America has become a FASCIST CORPORATOCRACY!!

NoDrama · Jul 24, 2010

SouthernGanja said:
What will happen? It will burn! Duh! Pretty much like C4 will simply burn if you light it. Maybe you meant "detonate"? I'm sure that is what you meant since you know everything about everything.

I'd like to add that I agree with the title of this thread. I just disagree with most of the content.

I certainly did not mean detonate, since it would not explode at all since it is missing a major component to get the reaction to start. Know what that component is? I figure you do since you know C4 can be on fire with no explosion. BTW Im qualified to speak on explosives since I used to blow things up in the Marine Corps.

Maybe I should reword my question. How many steel framed skyscrapers have fallen down due to anything but demolition? I can count all of them on 1 hand since only 3 ever have, and it all happened on the same day and in the same place. A multi story building is not a skyscraper and it will never be a skyscraper since skyscrapers are made of steel frames. Your "multistory" building could be my house since it has a second story, but i am guessing you thing a masonry building is the same as a skyscraper? How many Steel framed skyscrapers have been hit by airplanes? How many fell due to this impact?

How many skyscrapers have fallen due to fire in the entire history of the whole world? None.

this is a skyscraper on fire...

this is the same skyscraper 2 days after the fire burned itself out.

that kink in the side is an architectural feature and is suppose to be there, the building is completely intact even after burning for 36 hours, which is about 18 times longer than the longest tower fire, and this fire gutted the entire building and every floor, not just a fraction of the top like the towers did.

SouthernGanja · Jul 24, 2010

Thanks for your service. I only got to watch shit blow up when I was in the Navy. (I still have my uniform with the marine-bib. doesn't fit now of course!)

Actually most skyscrapers built today are constructed primarily of reinforced concrete.

I can't comment on the attachments since I can't compare the different designs, structural issues, or construction methods. I'm not qualified anyways. Either way it's pretty damn impressive seeing a giant building on fire like that.

In any case we have differing views and opinions. I believe it was purely terrorists and you don't. There are compelling arguments for either view...we just picked the other one is all.

Scuba · Jul 24, 2010

SouthernGanja said:
I'd like to add that I agree with the title of this thread. I just disagree with most of the content.

this is just one of many theories just do your own research if this isn't enough for you.

Antidisestablishmentarian · Jul 26, 2010

So all those samples they took, are you referring to Steven Jones 4 samples that were collected with no chain of custody? Those samples? Or are you referring to as yet unheard of sampling numbering in at least the hundreds with proper chain of custodies?

Mr.KushMan · Jul 26, 2010

Have any of you actually read the 9/11 commission report?

There is a reason it was a best seller.

Its a really good work of fiction, I suggest you indulge yourselves; quite a fetching yarn.

Peace

Scuba · Jul 26, 2010

Mr.KushMan said:
Have any of you actually read the 9/11 commission report?

There is a reason it was a best seller. Its a really good work of fiction, I suggest you indulge yourselves; quite a fetching yarn.

Peace

I've never heard of it, but i doubt it makes the video footage look like fiction, i know what i saw, and what i saw was the buildings breaking down from the middle and they fell in a perfect way so that they wouldn't damage buildings around them.

The beams that used to run up all off the tower, where 'cut' at a 45 degree angle, which shifts the weight of the building to a certain direction, all of the beams where cut facing inward. the #7 building takes the cake with video footage, you can see it go section by section, after you watch that video go look up demolitions and you'll see the resemblance.

Mr.KushMan · Jul 27, 2010

Yeah, Rosie O'donnel, on her show, was explaining to a bunch of people that physics won't allow 47? steel core columns to be broken into pieces than will lie down as in rubble with an event that we saw. There should have been stacks, or a mangled ball of steel at the bottom, but all that was left was dust and chunks you could pickup with your hand. I think what takes the cake is the molten rivers of steel described by firefighters for days and weeks after the event. On top of that jet fuel, or kerosene, can't burn at a high enough temperature to weaken, much less, melt reinforced steel. At a burn temp of about 550*F, structural steel in north america must have a rating that allows 1000*F fireproof material. As you can see very unlikely that jet fuel did this alone.

In the 9/11 commission report they go about building #7 by saying that they can't find a reason why building seven was on fire or why it fell. Why they needed to blow this building up is not clearly represented by any face of the media. It was clearly shown that it was a planned demolition, they "pulled" the building and detonated explosives in order to put out the fire. The owner of WTC Larry Siverman?? was interviewed and said it himself, "We made the decision to pull the building."

The fact of the matter, planes hitting a building at imperfect locations with imperfect trajectories(especially the one that barely hit the side, and blew out the side) could not melt the steel beams across the entire floor evenly enough to allow both buildings to fall right on top of their center of gravity resulting in pancake theory collapse, not leaving any remains of steel core columns large enough to feel confident in the building original capacities, and create pools and flows of molten steel for many days after the event.

Either some are blatantly ignorant to the truth, or illuminated by the lies.

Peace

Scuba · Jul 27, 2010

Mr.KushMan said:
Yeah, Rosie O'donnel, on her show, was explaining to a bunch of people that physics won't allow 47? steel core columns to be broken into pieces than will lie down as in rubble with an event that we saw. There should have been stacks, or a mangled ball of steel at the bottom, but all that was left was dust and chunks you could pickup with your hand. I think what takes the cake is the molten rivers of steel described by firefighters for days and weeks after the event. On top of that jet fuel, or kerosene, can't burn at a high enough temperature to weaken, much less, melt reinforced steel. At a burn temp of about 550*F, structural steel in north america must have a rating that allows 1000*F fireproof material. As you can see very unlikely that jet fuel did this alone.

In the 9/11 commission report they go about building #7 by saying that they can't find a reason why building seven was on fire or why it fell. Why they needed to blow this building up is not clearly represented by any face of the media. It was clearly shown that it was a planned demolition, they "pulled" the building and detonated explosives in order to put out the fire. The owner of WTC Larry Siverman?? was interviewed and said it himself, "We made the decision to pull the building."

The fact of the matter, planes hitting a building at imperfect locations with imperfect trajectories(especially the one that barely hit the side, and blew out the side) could not melt the steel beams across the entire floor evenly enough to allow both buildings to fall right on top of their center of gravity resulting in pancake theory collapse, not leaving any remains of steel core columns large enough to feel confident in the building original capacities, and create pools and flows of molten steel for many days after the event.

Either some are blatantly ignorant to the truth, or illuminated by the lies.

Peace

Dude one word, THERMIT, here is the wiki result on thermit reactions

The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium is highly reactive:
Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron [2], and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation.
The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rail tracks. Other metal oxides can be used, such as chromium oxide, to generate elemental metal. Copper thermite, using copper oxide, is used for creating electric joints in a process called cadwelding:
3CuO + 2Al → 3Cu + Al2O3 + Heat Some thermite-like mixtures are used as pyrotechnic initiators such as fireworks.
Thermites with nanosized particles are described through a variety of terms, such as metastable intermolecular composites, superthermite[3] nanothermite,[4] and nanocomposite energetic materials.[5][6]
A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.

STEEL!!!!! and it burns at over 1300 degrees Fahrenheit

Mindmelted · Jul 27, 2010

Scuba said:
Dude one word, THERMIT, here is the wiki result on thermit reactions

The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium is highly reactive:
Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron [2], and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation.
The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rail tracks. Other metal oxides can be used, such as chromium oxide, to generate elemental metal. Copper thermite, using copper oxide, is used for creating electric joints in a process called cadwelding:
3CuO + 2Al → 3Cu + Al2O3 + Heat Some thermite-like mixtures are used as pyrotechnic initiators such as fireworks.
Thermites with nanosized particles are described through a variety of terms, such as metastable intermolecular composites, superthermite[3] nanothermite,[4] and nanocomposite energetic materials.[5][6]
A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.

STEEL!!!!! and it burns at over 1300 degrees Fahrenheit

blazin256 · Jul 27, 2010

i bet the people "in the know" are laughing their asses off at all of us.
i saw this one video of one of the towers falling slow mo. the top part of it was actually falling away from the rest of the building, but yet it still some how crumbles.

NoDrama · Jul 27, 2010

SouthernGanja said:
Actually most skyscrapers built today are constructed primarily of reinforced concrete.

No, actually they are all framed with steel, concrete does not bend like steel does, when you have over 100 stories you have to use a steel FRAMEWORK. There may very well be a majority of weight that exists in concrete such as the base of the building, and the floors, but the strength comes from the steel frame. They DO NOT building 100+ story buildings entirely out of reinforced concrete, the building would not survive the wind loads that can cause a skyscraper to sway as much as 5 feet laterally during high winds. Concrete would crack and give way.

The WTC towers framework were all covered by one of the best heat insulators known to mankind, ASBESTOS. ASBESTOS Removal was slated for both buildings at a cost to Mr Silverman of more than he paid for the buildings in the first place. A Financial windfall it was when Mr silverman bought specific Terrorism insurance for his buildings on top of the regular fire insurance. A most prescient move indeed. Mr Silverman paid 123 million to lease and was awarded 4.6 BILLION, a 3700% profit! Asbestos cleanup and abatement would have cost in excess of 200 million.

Its like he saw into the future.

Scuba · Jul 27, 2010

NoDrama said:
No, actually they are all framed with steel, concrete does not bend like steel does, when you have over 100 stories you have to use a steel FRAMEWORK. There may very well be a majority of weight that exists in concrete such as the base of the building, and the floors, but the strength comes from the steel frame. They DO NOT building 100+ story buildings entirely out of reinforced concrete, the building would not survive the wind loads that can cause a skyscraper to sway as much as 5 feet laterally during high winds. Concrete would crack and give way.

The WTC towers framework were all covered by one of the best heat insulators known to mankind, ASBESTOS. ASBESTOS Removal was slated for both buildings at a cost to Mr Silverman of more than he paid for the buildings in the first place. A Financial windfall it was when Mr silverman bought specific Terrorism insurance for his buildings on top of the regular fire insurance. A most prescient move indeed. Mr Silverman paid 123 million to lease and was awarded 4.6 BILLION, a 3700% profit! Asbestos cleanup and abatement would have cost in excess of 200 million.

Its like he saw into the future.

good point

NoDrama · Jul 27, 2010

Antidisestablishmentarian said:
So all those samples they took, are you referring to Steven Jones 4 samples that were collected with no chain of custody? Those samples? Or are you referring to as yet unheard of sampling numbering in at least the hundreds with proper chain of custodies?

Ahh yes, the samples were not properly logged and controlled by government bureaucrats, therefore it must be fake.

But I'm actually talking about these people:

Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University
Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington
Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting

Now you must also know that NONE of these people are saying it was a conspiracy, none are saying it was the government or the Jews or anything. They just want a new investigation.

See this picture that shows the placement of the buildings?

Notice WTC #7 is on a different block and has another building ( WTC #6) in between it and Tower # 1? Explain how it was that building 7 collapses from falling debris and a small fire, but building #6 does not? Building #6 was still intact even after the tower fell onto it, you could still walk into the lobby. But yet across the street #7 is pulverised.

Scuba · Jul 28, 2010

NoDrama said:
Notice WTC #7 is on a different block and has another building ( WTC #6) in between it and Tower # 1? Explain how it was that building 7 collapses from falling debris and a small fire, but building #6 does not? Building #6 was still intact even after the tower fell onto it, you could still walk into the lobby. But yet across the street #7 is pulverised.

another good point, it doesn't make logical sense. There has to be more to the story, just as we are speculating.

Scuba · Jul 31, 2010

But the main point is that our government is only concerned with the $$$$ signs.

Just look up the word Corporatocracy, almost every definition of the word matches the USA's agendas. they just like seeing the bigger number on the end of the equation

Money+terrorism+war= more money for gun runners. Which the USA has been doing since WW1

Antidisestablishmentarian · Aug 5, 2010

NoDrama said:
Ahh yes, the samples were not properly logged and controlled by government bureaucrats, therefore it must be fake.

But I'm actually talking about these people:

Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington

Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting

Now you must also know that NONE of these people are saying it was a conspiracy, none are saying it was the government or the Jews or anything. They just want a new investigation.

See this picture that shows the placement of the buildings?

View attachment 1068114

Notice WTC #7 is on a different block and has another building ( WTC #6) in between it and Tower # 1? Explain how it was that building 7 collapses from falling debris and a small fire, but building #6 does not? Building #6 was still intact even after the tower fell onto it, you could still walk into the lobby. But yet across the street #7 is pulverised.

I take samples of things for a living(and I don't work for the government, I inspect for asbestos). While I get that they aren't the same, if you think 4 samples are enough to determine anything in buildings that size, you are sadly mistaken. If I were to perform my job in those former buildings, we are talking thousands of samples.

I know this is an older thread, but my PC just got fixed.

doc111 · Aug 5, 2010

NoDrama said:
Ahh yes, the samples were not properly logged and controlled by government bureaucrats, therefore it must be fake.

But I'm actually talking about these people:

Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Jeffrey Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington

Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting

Now you must also know that NONE of these people are saying it was a conspiracy, none are saying it was the government or the Jews or anything. They just want a new investigation.

See this picture that shows the placement of the buildings?

View attachment 1068114

Notice WTC #7 is on a different block and has another building ( WTC #6) in between it and Tower # 1? Explain how it was that building 7 collapses from falling debris and a small fire, but building #6 does not? Building #6 was still intact even after the tower fell onto it, you could still walk into the lobby. But yet across the street #7 is pulverised.

Building collapses are very complicated and not very well understood by laymen. In addition to being a firefighter I was also trained extensively in building collapse. I've been to many, many collapses and had hundreds of hours of training in the classroom and live training exercises. We even had to have weeks of training in structural engineering in order to understand what causes buildings to collapse. It's not a simple matter of gravity or basic physics. Building collapses are almost always bizarre in nature and leave experts scratching their heads. For someone with zero training in structural engineering or building collapse to speculate on this matter is almost like someone who is not a doctor trying to explain how brain surgery is conducted! :joint:

abe23 · Aug 5, 2010

doc111 said:
Building collapses are very complicated and not very well understood by laymen. In addition to being a firefighter I was also trained extensively in building collapse. I've been to many, many collapses and had hundreds of hours of training in the classroom and live training exercises. We even had to have weeks of training in structural engineering in order to understand what causes buildings to collapse. It's not a simple matter of gravity or basic physics. Building collapses are almost always bizarre in nature and leave experts scratching their heads. For someone with zero training in structural engineering or building collapse to speculate on this matter is almost like someone who is not a doctor trying to explain how brain surgery is conducted!

Well said, doc. It won't matter though, because some people choose to stick their heads up their asses instead of relying on things like reason and common sense. But still, well said...

Scuba · Aug 5, 2010

Antidisestablishmentarian said:
I take samples of things for a living(and I don't work for the government, I inspect for asbestos). While I get that they aren't the same, if you think 4 samples are enough to determine anything in buildings that size, you are sadly mistaken. If I were to perform my job in those former buildings, we are talking thousands of samples.

I know this is an older thread, but my PC just got fixed.

That is the reason i believe the US covered something up. They only took a few samples!!!! out of the three buildings

If they where trying to do their job they failed. They didn't properly conduct themselves like the professionals we thought they where.

Scuba · Aug 5, 2010

doc111 said:
Building collapses are very complicated and not very well understood by laymen. In addition to being a firefighter I was also trained extensively in building collapse. I've been to many, many collapses and had hundreds of hours of training in the classroom and live training exercises. We even had to have weeks of training in structural engineering in order to understand what causes buildings to collapse. It's not a simple matter of gravity or basic physics. Building collapses are almost always bizarre in nature and leave experts scratching their heads. For someone with zero training in structural engineering or building collapse to speculate on this matter is almost like someone who is not a doctor trying to explain how brain surgery is conducted!

ok then what do you say made the STEEL BEAMS cut straight at an angle????? that's my question to you

America has become a FASCIST CORPORATOCRACY!!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member