Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tomas Danko]

One day early, perhaps, but it is never the wrong day to remember what happened.

Anyone here finding this material convincing?

http://www.loosechange911.com/

At the end of the day, I feel it really doesn't matter as much as all those lost lives.

[Tidewater]

Isn't that the second in a series of pathetic fecal based crapumenteries on a conspiracy committed by people who supposedly can't tie their shoes, but they can do impossible things that only happen in the minds of the paranoid, and politico.

There are two sides, and they don't include the rhetorical spewers from either side, just the killers, and the people they'd kill.

fuuf... both sides, obviously vodka drinkers.

I'd prefer to be the killer, I am sick of celebrating being the victim.

Happy Anniversary, shit.


M

[Tomas Danko]

...As I did suspect, then. And I do agree, eventhough I'm not under the same government as yours.

[maxdimario]

If I were to say that milli vanilli wrote and sung all of their material, and all the press backed this fact up, as they skyrocketed into the top 10 charts how many non-technical, non-music-biz people would believe it to be true?

There is one thing which you non-believers are evidently not capable of understanding, and which has made 911 a certainty for myself.

the rubble... which I saw in the distance as crews were working 24 hours a day to get rid of it and ship it AWAY from investigative eyes... was mostly DUST

let me say it again for you who are a bit thick or have no concept of what concrete and steel is.

DUST...DUST...DUST...DUST...DUST...DUST

remember that cloud that covered the sourrounding neighbourhoods???

DUST!

two towers became two big piles of dust... with nothing left intact other than some odd bits and pieces and ... A PASSPORT.

I have worked in construction and there is absolutely NO way that cement and steel can turn into dust and fragments like that.

cement crushers as used in demolition have a very hard time crushing concrete.. it is an expensive time-consuming and very difficult process to destroy steel-reinforced cement without resorting to explosives.

life is not a hollywood movie.

the only arguments going for 911 as being a true story as reported by the media are the same that have been used for every war in the last 10 centuries:

THEY are out to get us.

THEY want to see us killed.

anyone who questions the integrity of our supreme ruler, or OUR NATION ('our nation' being: TV, newspaper, and other media images and sounds.. since 99.9999999999% of all americans have never even stepped into a military government executive office... and only know about the government and nation's events through the media)

...anyone who questions is unpatriotic and is one of THEM.

usual bullshit.

and meanwhile... the towers turned to DUST!

No amount of jet fuel or mechanical vibration, or impact could ever turn the towers to DUST.

why?

CEMENT does not pulverize when heated... it can sustain huge amounts of heat unscathed.

when steel-reinforced cement breaks it breaks in CHUNKS, not DUST!

[Tomas Danko]

Then, what do you suggest did happen?

[maxdimario]

as I said, the only way to pulverize cement is to use explosives.

if anyone out there can think of ANYTHING else that can pulverize cement (just think of the huge amount of cement that was pulverized and you get the idea of how much of an explosive force was needed) you are welcome to explain yourself.

there are people who cleaned up the rubble that breathed in the dust which are developing respiratory illness... look it up.

I am not sure what kinds of explosives were used but they were powerful... and seemingly toxic.. unless the building was full of toxic material to begin with.

it seems according to firemen and cleanup crews that there was almost nothing left of the entire building's office supplies, desks, you name it.. pulverized..

bodies were burned to the point that dna tests were not possible..

cement does not blow up, it does not pulverize under heat, it does not pulverize when it is crushed by weight.. it breaks in chunks..

take a look at the photos of the explosions in the building to see bits of steel reinforcement BLOW AWAY from the building..

absolutely no way this could happen from a kerosene explosion.

the kerosene fireball burned out within a VERY short timespan, as it should... kerosene vaporizes into the air.

Thermite was reportedly found in the rubble.

thermite is a substance that is used to weld train tracks.

there is a youtube video (actually more than one) of what thermite can do to metal.

check out how it melts through a peugeot's motor block.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

this would have been used to sever steel beams at the base I guess.

I just think it's not right to overlook such evidence..

at least it should be proven wrong scientifically.

[Tidewater]

110 one-acre slabs falling one on another do turn to dust.

Look at the piles, you act as if there are no remnants of slabs; there are.

Stop subverting reality, please. It's not good for mankind.


M

[Fibes]

As someone who understands lateral forces, shear, slenderness ratios, yield points, moments, the strength of reinforced concrete, the weaknesses of it and the host of other factors often ignored by conspirologists I find that what happened there, was a result of what was televisied.

[maxdimario]

look at the videos and you'll see dust, dust, dust everywhere.


here are some people that actually know what they are talking about:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

a lot of concern comes from people who actually UNDERSTAND contruction and demolition and understand the nature and physics of cement and steel, heat etc.

Some people are getting fired for expressing scientific concerns!... free speech? yeah right.

perhaps you are the one 'subverting reality'... please. It's not good for mankind.

you really need to actually prove that what you say is correct or incorrect ... not just go around saying that it's right because that's what the news say.

I think it's very un-american to not question authority.

America land of the free... not land of the media and the ultra rich.

if the towers fell because of mechanical stress and kerosene fires due to the planes, and pulverized (the top floors pulverized but they had hardly any weight on them) for some other reason, then someone NEEDS to prove it in scientific terms..that's all.. simple no?

I personally take the word of experts in the field in higher regard than media, politicians, or laymen.

Would you trust your cleaning lady to design your studio, or repair your mixer, or have ANY opinions regarding music production?  ... I thought not.

and yet...

[maxdimario]

Quote:

As someone who understands lateral forces, shear, slenderness ratios, yield points, moments, the strength of reinforced concrete, the weaknesses of it and the host of other factors often ignored by conspirologists I find that what happened there, was a result of what was televisied.

Interesting fibes,

.didn't get it at first.

[Jon Hodgson]

maxdimario wrote on Tue, 12 September 2006 17:39

look at the videos and you'll see dust, dust, dust everywhere.

I've been doing some work on my flat, which included sanding down some filler and plaster.

10 minutes with the sander and the place was one big dust cloud, and that's just taking a few millimetres off here and there, the stuff makes a really fine powder and it spreads like you wouldn't believe.

Basically what I'm saying is that it doesn't actually take that much material to produce a huge spread of dust, and there was a hell of a lot of material in the two towers, not just reinforced concrete but I would suspect lighter materials like plaster too, it only needs a small percentage of it to be crushed for it to spread everywhere, and as basementeer pointed out, it's not like there was no solid material left, there was huge amounts.

[John Ivan]

maxdimario wrote on Tue, 12 September 2006 12:39

look at the videos and you'll see dust, dust, dust everywhere. here are some people that actually know what they are talking about: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html a lot of concern comes from people who actually UNDERSTAND contruction and demolition and understand the nature and physics of cement and steel, heat etc. Some people are getting fired for expressing scientific concerns!... free speech? yeah right. perhaps you are the one 'subverting reality'... please. It's not good for mankind. you really need to actually prove that what you say is correct or incorrect ... not just go around saying that it's right because that's what the news say. I think it's very un-american to not question authority. America land of the free... not land of the media and the ultra rich. if the towers fell because of mechanical stress and kerosene fires due to the planes, and pulverized (the top floors pulverized but they had hardly any weight on them) for some other reason, then someone NEEDS to prove it in scientific terms..that's all.. simple no? I personally take the word of experts in the field in higher regard than media, politicians, or laymen. Would you trust your cleaning lady to design your studio, or repair your mixer, or have ANY opinions regarding music production?  ... I thought not. and yet...

Hi maxdimario,

It occurs to me that perhaps it is you,{or the folk's you are supporting here} who need to prove or disprove the physical method of destruction regarding the towers. It is totally possible that a 767 flying at high speed could weaken those structures enough that they would fall. A fireman friend of mine was wondering if they would go down that morning sooner than they did.

The idea that Jet fuel was the only thing on fire is crazy. Think about what was burning in there. All kinds of crazy shit was burning, fueling the fire. I've heard the ,"Black smoke indicates low oxygen, there fore, the fire was not hot" argument too and would suggest that black smoke does not always mean low oxygen. It can mean something burning Hot with plenty of oxygen too. We had a tire fire in my home town some years back and it was hot AND black. You don't need to "melt" the steel. All you need to do is weaken the structure with blunt force and then heat the steel to the point where it's not as strong as it was when installed. Once it starts to drop, the forces are HUGE HUGE HUGE. The weight of the top floor's falling onto the other's makes plenty of sense to me.

DUST??, well, yeah, walk by a slap of concrete with a big hammer and start bashing on it. DUST? well, yeah, shred a few hundred thousand{?} square feet of dry wall if you want some dust. I'm really pretty sure you are underestimating the forces at work here. It's a pretty big physical item we are talking about. Really.


In another post, some time ago now, someone was going on about how "it could not have been a 757 that hit in Washington." Have you ever looked at the test footage of the fighter jet-into-concrete slab's? There is really NOTHING left at all. No kidding, it's amazing to see. Absolutely nothing of any kind resembling an airplane.

I am not a fan in any way of this white house or the war in Iraq. Also, I see plenty of "Blame" to go around through the last three or more administrations as it relates to not doing enough to stop this mess from going where it did. BUT.......

I have a very very hard time believing that any American, or group of American Politicians would kill all those people just to knock off the nut Job running Iraq. So, most smart, average folks disagree with you. I think you will find that a VAST majority of scientist's and engineer's agree that what we saw is sadly, what happened.

My 2 cents.

Ivan............................

[maxdimario]

Ivan,

the tower was built using steel beams covered by cement that ran from the foundation to the very top in a similar way to how trees have fibre bundles running up the length.

the towers were built of special high grade steel that has a melting point way above the temperatures possible by a kerosene fireball-induced fire.

the towers were designed to withstand jet airplane impacts and were built to flex under storm wind pressures which far exceeded the impact weight of the flimsy aircraft thatr crashed into it.

if you notice the aircraft basically disintegrated like a tin can crushed between the steel of the building.

airplanes have a thin and light outer membrane and are rigid because of engineering and special aircraft-quality metals which are formulated to be super-light.

it is very easy to crush a plane or peel off it's skin, which is relatively thin and weak compared to it's size and the impression it makes visually.

planes are designed to be super light for their size.

storms on the other hand create huge amounts of force on the massive flat surfaces of buildings like the towers, this is whi the kind of structure used to bear the loads of the building is similar to that of a tree, it is made to bend without breaking, even if a jet liner crashed into it..

if you were to actually be able to break enough steel coloumns, say at the base of the building using the layman's imagination, the stress needed would be much superior to that of a plane impact...again because the building regularly withstands greater forces in high winds!

if you were to say that the mechanical shock of the impact (which was slight compared to the HUGE MASS of the building)were to sever or alter the structure in some way so as to damage it, you would have to damage not 1 but multiple independent support beams.

have you ever tried to snap a twig? it's a lot easier to snap than a piece of chalk because the fibers are independent and elastic.. try and understand that the building had several independent support coloumns which were 'rooted' in the basement.

LET'S SAY YOU WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO SNAP ENOUGH SUPPORT COLOUMNS THAT THE LOAD WAS DISPLACED and the building fell...

HOW WOULD IT FALL?? it would fall SIDEWAYS!, just like a tree that has had too many of the fibers snap because of a side impact.

granted a tree is much more flexible than a twin tower building but think of the relationship in mass, construction material and overall base and width!

the building was not made of wood and was built according to fire regulations.

the main 'fuel' to be found in the towers is then office supplies such as paper, carpets, etc.

do not confuse a wood structure fire with the fire in the towers.

black smoke as any fireman will tell you is a resuld of oxigen-starved fire... and is LOW TEMPERATURE.

wake up people..

and then...WORLD TRADE CENTRE 7, which was BEHIND other non-wtc buildings, which was under lease from the same owner of the towers and had the same insurance policy (from 6 months before?) which guaranteed against terrorist attacks FELL!!! where were the planes..

as I said I have seen a lot of demolition and the dust is nowhere in the same league.

you need to do some real looking into this matter from a scientific and construction/demolition point of view...

[maxdimario]

here is an inside look at the tower's structure as well as more info.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FujppU50EpA

[John Ivan]

Sorry, a bunch of this is just plain not true.


You can call a 767 flimsy if you want but, it was very very heavy and moving very very fast. This is NOTHING like any thing a storm would bring. It's another set of problems all together. I'm not claiming the building swayed to far out like it could with a very vast wind.

Where are your Bombs? Who heard explosions? Who did this to us? You say WE need to prove our end of this. Well, should come arrest you for child porn and say, " OK pal, PROVE you didn't do it."

You seem to be stuck on this steel thing. Concrete and steel are only strong if they are put together correctly in a structure. If you interrupt how the loads are distributed enough, it's NOT strong anymore.Also, why do you think you suddenly understand how it would fall? How? why? who told you this? I just don't get it.

Remember now, A devise, at about 395,000 LBS,{ maybe a little less} was flying at aprox- 500 MPH, {in all likely hood, faster} and flew right in. What is this stuff about storms. When did a storm penetrate the tower? I missed that.


Here is some guy saying things that are not strictly true. He's picking mini facts and using them for his argument, out of context:

"In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707."

"In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767. "


It simply is NOT TRUE that a 707 would be going faster. He or she would be flying the approach speed for JFK,or LGA which is about 200 kts indicated air speed in the pattern and down to 155'ish on final. The same speed as any other big jet. The last bit is also NOT TRUE. The WTC was not to built to survive a full speed jet impact. NOT. No one approaching this air space would be going any faster than 250. It simply is not done. If a pilot had a problem and could not slow down, they would be over the water fast as to not kill anyone. It would be very very hard to accidently fly a modern jet into the sky line in NY and everyone knew that when they built the towers.
Amazing. Sad....

Ivan............................................