user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
NO, you are an idiot
I havent gotten involved in this whole 9/11 conspiracy craze thats been sweeping the site, and to be honest I dont really plan to. Having said that, Im fairly sure the "air fires" would have reached higher temperatures than 250c..
Nah, who cares?
LOOK AT THE 45 TO 60 DEGREE SLICED STEEL COLUMNS! PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF STEEL CUTTING CHARGES USED ON WTC STEEL (remove spaces below) what really happened . com / wtc2_ cutter . html
Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
Do you EVER think of ANYTHING else?
Oh, it's just another silly boring 9/11 conspiracy ballot. shhhh! We're going back to sleep.
"We all know that the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports practically avoided all the serious questions about September 11" this sounds interesting... "like how steel could melt" oh dear. It didn't melt and no one says it did. It weakened. BIG difference. "and how concrete can become pulverised into fine powder, just from air fires" Shame no one is making this claim except conspiracy theorists. The concrete was pulverized by millions of pounds of concrete falling on it. "to cause super strong buildings" wow, SUPER strong? Like a superhero? Or just a building susceptible to catastrophic jetliner impacts and subsequent fires? "to collapse vertically" Why, would expect them to fall horizontally? "and at free-fall accelerating speeds into themselves" things tend to accelerate when they fall. Look at a video clip of debris falling faster than the dust cloud. THAT'S freefall. "as if the lower materials displayed no strength and were not even there!" If that was the case there wouldn't have been a progressive collapse from the impact region downwards to the base. It would have folded up just like a real controlled demolition. And these are the SERIOUS questions? Dude, you have a problem.
^ ...the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat....
Voted : NO, because 250C air fires really can melt steel at over 1532C & cause concrete to explode!
Jesus Christ, just sign on as guest on "Coast to Coast AM" or buy air time on a commercial shortwave station ("The Big Twin Tower Conspiracy Hour") and stop boring the living f*ck out of the rest of us. If there had been a provable conspiracy, this would have been all over the world press by now, much of which is not overly fond of the current neocon administration in the U.S. AL JAZEERA or THE INDEPENDENT or, hell, for that matter, Pacifica Radio or the like in the U.S. would have been all over that like ugly on an ape. ...But, all they can dredge up, despite their sheer onanistic pleasure at the thought, are a few off-the-rails lunatics who would shame a von Daniken with their bullshit.
"the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat" Well done, Ken. And now just point out for us all just why my points are 'garbage'. Throwing insults is great but it seems almost like a cop out.
Any investigation still wouldn't satisfy the conspiracy theorists. If they call non-profit indepedent aerospace experts, government shills, then they clearly aren't going to except any explanation unless it comes from prisonplanet.
It will never happen. All evidence is gone. Now the stage is set to build Solomon's Temple and enslave the world. Mwwwhahaha!
"the usual garbage from Widehead', and the usual brilliance from Black Cat" Well done, Ken. And now just point out for us all just why my points are 'garbage'. Throwing insults is great but it seems almost like a cop out. by wideheadofknowledge "oh dear. It didn't melt and no one says it did. It weakened. BIG difference." - by wideheadofknowledge Big row-back - so you admit the steel didn't melt? - you are going against a lot of the OCT's arguments there because many claim it did.rnrnBesides it didn't even come near enough to weakening it to the point of collapse, gradual weakening of the steel would not have resulted in the sudden explosive demolition we all witnessed.rnrnTo see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. rnrnIn 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). rnrnIn 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “beams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991).rnrnIn Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And unlike the fires in the towers, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows! Shame no one is making this claim except conspiracy theorists. The concrete was pulverized by millions of pounds of concrete falling on it. by wideheadofknowledge -Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”rnrnThis fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.rnrnDust Clouds wow, SUPER strong? Like a superhero? Or just a building susceptible to catastrophic jetliner impacts and subsequent fires? by wideheadofknowledge They WERE super strong - and WTC7 WASN'T hit by an airliner - the towers were overengineered to withstand multiple jet crashes from planes the size of the ones that hit on 9/11. Why, would expect them to fall horizontally? by wideheadofknowledge Yes, the damage was off centre and should not have resulted in the perfectly controlled 'straight down into their own footprint' collapses. If that was the case there wouldn't have been a progressive collapse from the impact region downwards to the base. It would have folded up just like a real controlled demolition. by wideheadofknowledge It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition. And all the floors above the impact points were all pulverised before they reached the ground, instead of following the demolition point completely intact, this is were the fantasy 'pnaccake' pancake theory falls flat on it's face and is proven to be made up nonsense. And these were SERIOUS answers to Blackcat's posts Widehead? - well they WERE and ARE garbage just like I said, and you have a serious problem dealing with reality and the facts.
Take a look at ballot: 104239 Look at the photo of the damage done to WTC 5 and 6 which were much closer to WTC 1... then look at the site of WTC 7... EXPLAIN HOW ALL THE BUILDINGS AROUND WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND?
"It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition." What? Did I miss the thousand of bright flashes and hundreds of loud explosions PRECEDING
"It DID fold just like a real demolition, exactly as one would expect in in a real demolition." What? Did I miss the thousand of bright flashes and hundreds of loud explosions PRECEDING the collapse? PRECEDING!! There was nothing about the twin tower collapses that resembled a controlled demolition. They peeled outwards for a start, damaging surrounding buildings, each building creating debris field 5 times the original tower area. The simply fact is, you had roughly 200 million pounds of debris, falling as one large 20-30 story block. Do you really think that block would just topple completely to the side like toppling a tree? Leaving what was below it perfectly intact? Of course not, the 200 million pounds would destroy what was basically an air filled tube below it - the path of least resistance. And what do you think a 200 million pound, thirty storey, wrecking ball would do to 3 inch floor slabs, partition walls, desks, carpet and people? It would pulverise them.
"To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires..." Well done. Your list includes no buildings that received catastrophic structural damage beforehand - so no comparison then. "Hoffman (2003) reports...." Hoffman is a Conspiracy Theorist who claims to be able to 'prove' that the wtc towers were brought down with controlled demolition. He is wrong. "the towers were overengineered to withstand multiple jet crashes from planes the size of the ones that hit on 9/11." No they weren't, Ken. That's a bare-faced lie. "the damage...should not have resulted in the perfectly controlled 'straight down into their own footprint' collapses." What part of the debris field would you call the 'footprint', Ken? The bit that crushed the surroinding buildings or the bit that hit buildings 350 yards away? "It DID fold just like a real demolition" So buildings that are demolished destroy themselves from the top down, collapsing in a huge debris cloud that destroys nearby buildings? Or perhaps in a controlled demolition the lower portion remains intact until it is crushed by the falling floors from above? The twin towers collapse looks absolutely NOTHING like a controlled demolition (See the link on my user page for one of those). Like I said, these are supposed to be serious claims and objections?
"EXPLAIN HOW ALL THE BUILDINGS AROUND WTC 7 DID NOT COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND?" They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building. See how easy it is when you try?
Time for me to do some cutting and pasting. Wideahead 1) Step away from those crazy people. 2) Dont make eye contact. 3) Walk away. 4) Dont look back. 5) I have.
(They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building. by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:48am) WTC 5 and WTC 6 suffered real raging infernos. Quite visible and easily photographed. So, you're wrong. WTC 7's fires on the other hand were only on two floors and only show as a few fires in any of the pictures. They were not infernos.
(They didn't suffer from raging infernos that compromised the structural integrity of the building. by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Nov 02, 06 6:48am) The guest user is correct. WTC 5 and 6 had real infernos, WTC 7 didn't. his is WTC 5 on the left with raging fires, WTC 7 is on the right Here is another picture of WTC 5 So the two buildings which really had very visible infernos - yet did not collapse. Unlike the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7. These small fires on only two floors of WTC 7 are most definitely NOT huge raging infernos.
|
|