9/11 - proof, America attacking itself.
- Thread starter ENOZEGAR
- Start date
Biohazard said:
Well since every one thinks this is a hole conspiracy or what ever. I looked over google and stuff for videos of 9/11 and an expert clearly stated that a tower built out of what the Towers were never collapsed with in 16 seconds of a plane hitting it. Even if it knocked out some of the support there must be a ton more holding those buildings up. So in other words im saying there was something weird about the hole thing although im not agreeing with mental or any one else that is going against him and turin. Just saying their could be something to it just its been forgotten about since it was such a time ago.
Sidenote: in that picture is says that the fire took down the rest of it which made it weaker, but still the fires burning for just under a min cant take out that much. it weakend it yes but it would of taken it longer to burn
Oh right, I didn't know you were asking a question there in that post Bio. Sorry for not replying sooner.
All I can say is that I hope the architects learn a lesson from this, that all other superstructures can benefit from. Urban said earlier, that he had seen demolitions in real life. According to his account, regular buildings required some basic floor-to-floor explosives. If we proportionate that logic to the superstructure of the two towers, one would assume a lot more inertia would be required to topple it.
I have absolutely no idea if an aeroplane impact into the towers had enough force to topple it. I am not an architect, so I cannot honesly comment on the matter.
Turin
ps - I do not understand though, why towers such as the WTC would be built to withstand only vertical pressure - considering the fact that shorter buildings had suffered problems from wind turbulance and whether at that altitude. Doesn't make sense really.
All I can say is that I hope the architects learn a lesson from this, that all other superstructures can benefit from. Urban said earlier, that he had seen demolitions in real life. According to his account, regular buildings required some basic floor-to-floor explosives. If we proportionate that logic to the superstructure of the two towers, one would assume a lot more inertia would be required to topple it.
Quote One from Urbanfox said:
I have absolutely no idea if an aeroplane impact into the towers had enough force to topple it. I am not an architect, so I cannot honesly comment on the matter.
Turin
ps - I do not understand though, why towers such as the WTC would be built to withstand only vertical pressure - considering the fact that shorter buildings had suffered problems from wind turbulance and whether at that altitude. Doesn't make sense really.
Last edited:
Turin said:
1) Each twin tower was not made to support 870,000 of weight (the weight of a 747 airplane without fuel and passengers).
2) It was not made to withstand jet fuel burning the collums of the structure, therefore making them weaken, and like I've said countless times. No demolitions were set. What you see in the pictues/video were actually the collums collapsing from the emense weight, and the burning of jet fuel did not help.
Salad, You need soem physics lessons, and maybe a history one too.
1st off a ton would not have been able to hold up a building like that, jesus chirst man.
wow, how stupid can you get? How many times do you think a plane actually HAS hit a tower made from what the towers were, and in the same way?
heres a hint: less than 2.
1st off a ton would not have been able to hold up a building like that, jesus chirst man.
wow, how stupid can you get? How many times do you think a plane actually HAS hit a tower made from what the towers were, and in the same way?
heres a hint: less than 2.
.....................................
Biohazard said:
Vannaroth said:
Sorry couldn't help myself :P Don't you mean less than 3? Or no less than 2?
---
Biohazard said:
The tower was made to support 500,000 metric tonnes or 500 million KG vertically from the base, including the floors and the 'dead' material content. The material included in the construction are as follows: 98mil steel, 48mil concrete and a surplus cladding of 2mil with a confidence interval of 10mil either way. If we include the aforementioned weights with possible requirements for air conditioning, plumbing and so forth we would reach around 160-170mil kg, which is around a third of the structure's capacity.
I think what you're actually arguing is the inertia of the fall, and the energy generated and its consequent impact on the structure vertically.
Strangely enough, the towers were built with foresight into possible aeroplane crashes. I daresay it was a miscalculation on the architect's behalf. (Minoru Yamasaki).
Turin
ps-
Anyways guys, you've both constantly made very valid points and therefore I respect you for that. What I do critisize the apposing debaters of is their lack of constructive posts. I provided a link earlier in this thread to a far more credible counter-argument to the whole "America attacked herself" shenanigans.
The majority of counter-arguments were either "f*ck off please, I'm right, you're wrong" or "but that really clever guy said so! *provides random link to image*".
Just really ticks me off.
Last edited:
yes, yes, yes. But the point is 100% of the times its happened, the tower has collapsed. so what is this 'expert' basing his 'facts' on?Turin said:
The fact is, you lost. Get over it. And stop laughing it off.
EDIT:
American Government for the win.
EDIT:
American Government for the win.
Incase you havnt noticed, ace, ive been arguing FOR your government since the begining of this frickin thread, so stop being an ass.
Vannaroth said:
Experts extrapolate their assumtions all the time. That is what gives them their status as an expert. We can't replicate the Big Bang, yet from minor experiments and past examples we can assume it occured. We can also analyse the evidence in space, etc.
I'd like you to stop using arguments that neither you nor I can answer like:
"But the conscience of those involved must have been affected..."
or
"What other example is there!"
That's called shifting the burden of proof. If for example if I asked you to prove that an apple inside is purple until you cut it; you'll be spending the rest of your life trying to figure it out, by trial and error. Meanwhile if you base your hypothesis on prior knowledge and say, well can you explain the mechanics that turns the apple from purple to white, you'll have billions of experiments to rely on as proofs. This is the same for the implosion of buildings. I hope the example wasn't too vague, but it is what you get taught when you're in a debate at school.
What other example besides the accused towers is there that it would fall from heat of an exploded aeroplane? Wait there is! Although it had a slightly new system of mansonry, the tower had similar blueprints to many other towers of that time. It wasn't completely unique in its masonry.
The video gives several examples, as I'm sure you already've read.
Turin
ps - I give up and I conclude that America did not attack herself, but she let herself to be attacked to give her a reason to go to war. Her history is tainted with almost unceasing war in once place or another, all over the world since her founding. Thats my 2pence.
pps -
Biohazard said:
I havn't laughed once at your post on this page.
Last edited:
Turin said:
Osama didn't seem very shocked when the towers fell down, can't think why that might be, could be something to do with the fact that him and his goons planned that? Otherwise you're probably best off skidding two planes into a packed out street, rather than a few rows of office blocks not fully filled due to the time of attack.
I'm also sure that there would have been nothing Osama would have liked better than to cause a massive civil war in America and make everyone kill each other, being framed for a devastating event might lead him to contact an influential news group, with a convincing video, or statement? Particularly in this day and age, where verbal actions are starting to outweigh a harsh punch.
Funny that.
Valerii said:
Oh but of course, there's a huge number of different groups who would like to have done that, whether they did commit the act is another question. A lot of the anti-American groups actually threw a party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups
Look at all the Muslim Terrorist groups, notice how many have antipathetic views towards America/her foreign policy.
Valerii I assume you missed mental's previous post about how Osama did not claim organisation of the attacks, but praised those who committed them. Now why would he do that in one very dodgy video, and weeks later release a statement contradicting himself?
Turin
This IS my last post on the topic. If you want to continue the debate (and get yourself ripped apart) go to:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Valerii said:
Well... it saves you from repeating the same thing over doesn't it? Yes the debate can continue here, but I ask anyone who wishes to continue debating to read that thread in the far more reputable forum for discussing these things.
A'ight?
Last edited:
Turin said:
Well, that post pretty much answered nothing. As the fact still stands that Osama was blamed for it, also the obvious aspect that the planes were sent to the towers to do more than just make a hole.
And hi, I don't believe there was any reference to the pentagon in the quoted post. Sure; I’m not the one reading the posts
. I was already aware that a 747 hit the pentagon, and have never stated otherwise. Goes back to that common sense lark.BTW, this forum is a community network. We put threads in these sections so that we can discuss them, not so we can be re-directed to other forums by members fed up of holding their own. If you don't want to be part of this conversation, don't be. This is a debate, a very good one at that, if you give up, you cease participation; it's not necessary to try and let others argue for you by directing the debaters elsewhere. The debate can be "continued" here.
Turin said:
The "big bang" never happened. If you want to get into a debate about that, make a diffrent thread.
Turin said:Oh but of course, there's a huge number of different groups who would like to have done that, whether they did commit the act is another question. A lot of the anti-American groups actually threw a party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups
Look at all the Muslim Terrorist groups, notice how many have antipathetic views towards America/her foreign policy.
Valerii I assume you missed mental's previous post about how Osama did not claim organisation of the attacks, but praised those who committed them. Now why would he do that in one very dodgy video, and weeks later release a statement contradicting himself?
Turin
This IS my last post on the topic. If you want to continue the debate (and get yourself ripped apart) go to:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Well... it saves you from repeating the same thing over doesn't it? Yes the debate can continue here, but I ask anyone who wishes to continue debating to read that thread in the far more reputable forum for discussing these things.
That thread is more stupider then this one.
Admit it, you lost - now get over it.
Biohazard said:
err... Bio... that thread supports your argument m8. In your words, your own argument is stupid? Geez.
.Valerii said:
Oh are you suggesting the two attacks were done by different groups? Obviously if Osama was the mastermind of the WTC attack, he was so of the Pentagon too. Unless you're asserting that the two attacks were planned seperately and just happened to occur minuits after each other, but of course you're not; you're just playing with words.
I don't know why you two are still arguing with me. You have convinced me that America did not attack herself as I have already said...
Turin
Turin said:
Right, so me talking about Osama taking the blame/not taking the blame, and the desctruction of the twin towers is really related to the debate about if it was a 747 that hit the pentagon? Hm, yeah. I'll have to check that one out!
Valerii said:
Jesus fkin Christ, this debate is about America attacking itself on BOTH the WTC and the Pentagon incident.
Got the message?
Turin
[edit] Damn you, this post is probably going to make me look like an idiot for any newcommers to the topic. Well fkin done.
Last edited: