|
Just searching.
|
IP:
Quote:
|
look how the twin towers feel, then watch how controlled buildings fall... pretty much exactly the same, and its funny how the only other building knocked down was related to the government(cnt rememberexactly what it was)
|
That's funny, because I was under the impression when a building falls down it looks like a building falling down. What else should a building that is being ravaged by internal fires look like? And just so you know, it didn't crumple in one spot, in one direction. It was leaning to the South.
Loosechange is not bolded. Loosechangeguide.com response in bold. To show you how legitimate loosechangeguide.com is, you might want to take a quick browse at the appendix:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html
There are some nice links on that.
Quote:
Later that evening at 5:20, WTC 7, a 47 story office building 300 feet away from the North Tower, suddenly collapses.
Misleading. The fire department believed it was too damaged to stand and cleared the area around it long before it collapsed. The collapse of the south tower was a surprise. The collapse of WTC 7 was expected. That's why there were no casualties.
The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker.
Bad place to put tanks that can hold 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel. WTC 7 also included a Consolidated Edison electrical substation (mostly outside its footprint) and a 4 inch gas line. The NIST report on WTC 7 is due out sometime soon after this document is released (April 22, 2006). The tenants listed here are some of the smaller ones at WTC 7. The big tenant was Salomon Smith Barney.
And the S.E.C. was using it to store 3 to 4 thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations.
Because that's where their offices were. it's good that they keep files on things.
Although every single building surrounding Building 7 stood intact, it fell straight down,
No, they were all heavily damaged. But they didn't have raging fires in them. And the building fell leaning slightly to the south.
Into a convenient little pile, in 6 seconds.
Convenient? What a bizarre assumption that is. If you say it's convenient, you must know whom it's convenient FOR. Please inform me. Little pile? I often see CT claims that the pile was "2 or 3 stories" high. The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters.
|
Quote:
On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Narrator says B-52, which is an 8-engine jet. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day.
The fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.
B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.
The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.
 
B-25 Compared to 767-200ER, superimposed over footprint of WTC tower
(Blue indicates floor plan of a "typical" skyscraper) Source: FEMA
Look at the size of the 767 compared to the floor plan of the tower, and keep in mind that every bit of both 767s entered the towers at around 500 mph.
On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between in the 9th and 14th floors in the North Tower.
Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage. Firefighters had full access to the fire. The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on the other floors. It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm. The building was not hit by an airliner at 500 mph with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams. Fire was not fueled by accelerant. Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.
According to the New York Times, "The fire leads to intense scrutiny of the towers, and eventually to a decision to install sprinklers."
On May 4th, 1988, a 62 storey skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors.
It did not collapse.
Because firefighters fought the fire the whole time and put it out. On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse.
Fire was contained by fire dept. and sprinklers from floor 30 and up. Bldg was not damaged prior to fire. Fire protection coating was not blown off. Contributor kookbreaker writes,
"The Philadelphia fire LC mentions was the Meridian Building. The firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours because the fire department feared (ta-dah) pancake collapse! The building was effectively destroyed in any case. It had a large net over it and had to be reinforced before it could be brought down!"
And that's damage caused by fire alone. Suppose it had also been hit by a 767 fully-loaded with fuel and flying at top speed?
October 17th, 2004, a 56 storey skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse.
Fire was put out by military helicopters. No airliners hit, etc.
On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 storey tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.
Building was concrete core, curtain wall construction. Building was not hit by an airliner. Steel beams failed due to heat but the concrete core did not. Here's what ARUP, a major fire-safety engineering firm, had to say about that fire:
The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse.
The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 storey skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Evidence that they burned on 4 floors only? And did you notice that airliners hit them? Before collapsing completely to the ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center. Or, one might make a much better argument that the buildings stood as long as they did because they were so well built.
|
as for the pentagon lawn. i got that info from the fact it was all over the news and in newspapers shit ill find pictures that were used on tv and in news papers to prove my point it was in perfect condition.
http://www.danbielefeld.com/images/...opper-smoke.jpg
http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/01...agon_damage.jpg
http://www.blogwashington.com/Pentagon-9-11.jpg
and the best image's to prove the point
http://911review.org/images/pentagon/01749vp_2.jpg
http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg
and do you see any debris???? do you see any damage from where the wings and engine should have hit had it been a plane??? no. come on stop being simple.
Quote:
|
why would it??? you do know one of the so called hi jacked planes was found landed at another airport and the passengers moved into a nasa building where as the rest from other planes moved some place else. also the witness accounts speak for themselves, and as i say, alot of these were announced on the fucking day that it happened in live tv interviews on the news.... it was only as things went on the media story started to change....
|
You know that story has been debunked, right? And yeah, the story would change...it's called finding new information.
Quote:
|
also look at the video closely, slow it down and zoom in under the nose of the planes, just before impact you get a flash that looks very much like a detonation... you can also see for yourself theres no markings nore is there any windows.
|
I will do so.
You think I'm stupid? Look at what you're saying..you think the government would allow all this shit to leak out, right? You think they'd throw in random sheets of steel and claim it was a plane? Show me your source of where it says the coroner went home after finding no bodies, cuz I'm sure like quite a few human remains were located.
That person is obviously pro-conspiracy theories, but here's your wreckage: http://debris.0catch.com/
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/...07flight93.html
http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm
Does it get any better than this? http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf
Quote:
|
dude check the 5 frames out.... the closest thing u see to a plane a blur moving into the building thats less than half the size of a commercial air plane.
|
You do realize that the government released this to the public, which would be seen by many, many people...every single thing you said relies on the assumption that no one took anything into consideration if the government was going to destroy one of its own buildings and spark a war. Link me to a site with the frames, please.
Quote:
|
as for the bin laden thing, the lighting??? dude his fuckin nose is fatter, shorther, and flatter than osama's is, and osama is left handed but he does everything right handed in the video, get a clue.
|
Why don't you get a clue and learn to fucking read? Because I said it could be an imposter, easily, and all I'm disproving is the ridiculousness of the bomb theory.
Quote:
|
and if you dont beleive bombs were used, why were explosions video'd on floors below where the plane hit(up to 20+ floors down)... to weaken the structure???? help it fall more organised??? or maybe its the lighting(as you would claim)*rolls eyes*.
|
Or maybe it's electrical circuiting and generators and transformers and multiple other things that could explode...Or maybe you think that everything inside of an advanced building is just paper and desks *rolls eyes*. Perhaps you don't understand exactly how big the plane was? Look at loosechangeguide.com and plenty of other sites that go about debunking 9/11 theories...you'll get your answers better than what I can give.
Quote:
|
nice to see one person failed at a logical explination for things.
|
Nice to see one person's failed attempt at using ad hominem, and using outdated sources, using a video (Loose Change) with over 420 mistakes in it as one of your sources.
From loosechangeguide.com, concerning the errors in Loose Change.
Quote:
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25
Total flubs: 426
|
|