Danish chemist finds nano-explosive in WTC dust - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 12:23 AM

100 delusional morons.

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Minor damage?

Dude, get the fuck out of this thread you fucking moron and come back when you have a clue. Jesus, you people are insane. You just make shit up so you can scream and yell conspiracy. You're so fucking pathetic.

Minor damage...unbelievable.

minor damage to WTC 7 jackass! the buildings were built to withstand a direct plane strike but WTC 7 had "minor" damage compared to it's structure but yet it crumbled like a deck of cards. how could such minimal damage to WTC 7 cause it to just collapse like a text book demo job. before you open your big trap, watch a demo job, then watch WTC 7 coming down and tell me what the difference is.

and, if these buildings did collapse from an aircraft hit then why wasn't the engineering firm sued? they were designed for it!

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

minor damage to WTC 7 jackass! the buildings were built to withstand a direct plane strike but WTC 7 had "minor" damage compared to it's structure but yet it crumbled like a deck of cards. how could such minimal damage to WTC 7 cause it to just collapse like a text book demo job. before you open your big trap, watch a demo job, then watch WTC 7 coming down and tell me what the difference is.

and, if these buildings did collapse from an aircraft hit then why wasn't the engineering firm sued? they were designed for it!

Where do you get your info exactly you stupid fuck? Let me guess from lunatic conspiracy sites? Please gives us some facts about minror damage. In the meantime i'll post this:

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[3][40] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[41] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][42]

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

That's funny. I muse be delusional then. I saw with my own eyes on Dutch tv how they let a person fly a simulator and let him crash into the Pentagon. He never flew before (those Arabs had training) and he crashed into the Pentagon on the first try.

You fucking imbecile.

ya, the arabs got training on how to fly a 757...sure they did! people go to training facilities all the time who just want to fly a 757, not take-off or land...just fly.

it would have been more believable if they said the hijackers used MS Flight Simulator to get their training.

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

ya, the arabs got training on how to fly a 757...sure they did! people go to training facilities all the time who just want to fly a 757, not take-off or land...just fly.

it would have been more believable if they said the hijackers used MS Flight Simulator to get their training.

I'm not wasting anymore time on your delusions and stupidity. Your crap would've been interesting in 2002 before we had all the info and facts but right now it's pathetic and it makes you look like a goddamn fucking moron.

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Where do you get your info exactly you stupid fuck? Let me guess from lunatic conspiracy sites? Please gives us some facts about minror damage. In the meantime i'll post this:

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[3][40] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[41] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][42]

hmmm, so they can orchestrate a complex operation like 9/11 but they have no idea how to pencil whip a report? wow, now that would be quite a feat! if NIST said it's true, it must be true! btw, who owns NIST? here's one clue: www.nist.gov

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

I'm not wasting anymore time on your delusions and stupidity. Your crap would've been interesting in 2002 before we had all the info and facts but right now it's pathetic and it makes you look like a goddamn fucking moron.

hey, don't get pissed off because you're wrong...alot of people bought the story. you just happen to be one of them.

After Shock Media · 04-14-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

ya, the arabs got training on how to fly a 757...sure they did! people go to training facilities all the time who just want to fly a 757, not take-off or land...just fly.

it would have been more believable if they said the hijackers used MS Flight Simulator to get their training.

Can I ask just two very simple questions, think about them before you answer and please do answer.

1. If the government wanted to take out the buildings for whatever reason. Why go through such an elaborate set of events when everyone knows to keep things simple. People are saying explosives, etc. Would it not of been easier and a whole lot more simple if the government used some suicide bombers and a few vehicle bombs to do this act? Then they could still lay the same blame, have less chances of things going wrong, have to rely on fewer people, and of course could use explosives.

2. Lets just say the government was behind it in some way, fashion, whatever. Perhaps they had prior evidence and did not react in time, do not care. Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Can I ask just two very simple questions, think about them before you answer and please do answer.

1. If the government wanted to take out the buildings for whatever reason. Why go through such an elaborate set of events when everyone knows to keep things simple. People are saying explosives, etc. Would it not of been easier and a whole lot more simple if the government used some suicide bombers and a few vehicle bombs to do this act? Then they could still lay the same blame, have less chances of things going wrong, have to rely on fewer people, and of course could use explosives.

2. Lets just say the government was behind it in some way, fashion, whatever. Perhaps they had prior evidence and did not react in time, do not care. Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?

1) because there's too much security for another ground attack on the towers. and, i doubt anyone would believe a vehicle bomb could take the buildings down. even though the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner people still believe the "pancake" theory. i think the attack had to be very visual and horrific images needed to be burned into the minds of the american people. the government even staged an attack on one of their own buildings as a smoke screen.

2) i'm not sure what you mean by "Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?"

Pleasurepays · 04-14-2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

1) because there's too much security for another ground attack on the towers. and, i doubt anyone would believe a vehicle bomb could take the buildings down. even though the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner people still believe the "pancake" theory. i think the attack had to be very visual and horrific images needed to be burned into the minds of the american people. the government even staged an attack on one of their own buildings as a smoke screen.

2) i'm not sure what you mean by "Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?"

how can you say the "buildings were built to withstand a direct hit by an airliner"

thats not true. planes this large didn't even exist when the building was designed and built.

do you have one tiny piece of proof that the buildings were "built to withstand a direct impact" of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 knots?

Manowar · 04-14-2009, 06:03 AM

i'll get my tin foil hat

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

how can you say the "buildings were built to withstand a direct hit by an airliner"

thats not true. planes this large didn't even exist when the building was designed and built.

do you have one tiny piece of proof that the buildings were "built to withstand a direct impact" of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 knots?

The loser is clueless...
He just finds some random retarded quotes on conspiracy sites and uses that as evidence from that point on.
Any real facts are fake because they are official. And anyone official is ofcourse part of the conspiracy. We should feel sorry for him really. You must have a really fucking shitty life if you're into that stuff. So far anything he mentioned in this thread has been debunked over and over again about 5 years ago already. Sad.

Profits of Doom · 04-14-2009, 06:21 AM

Come on now, we all know the government planned 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, and then immediately used that amazing foresight and planning to plant the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify it. Oh wait...

directfiesta · 04-14-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

how can you say the "buildings were built to withstand a direct hit by an airliner"

thats not true. planes this large didn't even exist when the building was designed and built.

do you have one tiny piece of proof that the buildings were "built to withstand a direct impact" of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 knots?

bla bla bla .... bla bla bla ... more bla bla bla ....

Quote:

The above image is taken from Chapter 1 of the WTC Report [FEMA PDF of report]. To see how willing to ?stretch the truth? the authors of the report are, compare the above image to the original (which can be found here). Notice that they have ?accidentally? quoted the length, height and wingspan of one of the early 707?s (possibly the Boeing 707-120) and the weight, fuel capacity and speed of the more common Boeing 707-320B (the aircraft that most people associate with the name, Boeing 707). The above graphic has been edited to give a more accurate picture.To summarize the aircraft:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

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.
http://riseuprochester.org/2008/07/1...impact-of-767/

waiting for more bla bla bla ....

xxxdesign-net · 04-14-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

how can you say the "buildings were built to withstand a direct hit by an airliner"

thats not true. planes this large didn't even exist when the building was designed and built.

do you have one tiny piece of proof that the buildings were "built to withstand a direct impact" of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 knots?

Why does the debunkers insist on not doing the research themselves... and when they do, it is generally done within 5 or 10 minutes, focusing on single element of "proof", that may or may not be accurate, that someone brought up to them.. instead of looking at the big piture?

Here's what Manager, WTC construction & Project manager has to say about the Buildings:

http://tr.truveo.com/WTC-Towers-Desi...ed/id/36349228

The official story is fire brought down the buildings.... not the impact of the plane...

directfiesta · 04-14-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxdesign-net

Why does the debunkers insist on not doing the research themselves...

They do not need research .... They just need to repeat over and over the same fitting scenarios .... till it goes from fiction to FACTS !!!!

Nothing new ...

Pleasurepays · 04-14-2009, 09:21 AM

you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying.

CNN interview with the architects....
----------
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.

HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?

SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).

Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

Martin · 04-14-2009, 09:23 AM

I love how they identified a few of the so called hijackers by finding their pass ports in the rubble of the buildings. The passport survives the plane hitting the building and the fire ball, flys out his pocket then it survives the building blown to dust and lands perfectly a few blocks away from ground zero without mark on it..lol. I mean you have to be a real brain dead fuck like Dirt Fag to believe this shit.

Dirty Dane · 04-14-2009, 09:28 AM

Oh no, not this bullshit again.

"published a scientific article"...
- 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' is not peer-reviewed. Get the facts straight...

The danish chemist is a truly conspiracy nutcase. Trust me... He believes there were no planes in Pentagon or Shanksville... and of course no motives for Al-Qaida to attack US.

Sometimes its better to let it go, than continue to deny logic and facts. Ask questions, yes.. but know how to control your own bizarre thoughts. Otherwise you will see ghosts and Gods everywhere. Science? Not..

PornoStar69 · 04-14-2009, 09:39 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Robert Medairos (Eyewitness) Didn't See Any Airplane Parts At The Pentagon
https://youtube.com/watch?v=efyBgOhHfcU

xxxdesign-net · 04-14-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying.

you fucking morons. ? lol That's wishful thinking but that's beside the point... Did you watch the video I posted? Heard what the construction manager said? Are you that much in denial?

Here's a BBC article you might want to read before talking like you are some sort of authority on the subject..

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?

Quote:

CNN interview with the architects....
----------
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.

HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?

SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).

Thats all you got? lol.. Yeah , that's definitive! Very detailed, not vague at all... Dismiss all the links I posted above...

Quote:

Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient...

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/8687.php

SmokeyTheBear · 04-14-2009, 10:40 AM

what i always found strange was , if you wanted the buildings down and blame it on terrorists , why not just plant bombs and claim the terrorists did it , after all they have already tried this several times, why go thru some elaborate scheme to fly planes into them and THEN detonate explosives, makes no sense and makes the scam harder to hide and pull off.

One of my theories from the beginning is that the collapse of the wtc's was nothing more than shoddy building, probably by mob contracts. exposing this would expose the fact that maybe a few hundred people would have died from terrorists and the rest from american stupidity.

Whether america secretly trained/guided/advised or had forwarning about the plane terrorists i am on the fence about, you have to remember the terrorists HEAD dude once worked for and with the american intelligence community, thats just a tiny bit odd to start with.

I'm not saying the usa had 100% complicity , just that they obviously knew/know more than what we hear about.

Pleasurepays · 04-14-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxdesign-net

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?

Quote:

Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?

you're right. the buildings suffered significant damage from the planes... then the fire sealed the deal ensuring that final structural failure. thanks for agreeing with the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA reports.

Quote:

You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient..

i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.

its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:19 PM

of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in".

so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash.

the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early.

this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse!

btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?

polle54 · 04-14-2009, 12:33 PM

I laughed my ass of to that fucktard the other day. jesus christ

Pleasurepays · 04-14-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

haha...

ok...

wow.................

you are stating it as fact, when its clearly not a fact.

furthermore, you are alleging that construction methods in the late 60's take into account 1000 plus passenger airliners in the year 2010 or space shuttles or whatever.

just... wow.

delusional much?

WarChild · 04-14-2009, 12:36 PM

You can't win an argument with these far out there lunatics using logic, common sense or reason. The reason is because if they were capable of these traits in the first place they'd never have these outlandish theories backed up by one or two confused witnesses, random occurences of the numbers 9 and 11 in pop culture and visual evidence observed by laymen.

In short there's no possible way to educate these people and you're wasting your time.

MIS · 04-14-2009, 12:38 PM

It's all Meg's fault!!

Rochard · 04-14-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

so how do you explain the hundreds of eye witnesses who reported hearing the timed explosions seconds before the building came down? reports from firefighters who obviously have seen demo jobs before said it was just like a building pull. oh, right...they must be "delusional beyond help".

There were explosions from the moment of impact right up until the moment they fell. Elevator cables snapped, sending elevators crashing down to the ground level. This wasn't limited to top floors were the planes hit; It instantly spread to multiple levels including the ground floor and below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

speaking of flying 757's into buildings, do you think it was ever possible for the average joe to go into a flight training facility and fly a 757 simulator? it was never possible regardless of the reason or amount of money paid, especially to a couple of rag heads. those facilities have strict guidelines set by the FAA.

but lets say a few did get some underground training somehow, do you think they could hit those buildings pefectly the first try flying low level at 500mph?

Sure, why not? I've played flight sim and it's pretty easy to hit a tall building.

In fact, just yesterday a guy landed large plane after the pilot died.

Doesn't seem difficult at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

have you seen their passports? they look like someone pulled it out of their pocket, not a pile of molten rubble.

You didn't see all of the paper flying around WTC site moments after the planes hit? That shit drifted around for hours.....

04-14-2009, 12:42 PM

From what I have been told, the nano explosives were built INTO the building from the get go. That is how far back this nefarious plot goes back. These buildings were constructed to be future sacrificial pawns in a false flag operation by some of our own public officials.

Pleasure Pays you are obviously some kind of government apologist. How can someone as "smart" as you have so much free time to spend on a retarded message board trying cover things up and always change the subject and make things personal. Who is paying you to do this? You are not a sig whore.....

xxxdesign-net · 04-14-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?

Not really... this was an article published september 13th, 2001.... The assumption was that a 800 C raging inferno made the building collapse... NIST later examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200 F... NIST claim on their part that this was enough for the building to collapse...

Quote:

i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.

its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.

what?!
Frank DeMartini was an architect who works as the World Trade Center?s construction manager..
Same thing with Hyman Brown...
In other words... the builders...

Rochard · 04-14-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in".

so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash.

the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early.

this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse!

btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?

The WTC towers were designed in the 1960s and completed in 1971. They were designed to withstand the crash of a plane of that time - not an airplane built forty years later.

No steel structured has ever collapsed like this? You think? With the exception of the Empire State building in the 1940s, no other skyscraper has ever had a large plane intentionally crashed into it! And the Empire State Building incident was completely different; The building is different, mostly concrete, and the plane was a 1940 bomber with little fuel in it.

WarChild · 04-14-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The WTC towers were designed in the 1960s and completed in 1971. They were designed to withstand the crash of a plane of that time - not an airplane built forty years later.

No steel structured has ever collapsed like this? You think? With the exception of the Empire State building in the 1940s, no other skyscraper has ever had a large plane intentionally crashed into it! And the Empire State Building incident was completely different; The building is different, mostly concrete, and the plane was a 1940 bomber with little fuel in it.

Again, you are trying to use logic and reason to convince someone who is not capable of either. Just let it go.

Rochard · 04-14-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

minor damage to WTC 7 jackass! the buildings were built to withstand a direct plane strike but WTC 7 had "minor" damage compared to it's structure but yet it crumbled like a deck of cards. how could such minimal damage to WTC 7 cause it to just collapse like a text book demo job. before you open your big trap, watch a demo job, then watch WTC 7 coming down and tell me what the difference is.

and, if these buildings did collapse from an aircraft hit then why wasn't the engineering firm sued? they were designed for it!

Your kidding me, right?

I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.

xxxdesign-net · 04-14-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Your kidding me, right?

I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.

but...

Rochard · 04-14-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

hmmm, so they can orchestrate a complex operation like 9/11 but they have no idea how to pencil whip a report? wow, now that would be quite a feat! if NIST said it's true, it must be true! btw, who owns NIST? here's one clue: www.nist.gov

Yeah, because people from other countries never come to the United States for training, right? Jackass. At any given time there are thousands of people training how to fly jets in the United States.

Did you read the 911 report? They have detailed information of what schools they attended, where they lived, etc.

And to this very day we still have people from other countries in the US training on how to fly large commercial airlines.

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Your kidding me, right?

I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.

you're comparing a house to a steel structured building?

a tree would crush your house but would not have much affect on a skyscraper.

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxdesign-net

but...

great view! so according to this diagram all the WTC buildings would have been completely destroyed including the post office and verizon building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapse.html

Pleasurepays · 04-14-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

great view! so according to this diagram all the WTC buildings would have been completely destroyed including the post office and verizon building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapse.html

In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), and the World Financial Center complex and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex was later condemned due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower, and is undergoing deconstruction. The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway was also condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, and is slated for deconstruction. Other neighboring buildings including 90 West Street and the Verizon Building suffered major damage, but have since been restored.[62] World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millenium Hilton, and 90 Church Street had moderate damage

XXXMovie4M · 04-14-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), and the World Financial Center complex and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex was later condemned due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower, and is undergoing deconstruction. The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway was also condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, and is slated for deconstruction. Other neighboring buildings including 90 West Street and the Verizon Building suffered major damage, but have since been restored.[62] World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millenium Hilton, and 90 Church Street had moderate damage

you're correct, but the point is the other buildings that suffered severe damage did not collapse within their own footprint. well, at least not until demo crews did it.

nobody is disputing that there was alot of damage caused by the buildings coming down.

PornoStar69 · 04-14-2009, 02:17 PM

twin towers = controlled demolition = FACT

search on Youtube 'WTC FLASHES' you can clearly see flashes going off as it collaspes.

thanks goodbye

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoStar69

twin towers = controlled demolition = FACT

search on Youtube 'WTC FLASHES' you can clearly see flashes going off as it collaspes.

thanks goodbye

How old are you?

Jakez · 04-14-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

What do you mean retardboy? There's been a major investigation obviously. Just because mentally unstable morons like you think something else happened they need to investigate again while they already have all the facts? Fucking idiot.

Hey genius, what's the story on building 7 then? I'd love to see you explain that one since you seem to know it all.

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakez

Hey genius, what's the story on building 7 then? I'd love to see you explain that one since you seem to know it all.

I take it you're mentally challenged as well?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/t..._1120_wtc7.htm

Now stop asking stupid stuff.

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 02:53 PM

Why do you even ask for facts? You don't want to hear them anyway unless they come from some kid in his moms basement who suddenly is an expert on every 9/11 subject because he is anti government.

hershie · 04-14-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

I take it you're mentally challenged as well?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/t..._1120_wtc7.htm

Now stop asking stupid stuff.

It won't be long until one of the nutjobs says that report is not worth reading because the gov't published it, dismissing the 100's of renowned experts in their field that contributed to it, and further stating they must have been paid off or pressured to sign off on it.

The crazies go as far as dismissing the Popular Mechanics slap down of conspiracy theories report saying it was a product of "yellow journalism" just because one of the writers had a brother-in-law that worked in the White House thus allowing them to brush off the hundreds of scientists...that contributed to the findings.

Funny how you are looking for the truth and ignoring the findings of the most impressive assembly of experts out there. These are people who go home to their wives and kids at night and have no reason to perpetuate a conspiracy never mind how conclusive the reports are in the first place.

Dirty Dane · 04-14-2009, 03:23 PM

Im not sure what to choose:
Reports made by thousands of specialists ... or edited and submitted conspiracy clips on YouTube, backed up by drug addicted lunatic danish chemists.

Hmm... thats a hard one.

Rochard · 04-14-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXXMovie4M

you're comparing a house to a steel structured building?

a tree would crush your house but would not have much affect on a skyscraper.

I was saying if a large building next to my house came down, it would have a huge affect on my house.

In this case, hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, and everything else came crashing down around WTC 7. People couldn't get out of WTC 7 because the entrance was buried by debris. In fact, if I recall correctly the debris was a number of stories high.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that these two buildings came crashing down next to WTC 7 and it didn't have any effect on a building in the same complex? Pretty much the entire complex was buried by debris.

Two planes hit the building, causing them to crash. There is zero proof to say other wise.

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie

It won't be long until one of the nutjobs says that report is not worth reading because the gov't published it, dismissing the 100's of renowned experts in their field that contributed to it, and further stating they must have been paid off or pressured to sign off on it.

The crazies go as far as dismissing the Popular Mechanics slap down of conspiracy theories report saying it was a product of "yellow journalism" just because one of the writers had a brother-in-law that worked in the White House thus allowing them to brush off the hundreds of scientists...that contributed to the findings.

Funny how you are looking for the truth and ignoring the findings of the most impressive assembly of experts out there. These are people who go home to their wives and kids at night and have no reason to perpetuate a conspiracy never mind how conclusive the reports are in the first place.

What they don't realize that is if any of these big conspiracies was true there would be so goddamn many people involved that that alone already would make it impossible.

All these reports would have to be fake and made by people who are all involved in the conspiracy. We're talking 100's of people for these reports alone.

Dirty F · 04-14-2009, 03:36 PM

It's amazing how a 130 page report created by experts, totally explaining in detail what happened to tower 7, means nothing to these conspiracy nuts yet a 16 year old kid who makes a cut and paste movie on his laptop in which he says it's impossible tower 7 fell down because it's not possible and uploads it to Youtube these same people call that 100% proof instantly.

04-14-2009, 06:21 AM	#113
Profits of Doom Monster Rain Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Mongo Posts: 4,978	Come on now, we all know the government planned 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, and then immediately used that amazing foresight and planning to plant the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify it. Oh wait... __________________ “My Free Cams Affiliate Program by CrakRevenue”

04-14-2009, 09:23 AM	#118
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	I love how they identified a few of the so called hijackers by finding their pass ports in the rubble of the buildings. The passport survives the plane hitting the building and the fire ball, flys out his pocket then it survives the building blown to dust and lands perfectly a few blocks away from ground zero without mark on it..lol. I mean you have to be a real brain dead fuck like Dirt Fag to believe this shit. __________________

04-14-2009, 09:39 AM	#120
PornoStar69 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: xxweekxx mothers bed. Posts: 2,022	HAHAHAHAHAHA Robert Medairos (Eyewitness) Didn't See Any Airplane Parts At The Pentagon https://youtube.com/watch?v=efyBgOhHfcU __________________ GFY King?

04-14-2009, 10:40 AM	#122
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	what i always found strange was , if you wanted the buildings down and blame it on terrorists , why not just plant bombs and claim the terrorists did it , after all they have already tried this several times, why go thru some elaborate scheme to fly planes into them and THEN detonate explosives, makes no sense and makes the scam harder to hide and pull off. One of my theories from the beginning is that the collapse of the wtc's was nothing more than shoddy building, probably by mob contracts. exposing this would expose the fact that maybe a few hundred people would have died from terrorists and the rest from american stupidity. Whether america secretly trained/guided/advised or had forwarning about the plane terrorists i am on the fence about, you have to remember the terrorists HEAD dude once worked for and with the american intelligence community, thats just a tiny bit odd to start with. I'm not saying the usa had 100% complicity , just that they obviously knew/know more than what we hear about. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

04-14-2009, 12:33 PM	#125
polle54 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The Beach Posts: 4,626	I laughed my ass of to that fucktard the other day. jesus christ __________________ ICQ# 143561781

04-14-2009, 12:23 AM	#101
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	100 delusional morons.

04-14-2009, 06:03 AM	#111
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	i'll get my tin foil hat

04-14-2009, 09:21 AM	#117
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying. CNN interview with the architects.... ---------- AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team. HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down? SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident). Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

04-14-2009, 09:28 AM	#119
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Oh no, not this bullshit again. "published a scientific article"... - 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' is not peer-reviewed. Get the facts straight... The danish chemist is a truly conspiracy nutcase. Trust me... He believes there were no planes in Pentagon or Shanksville... and of course no motives for Al-Qaida to attack US. Sometimes its better to let it go, than continue to deny logic and facts. Ask questions, yes.. but know how to control your own bizarre thoughts. Otherwise you will see ghosts and Gods everywhere. Science? Not..

04-14-2009, 12:19 PM	#124
XXXMovie4M Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Hell Posts: 359	of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario. can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in". so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash. the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early. this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse! btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?

04-14-2009, 12:36 PM	#127
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	You can't win an argument with these far out there lunatics using logic, common sense or reason. The reason is because if they were capable of these traits in the first place they'd never have these outlandish theories backed up by one or two confused witnesses, random occurences of the numbers 9 and 11 in pop culture and visual evidence observed by laymen. In short there's no possible way to educate these people and you're wasting your time. __________________ .

04-14-2009, 12:38 PM	#128
MIS Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 127	It's all Meg's fault!! __________________ Do You Have USA Traffic? I want to buy ad space on your site(s). Get paid fair market value. Serious sellers with a minimum of 20K daily USA visitors. ICQ: 616-155-033 - Email: [email protected] - AIM: SellMeSpace

04-14-2009, 12:42 PM	#130
Vexes Guest Posts: n/a	From what I have been told, the nano explosives were built INTO the building from the get go. That is how far back this nefarious plot goes back. These buildings were constructed to be future sacrificial pawns in a false flag operation by some of our own public officials. Pleasure Pays you are obviously some kind of government apologist. How can someone as "smart" as you have so much free time to spend on a retarded message board trying cover things up and always change the subject and make things personal. Who is paying you to do this? You are not a sig whore.....

04-14-2009, 02:17 PM	#141
PornoStar69 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: xxweekxx mothers bed. Posts: 2,022	twin towers = controlled demolition = FACT search on Youtube 'WTC FLASHES' you can clearly see flashes going off as it collaspes. thanks goodbye __________________ GFY King?

04-14-2009, 02:53 PM	#145
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Why do you even ask for facts? You don't want to hear them anyway unless they come from some kid in his moms basement who suddenly is an expert on every 9/11 subject because he is anti government. Last edited by Dirty F; 04-14-2009 at 02:54 PM..

04-14-2009, 03:23 PM	#147
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Im not sure what to choose: Reports made by thousands of specialists ... or edited and submitted conspiracy clips on YouTube, backed up by drug addicted lunatic danish chemists. Hmm... thats a hard one.

04-14-2009, 03:36 PM	#150
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	It's amazing how a 130 page report created by experts, totally explaining in detail what happened to tower 7, means nothing to these conspiracy nuts yet a 16 year old kid who makes a cut and paste movie on his laptop in which he says it's impossible tower 7 fell down because it's not possible and uploads it to Youtube these same people call that 100% proof instantly.