  |
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| SHELBY wrote: | | How do you guys/girls feel about them making movies about 9/11, i personally think it hasnt been long enough, the victims families havent had enough time to mourn their loss, i also think the government doesnt care to much about the citizens by allowing themovies to already be made, i think their just in it for the money! |
i don't like it (other than the documentaries that show the research i did on my own). the mainstream ones are propaganda and have been released when bush has needed a boost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hotelangel
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Location: Greensboro NC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jusdeadphunky wrote: |
they are exactly alike in the way they fell. there is no other way for a building to fall on its own footprint. the towers were exploded and wtc 7 was imploded.
go here and read why indeed did the wtc collapse. it is written by a physics professor and it is scientific and detailed. do you know that the 911 comission did not even look into the possibility of controlled demolition?
http://blog.myspace.com/index......6FC5091997 |
I dont see anything similar to a contolled demolition in the way that the twin towers fell.
They fell from the point of impact, and it would be nearly impossible to plan, and rig explosives in a building like that.
To say that there is no other way it could have happened without controlled demolition isn't accurate. Sure, we hadn't seen it happen without explosives before, but we also hadn't seen commercial jets crash into skyscrapers.
I've read about Stephen Jones' themite theory, and watched his videos, and I dont believe them for a number of reasons.
For one, thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.
Second, its not very stable as an explosive.
It would have to be placed on the steel supports (which probably isn't easily accessable) and the risk would have to be taken that it would be displaced or ignited in the initial crash. It does cut through steel, but it takes time to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hotelangel wrote: | | jusdeadphunky wrote: |
they are exactly alike in the way they fell. there is no other way for a building to fall on its own footprint. the towers were exploded and wtc 7 was imploded.
go here and read why indeed did the wtc collapse. it is written by a physics professor and it is scientific and detailed. do you know that the 911 comission did not even look into the possibility of controlled demolition?
http://blog.myspace.com/index......6FC5091997 |
I dont see anything similar to a contolled demolition in the way that the twin towers fell.
They fell from the point of impact, and it would be nearly impossible to plan, and rig explosives in a building like that.
To say that there is no other way it could have happened without controlled demolition isn't accurate. Sure, we hadn't seen it happen without explosives before, but we also hadn't seen commercial jets crash into skyscrapers.
I've read about Stephen Jones' themite theory, and watched his videos, and I dont believe them for a number of reasons.
For one, thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.
Second, its not very stable as an explosive.
It would have to be placed on the steel supports (which probably isn't easily accessable) and the risk would have to be taken that it would be displaced or ignited in the initial crash. It does cut through steel, but it takes time to do so. |
they fell onto themselves. straight down and landed on their own property.
did you watch the fall from the camera angle of 9/11 eyewitness?
have you seen the pictures of steel beams being blown out of the sides of the building while collapsing?
do you know the 9/11 commission did not even look into controlled demolition as a possibility? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hotelangel
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Location: Greensboro NC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jusdeadphunky wrote: |
they fell onto themselves. straight down and landed on their own property.
did you watch the fall from the camera angle of 9/11 eyewitness?
have you seen the pictures of steel beams being blown out of the sides of the building while collapsing?
do you know the 9/11 commission did not even look into controlled demolition as a possibility? |
They fell straight down because there was no other way for them to fall. Thats gravity for you. Had the floors beneath the impact zone been strong enough to support the force of the top floors falling on them, it is possible that the top floors would have toppled over and fallen into the street below. The problem is, they weren't stong enough, and added very little resistance.
As for steel beams being blown outward during the collapse......there was nowhere else for them to go. These were the outer colums, and the force pushed them out. The only way that they would not have moved outward to an extent is if the building fell from bottom to top, as with building 7.
If you are suggesting that explosives sent this steel flying outward, that totally contradicts the Stephen Jones thermite theory, as thermite would cut the steel, not blow it up.
The 9/11 Commission's job was to find out why and how the attacks happened. Not to analyze the collapse of the towers. They rely on experts for that, and since the experts agree on the reason for the collapse, there was no reason for them to consider the demolition theory.
As I said before.....why have no stuctural engineers or demolition experts come out to support the demolition theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~J. Edgar Hoover, Former Director of the FBI (American KGB) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hotelangel wrote: | | jusdeadphunky wrote: |
they fell onto themselves. straight down and landed on their own property.
did you watch the fall from the camera angle of 9/11 eyewitness?
have you seen the pictures of steel beams being blown out of the sides of the building while collapsing?
do you know the 9/11 commission did not even look into controlled demolition as a possibility? |
They fell straight down because there was no other way for them to fall. Thats gravity for you. Had the floors beneath the impact zone been strong enough to support the force of the top floors falling on them, it is possible that the top floors would have toppled over and fallen into the street below. The problem is, they weren't stong enough, and added very little resistance.
As for steel beams being blown outward during the collapse......there was nowhere else for them to go. These were the outer colums, and the force pushed them out. The only way that they would not have moved outward to an extent is if the building fell from bottom to top, as with building 7.
If you are suggesting that explosives sent this steel flying outward, that totally contradicts the Stephen Jones thermite theory, as thermite would cut the steel, not blow it up.
The 9/11 Commission's job was to find out why and how the attacks happened. Not to analyze the collapse of the towers. They rely on experts for that, and since the experts agree on the reason for the collapse, there was no reason for them to consider the demolition theory.
As I said before.....why have no stuctural engineers or demolition experts come out to support the demolition theory? |
i will ask you once again: have you ever seen the view of the collapse from 9/11 eyewitness?
the "experts" were given a conclusion and from there they came up with how that conclusion came about. why do you think that for 4 years the "pancake theory" was what caused the collapse but then that tehory was changed this past year? because it makes no sense.
don't you think that if it fell strictly because of the planes hitting the buildings, that the buildings would have tipped and fell t he same way a tree would when you chop out a wedge of it with an ax?
don't you think that the buildings would not have fallen in the same manner considering they were hit in different places? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
botharecrazy
Newbie
Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hotelangel wrote: | | corey michael wrote: | Are you people aware that a third building collapsed in NYC on 9/11?
The animation above is that third building. It is WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
I'll post the free fall speed and the time the building actually collapsed later. The physics around the time all of the buildings collapsed doesn't add up. Meaning, the resistance of even the "pancake theory" of the twin towers doesn't make since when considering the actual times of the collapses.
Regardless, there are more important things to consider when examining 9/11. I'll have time to present more later. |
I am aware of the collapse of WTC7. I am also aware that it suffered pretty significant damage caused from the collapse of the twin towers.
Why would they demolish building 7? The argument I hear most often is that it was the control center for the twin towers demolition. If thats true, then where was the control center for wtc7's demolition? Why would they risk evidence being found in the rubble, instead of simply taking it away and destroying it? |
The damage didn't look significant compared to buildings 4, 5, and 6 which the bulk of towers 1 and 2 fell directly on. Parts of those structures were still standing after the attack. Building 6 had to be demolished by a demolition crew much later. Your missing the point. Buildings 1,2, and 7 all fell at free fall speeds. Free Fall speed is the time it takes an obeject to reach terminal velocity in air. The tops of the buildings had to fall through steel and concrete + air. Where did all that resistance go? If you dropped a bowling ball through 110 pains of glass its rate of fall would slow due to the energy expended to break each pain of glass. (law of energy conservation) You can look at the video of all the energy expended pushing steel and dust horizontal. This motion would have to be subtracted from the downward motion unless this horizontal motion was caused by somthing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jusdeadphunky wrote: | | hotelangel wrote: | | jusdeadphunky wrote: |
they fell onto themselves. straight down and landed on their own property.
did you watch the fall from the camera angle of 9/11 eyewitness?
have you seen the pictures of steel beams being blown out of the sides of the building while collapsing?
do you know the 9/11 commission did not even look into controlled demolition as a possibility? |
They fell straight down because there was no other way for them to fall. Thats gravity for you. Had the floors beneath the impact zone been strong enough to support the force of the top floors falling on them, it is possible that the top floors would have toppled over and fallen into the street below. The problem is, they weren't stong enough, and added very little resistance.
As for steel beams being blown outward during the collapse......there was nowhere else for them to go. These were the outer colums, and the force pushed them out. The only way that they would not have moved outward to an extent is if the building fell from bottom to top, as with building 7.
If you are suggesting that explosives sent this steel flying outward, that totally contradicts the Stephen Jones thermite theory, as thermite would cut the steel, not blow it up.
The 9/11 Commission's job was to find out why and how the attacks happened. Not to analyze the collapse of the towers. They rely on experts for that, and since the experts agree on the reason for the collapse, there was no reason for them to consider the demolition theory.
As I said before.....why have no stuctural engineers or demolition experts come out to support the demolition theory? |
i will ask you once again: have you ever seen the view of the collapse from 9/11 eyewitness?
the "experts" were given a conclusion and from there they came up with how that conclusion came about. why do you think that for 4 years the "pancake theory" was what caused the collapse but then that tehory was changed this past year? because it makes no sense.
don't you think that if it fell strictly because of the planes hitting the buildings, that the buildings would have tipped and fell t he same way a tree would when you chop out a wedge of it with an ax?
don't you think that the buildings would not have fallen in the same manner considering they were hit in different places? |
Your comparison with the tree and the axe is quite different, when you chop down a tree the very last part of it snaps off, it isn't cut, but on spetemper 11 the plane obliterated the entire floor, as well as causing damage above and below. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Max
Not a Newbie
Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 62
Location: The People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SHELBY wrote: | | the government doesnt care to much about the citizens by allowing themovies to already be made, i think their just in it for the money! |
1) The goverment doesn't get to decide whether the movies get made or not. First Amendment and whatnot.
2) In what way does the government get money from these movies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
