Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68123	2006-04-18 09:04:00	Conspiracy theory anyone	Barnabas (4562)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
447302	2006-04-19 11:27:00	The windows blowing out lowerdown would have been caused by the fact that the steel above had let go and 90000000 ton of concrete and steel had started to shift. If you have any doubt as to what happens to steel in a normal fire then take a casual walk through a burnt out factory, preferbly one that was full of volitile chemicals.	Metla (12)
447303	2006-04-19 11:37:00	The windows blowing out lowerdown would have been caused by the fact that the steel above had let go and 90000000 ton of concrete and steel had started to shift. If you have any doubt as to what happens to steel in a normal fire then take a casual walk through a burnt out factory, preferbly one that was full of volitile chemicals. does not explain the explosions heard, or how the towers fell perfectly, nor why they fell. other towers have burnt 18 hours without failing, (they were then put out - see aforementioned links) furthermore, have you seen one? avgas burns at half the temperature necessary to melt iron/steel, so how does it break like that? last burnt factory i saw (where my dad wroks, many years ago) had concrete, steel rafters and roof all still there! just needed rebuilding of the wooden/gib bits (and rewiring etc)	motorbyclist (188)
447304	2006-04-19 12:10:00	does not explain the explosions heard, or how the towers fell perfectly, nor why they fell. other towers have burnt 18 hours without failing, (they were then put out - see aforementioned links) furthermore, have you seen one? avgas burns at half the temperature necessary to melt iron/steel, so how does it break like that? last burnt factory i saw (where my dad wroks, many years ago) had concrete, steel rafters and roof all still there! just needed rebuilding of the wooden/gib bits (and rewiring etc) You are starting to get boring and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are completely out of your depth and obviously have not gone to the trouble to research the many reports from the experts. Jets don't use avgas they use avtur and the steel did not melt it was weakened by the heat and the weight of the floors above on this weakened metal is vastly different situation to your factory. Insulation had been applied to the steel structures to prevent failure in the case of a fire which normally spreads slowly but no one anticipated the massive fireball that spread instantly over the complete level as a result of the plane impact. www.newscientist.com It is widely accepted that the collapses were caused by the failure of the buildings' steel structure as it was weakened by the heat of the fires. But Jim Quintiere of the University of Maryland, College Park, thinks the thickness of the surviving fire insulation, rather than the destruction of insulation during the impacts, explains why the towers collapsed when they did. The south tower was the first to fall even though it was hit after the north tower. The insulation on its burning floors was only half as thick. According to Quintiere's calculations, if the insulation had matched that in the north tower, the south tower would have stayed standing longer.	Safari (3993)
447305	2006-04-19 12:20:00	my bad on the avgas, but i'm still saying that yours are the official (US govt) explanations (and i have done a fair bit of googling). the factory was in response to whats-his-face. yes i saw that doco too. i still say that it could be either way, we cant know, especially if noone is allowed to look at all the footage- the fbi took most of it. have you looked at both sides of the fence yourself? thats all i'm getting at: ppl take everything they are told as true, look at the meningicoccal vaccinations, there is a big thing about that and we still dont know, although it seems to me that no one was sure and it was rushed (although they could not really delay)	motorbyclist (188)
447306	2006-04-19 12:38:00	i do talk alot dont i? ... yea.... must lessen my posting frequncy, quality over quantity...	motorbyclist (188)
447307	2006-04-19 12:57:00	No. Keep going and keep providing links. Fascinating viewing. How do the knockers explain the plumes emitted from the sides of the building moments before the collapse? They are controlled explosions. The footage speaks for itself. And how does a building fall at free-fall speed if it fell according to the pancake theory? Answer : it doesn't. And can the knockers provide any other examples in the history of man, world-wide, where a tall building constructed of steel and concrete has fallen due to fire? Please provide a link and prove the theorists wrong. And let's leave the personal insults and attacks out of this and focus on the facts.... Thanks for the links motorbyclist!	andrew93 (249)
447308	2006-04-19 14:07:00	Yeah, Those plumes coming out the side of the buildings collapsing kinda made me a bit dubious of the explosive claims. I mean, you've got a billion tons of metal/concrete/people coming down on you, theres going to be a lot of pressure on the building below which, in all honesty, would seem appropriate to have **** flying out of the windows below. Watching the lets roll 911 DVD did make me look at the other side somewhat but some work still needs to be done before I start jumping to one side of the fence.	DangerousDave (697)
447309	2006-04-19 20:16:00	Ok, if, by some small chance the twin towers did collapse because of the planes and fire alone, what about the other building that "collapsed"? It was not hit by a plane, it only had a fire on some of the lower floors. This was not a massive sky scraper so no 'pancake theory' here. Why did it collapse from fire in a neat pile at free fall speed? A 3rd building in history, all on the same day, to collapse from a fire??	CYaBro (73)
447310	2006-04-20 00:23:00	I haven't followed the links so will reserve judgement. However in life I've found that Occams Razor is a useful tool. This is a logical rule which says: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Or put another way - the most simple explanation, is likely to be the right one. Conspiracies are always complex explanations, requiring the collusion of human beings to create a secret plan, carry it out, and then keep it hidden from everyone else. When large organisations such as government agencies are involved, keeping the secret becomes impossible. For example, the moon landing hoax. For this to be true, the conspirators would have needed to suborn literally thousands of people - scientists, astronomers, technicians, the astronaughts themselves, and journalists. How likely is it that all of these people were persuaded to lie and not blurt it out eventually? So the 9/11 conspiracy requires people to set the bombs, people to die flying the planes, and organisers. How likely is it that? The simple answer is that terrorists did exactly what we saw them do. Simple and all too terrible.	Winston001 (3612)
447311	2006-04-20 07:04:00	No. Keep going and keep providing links. Fascinating viewing. How do the knockers explain the plumes emitted from the sides of the building moments before the collapse? They are controlled explosions. The footage speaks for itself. And how does a building fall at free-fall speed if it fell according to the pancake theory? Answer : it doesn't. And can the knockers provide any other examples in the history of man, world-wide, where a tall building constructed of steel and concrete has fallen due to fire? Please provide a link and prove the theorists wrong. And let's leave the personal insults and attacks out of this and focus on the facts.... Thanks for the links motorbyclist! thanx (my name is andrew too lol), and you too cyabro! in response to the winston - this is not about the moon thoery (which i have not bothered to look at so wont comment on its plausibility). although you do make a valid point, just because its hard does not mean it cant happen. where there's a will there's a way. the "attacks" of 9/11, terrorist or not, have been very, convienient, would you not say? and the official explanation does not match the witnessed events... thats all i'm saying, there is alot of room and reason for doubt here... perhaps the government knew about the oncoming attacks and let them happen? maybe increasing their devastating effect? maybe it was entirely their doing, OR the terrorists. but there is gaps in the official story given which has caused these questions. also, (i will hunt down the link) some germans reported there to have been a massive spike in transactions on the wtc computers a few hours before the incident... more than just a huge spike on a tuesday morning? maybe... will hunt down more info... it would be nice if it was purely terrorists, but it would pay to be sure.. omg i'm sounding like one of those consiracy guys i hate sooooo much :horrified	motorbyclist (188)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17