put forward ?
All I want to see is the video of the plane hitting the pentagon and it would make it easier for me to believe the story, same goes for OBL, all I want to see is the video of the raid as proof of what happened
All these theorys are so easy to knock on the head and they can do it so easily but choose not to ?
Sorry, I dont buy the excuses for not showing the evidence
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Some interesting 'facts' in there
Only problem is there seems to be more evidence to support the conspiracy theory than there is to disprove it ?
Can I ask have you watched loose change ? Can you counter argue everything they put forward ?
All I want to see is the video of the plane hitting the pentagon and it would make it easier for me to believe the story, same goes for OBL, all I want to see is the video of the raid as proof of what happened
All these theorys are so easy to knock on the head and they can do it so easily but choose not to ?
Sorry, I dont buy the excuses for not showing the evidence
Only problem is there seems to be more evidence to support the conspiracy theory than there is to disprove it ?
Can I ask have you watched loose change ? Can you counter argue everything they put forward ?
All I want to see is the video of the plane hitting the pentagon and it would make it easier for me to believe the story, same goes for OBL, all I want to see is the video of the raid as proof of what happened
All these theorys are so easy to knock on the head and they can do it so easily but choose not to ?
Sorry, I dont buy the excuses for not showing the evidence
How do you refute the notion that an evil, omnipotent nexus controls everything? You can't! Hence it being unfalsifiable!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
No he's not
But these guys know a thing or two
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
But these guys know a thing or two
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
I can't say I'm an expert on it but the 'evidence' is virtually non existent for this theory....with the main 'evidence' being the way WTC 7 fell down (straight and uniform). They claim this could only have been done with a controlled demolition but many experts don't agree...and the truthers don't have any smoking gun evidence.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
The plane would have been travelling at several hundred mile per hour. Is it to be expected that every angle of the pentagon is covered with cameras which record at sufficient frames per second, and resolution, to capture something moving within the frame (of the camera) at the speed of a slow moving bullet?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; May 5, 2011 at 11:12 AM.
