created by: djhixx | Oct 13, 2007

Top Stories

53,341 votes

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Click on an option to vote

  • yes
  • no
  • well, im not sure
Comments
235,101 - 235,120 of 256,838 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Say the Truth

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253019
Feb 11, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Where is the chain of custody? Whre are the "control" samples? Where are the peer (non pay-to-play) reviews?
Say the Truth

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253020
Feb 11, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
nothing to debunk

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253021
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
translation: "I'm speechless. There is nothing I can say to refute or debunk anything you just said."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253023
Feb 11, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Not credible evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253024
Feb 11, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Looks like their design failed the fire test. Gotta give them credit, the towers stood up for a period of time. Just like the "unsinkable Titanic." She remained afoat for quite a few hours.

No building has ever been hit by a fully fueled commercial airliner flying at top speed. Demolition is an invasive job. Somebody would have noticed and lots of evidence would have been left behind.

Nice try though.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253025
Feb 11, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
jet fuel

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253026
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
evidence

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253027
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Demolition is an invasive job. Somebody would have noticed and lots of evidence would have been left behind.
Nice try though.
not if they wired the building in the wee hours of the night and had control of the security for the building. I'm sure we could have found lots of evidence for the demolition, unfortunately it was all quickly shipped to China and destroyed.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253028
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/978566-3x2-9...
This must be a controlled demolition?
Say the Truth

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253029
Feb 11, 2013
 
nothing to debunk wrote:
<quoted text>
translation: "I'm speechless. There is nothing I can say to refute or debunk anything you just said."
Translation: discussing it would be as pointless as explaining it to a houseplant. Or a twoofer.
Say the Truth

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253030
Feb 11, 2013
 
jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
I rest my case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253031
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
There is plenty of reason for them to have failed. A structure is only as strong as the sum of it's parts. Many horizontal trusses deflected from prolonged heat exposure. These trusses were connected to vertical members by 5/8" bolts with sheared. The jet plane took out many internal structural columns and severed elevator shafts, cables and stairwells. What's more, there has been no credible evidence of a controlled demolition found anywhere in the debris. Such a demolition would certainly leave behind duds and paraphernalia associated with it. It would have required thousands of invasive charges as the whole exterior of the building was the main support and also lacked fire coating. Finally, the placement of charges would need to be below where the aircraft hit which would be impossible to plan. Your opinion of a demolition is a preposterous claim devoid of any factual evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253032
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
The towers burned for two hours. Watch this video and tell me about a splash of jet fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You must be kidding me.

Surely you jest!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253033
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/978566-3x2-9...
This must be a controlled demolition?
In controlled tests, wooden beams and glue beams remain structurally sound long after an equivalent steel beam fails.

Myth #1: Steel framed buildings are more resistant to fire and easier to get approved for fire code.

Though steel is less flammable than wood and doesn't contribute fuel to a fire, it still performs poorly in fires. Any urban firefighter can tell you that when steel gets hot it expands and twists, which often causes the roof system to fail and fall down - endangering the lives of firefighters and people trying to escape from the building.

In a fire, the hot air collects at the top of the room or building, heating the truss system to 1500F - 2000F. Since steel loses 80% of its strength at 1000F, this often causes the roof and floor systems to collapse much sooner than in a wood structure under the same conditions.

By contrast, wood retains its structural strength even at temperatures above 2000F and while it is burning. When coated with intumescent paint wood structural members can withstand temperatures of 2,000F for up to one hour without failing.

Even without intumescent paint, wood performs better than steel in a fire because it tends to burn at about " per half hour. Therefore the thicker the structural members, the longer they will last in a fire. Large laminated wood beams have the best fire performance of any commercially available product.

http://www.oregontruss.com/truss-info/applica...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253034
Feb 11, 2013
 
Get info from the people who were there working on the fires. Here is what they say about WTC7. They knew it was going to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
indy

Jacksonville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253035
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

911 was a conspiracy .... terrorists conspired to nail us like they had been doing since the clinton watch ..... i wish he had taken obl when he was offered to billy boy
grill

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253037
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
In controlled tests, wooden beams and glue beams remain structurally sound long after an equivalent steel beam fails.
Myth #1: Steel framed buildings are more resistant to fire and easier to get approved for fire code.
Though steel is less flammable than wood and doesn't contribute fuel to a fire, it still performs poorly in fires. Any urban firefighter can tell you that when steel gets hot it expands and twists, which often causes the roof system to fail and fall down - endangering the lives of firefighters and people trying to escape from the building.
In a fire, the hot air collects at the top of the room or building, heating the truss system to 1500F - 2000F. Since steel loses 80% of its strength at 1000F, this often causes the roof and floor systems to collapse much sooner than in a wood structure under the same conditions.
By contrast, wood retains its structural strength even at temperatures above 2000F and while it is burning. When coated with intumescent paint wood structural members can withstand temperatures of 2,000F for up to one hour without failing.
Even without intumescent paint, wood performs better than steel in a fire because it tends to burn at about " per half hour. Therefore the thicker the structural members, the longer they will last in a fire. Large laminated wood beams have the best fire performance of any commercially available product.
http://www.oregontruss.com/truss-info/applica...
Gee, I wonder how my little Weber camping grill holds up so well even when I make the fire real big and hot especially for those all day cookouts from dawn till dusk.
new sock

Richmond, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253038
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

indy wrote:
911 was a conspiracy .... terrorists conspired to nail us like they had been doing since the clinton watch ..... i wish he had taken obl when he was offered to billy boy
oh look, a new sock pretending to be just another average joe new poster from out of the blue. So tell me indy, what brings you here at this hour to join in on this conversation? Are you new to topix and this thread just happened to catch your eye?
onemale

Mattoon, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253039
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

WasteWater wrote:
Get info from the people who were there working on the fires. Here is what they say about WTC7. They knew it was going to collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
This is nothing new:
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire.
Why do you think they use metal?
Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings?
According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
The surrounding building around the towers were damaged much more than the towers and they didn't collapse.


Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253040
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

oh look, a new sock pretending to be just another average joe new poster from out of the blue. So tell me indy, what brings you here at this hour to join in on this conversation? Are you new to topix and this thread just happened to catch your eye?
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
This is nothing new:
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire.
Why do you think they use metal?
Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings?
According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
The surrounding building around the towers were damaged much more than the towers and they didn't collapse.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

455 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min Catcher1 172,512
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min marge 533,291
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min karl44 721,917
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 8 min mahesh 420
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 10 min An NFL Fan 115,482
Umpipi Omkhulu 16 min lindo 4
Emmasturbate ...okay so what does this word mea... (May '13) 17 min I am a Watsonian 147
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 224,514
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 9 hr SimmerExtreme 85
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••