Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

onemale

Charleston, IL

#268325 Apr 3, 2014
Why did NIST deny and ignore the 47 massive core columns that held up 60% of the weight above???
Why did they not include them in their computer simulations???
The answer is simple it was "A Cover-Up"

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268326 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/desi...
Proves you are idiot. The design did not plan for what actually happened.

1. Jet fueled for cross country trip.

2. Jet flying at over 500 mph

3. Huge fireball.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268327 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
Why did NIST deny and ignore the 47 massive core columns that held up 60% of the weight above???
Why did they not include them in their computer simulations???
The answer is simple it was "A Cover-Up"
Ever heard of building loads and stresses? A huge hole in the outer structure caused uneven loading. OTOH, it is a well established fact that the deflected trusses pulled the outer structure inward by around 5' causing it to snap.

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eag...

"Steel is born of fire," Hamburger explained. "As it's reheated, it expands and loses its rigidity. Above 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, it loses a significant amount of its strength."

"The floor trusses [joists] were relatively flimsy. As the tower collapsed, the trusses just fell apart," he observed, noting that trusses are difficult to fireproof.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/...

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapte...

Watch this to see exactly what happened causing the failure.



Look at this and tell me nothing was collected and documented.

http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080324_SAIC_ExA...
Charlie Sheen

Waxhaw, NC

#268328 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/desi...
.. but not the fire, Mother banger, why do you argue with the words of the MAN THAT DID THE STUDY?
Charlie Sheen

Waxhaw, NC

#268329 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
Why did NIST deny and ignore the 47 massive core columns that held up 60% of the weight above???
Why did they not include them in their computer simulations???
The answer is simple it was "A Cover-Up"
Right, I think you should cover up when you are around your Mother, and stop trying to get her drunk so you can get jiggy.
Charlie Sheen

Waxhaw, NC

#268330 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I know you know more than the experts who designed the towers.
Actually I am QUOTING THE MAN WHO DESIGNED THE TOWERS AND DID THE STUDY, do you have your face in your mothers crotch again or what?
Charlie Sheen

Waxhaw, NC

#268331 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have all the answers... where did the white smoke come from???
Oh yeah, thermite emits white smoke.
LINK OR LIE, Plus it all would have burned off in a minute thermite does not burn for hours mother banger.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#268332 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
I don't have the time to read each and every post, but the ones I have read tells me...
The truthers are more interested in seeking the truth
The bwunkers are more interested in spewing insults
I can't help but think, the bwunker's own admissions are hurting their case.
Insults prove absolutely nothing and shows your weakness that you have no agreement worth posting about 9-11.
What causes road rage??? Psychopaths at the wheel.
What causes insults and rage here??? Psychopaths at the keyboard.
Yes, the truthers do throw insults now and then, but for the most part, the bunkers throws the first rocks.
Translation: "I know you are but what am I?"
Porkpie Hat wrote:
It's obvious you're not very bright. Really, really obvious.

Did you know that 180mph is slower than 500mph?

Of course you don't, you're far too stupid to understand that simple fact.

E=1/2m(v*v) ring a bell?

Of course it doesn't, you're a scientifically illiterate fool.

Now would E increase with velocity?

No manyfails, I'm not asking you since you're just too stupid to understand.

[email protected] empty
E=1/2*55,580kg(80m/s*80m/s)=17 7,856kJ

[email protected] empty
E=1/2*57,840kg(223m/s*223m/s)= 1,438,162kJ

Oh look! Of course you never bothered to verify anything you "read" (see mindlessly regurgitated) and you're dead wrong about the energy of impact. BTW, a the lightest 767 is heavier than the heaviest 707 you moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Speci...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Speci...

(My calculations are based on a 757 is your best case scenario to win the argument and you still lose by a landslide!)

The good news is, with friends like you twoof needs no enemies.

The bad news is, you are every bit as dumb as I thought.

But hey, good luck with that!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#268333 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>In your own words: "The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner".
What part of ("resist the impact of a jet") do you not understand?
Numerous airline pilots have stated a 767 cannot run the speeds we were told at the altitude they were flying.
What part of "the towers survived the impacts" don't you understand Manyfails?

And the claim of speed has been a) debunked and was b) referring to the Pentagon.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#268334 Apr 3, 2014
onemale wrote:
I don't have the time to read each and every post, but the ones I have read tells me...
The truthers are more interested in seeking the truth
The bwunkers are more interested in spewing insults
I can't help but think, the bwunker's own admissions are hurting their case.
Insults prove absolutely nothing and shows your weakness that you have no agreement worth posting about 9-11.
What causes road rage??? Psychopaths at the wheel.
What causes insults and rage here??? Psychopaths at the keyboard.
Yes, the truthers do throw insults now and then, but for the most part, the bunkers throws the first rocks.
You mean we get mad when you try to"invent" the truth!

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#268335 Apr 3, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't landing speed slower? You can fly a jet at a much slower speed with the wing flaps down.
Landing and take off speed are both just above stall speed, the difference is in what controls are used. For instance you do not take off and cannot land at any speed slower than the stall speed. Touch down and reduce velocity, to take off increase velocity.
Flaps are only helpers and do not change stall speed only enhance or inhibit velocity .

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268336 Apr 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Landing and take off speed are both just above stall speed, the difference is in what controls are used. For instance you do not take off and cannot land at any speed slower than the stall speed. Touch down and reduce velocity, to take off increase velocity.
Flaps are only helpers and do not change stall speed only enhance or inhibit velocity .
But isn't the stall speed lower with the wing flaps extended?

According to this explanation, wing flaps are slightly extended during takeoff while fully extended during landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_ (aircraft)

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#268337 Apr 3, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
But isn't the stall speed lower with the wing flaps extended?
According to this explanation, wing flaps are slightly extended during takeoff while fully extended during landings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_ (aircraft)
Flaps may reduce stall speed, but stall speed is stall speed regardless of flaps.
In other words, the stall speed of an aircraft is the speed it takes to fly...any flaps included.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#268338 Apr 3, 2014
Gee wiz, I forgot what grade school sounded like until I read the last few posts...

Stall speed is self explanatory.

Who wants candy?

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#268339 Apr 3, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "the towers survived the impacts" don't you understand Manyfails?
And the claim of speed has been a) debunked and was b) referring to the Pentagon.
Maybe he hasn't seen the videos of the planes hitting the the towers yet.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268340 Apr 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Flaps may reduce stall speed, but stall speed is stall speed regardless of flaps.
In other words, the stall speed of an aircraft is the speed it takes to fly...any flaps included.
I understand stall speed to be the speed where the plane now longer flies but drops like a rock.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268341 Apr 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Flaps may reduce stall speed, but stall speed is stall speed regardless of flaps.
In other words, the stall speed of an aircraft is the speed it takes to fly...any flaps included.
Here is what the article said.(I don't know why the link is messed up.)

Extending flaps increases the camber or curvature of the wing, raising the maximum lift coefficient — the lift a wing can generate. This allows the aircraft to generate as much lift, but at a lower speed, reducing the stalling speed of the aircraft, or the minimum speed at which the aircraft will maintain flight. Extending flaps increases drag, which can be beneficial during approach and landing, because it slows the aircraft. On some aircraft, a useful side effect of flap deployment is a decrease in aircraft pitch angle, which improves the pilot's view of the runway over the nose of the aircraft during landing. However the flaps may also cause pitch-up depending on the type of flap and the location of the wing.

Please note "lower stall speed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_ (aircraft)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268342 Apr 3, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Gee wiz, I forgot what grade school sounded like until I read the last few posts...
Stall speed is self explanatory.
Who wants candy?
Insults Are Easier
We were discussing wing flaps relative to stall speed.

Looks like insults are all you are capable of.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#268343 Apr 3, 2014
Stall speed can absoulutely be reduced if it was justified. The easy way to do it is to increase flap and slat area. However, increasing flaps has consequences. The extra weight can be heavy and having a lot of flap area causes significant drag. Also it can impact the high speed characteristics of the wing. Fuel burn also goes up with larger flap area.

Airplanes are currently designed to land within a specific runway length. It is virtually impossible to get a 737 down to a landing speed of a Cessna, but at different flap positions, stall speed changes.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech...

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#268344 Apr 3, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what the article said.(I don't know why the link is messed up.)
Extending flaps increases the camber or curvature of the wing, raising the maximum lift coefficient — the lift a wing can generate. This allows the aircraft to generate as much lift, but at a lower speed, reducing the stalling speed of the aircraft, or the minimum speed at which the aircraft will maintain flight. Extending flaps increases drag, which can be beneficial during approach and landing, because it slows the aircraft. On some aircraft, a useful side effect of flap deployment is a decrease in aircraft pitch angle, which improves the pilot's view of the runway over the nose of the aircraft during landing. However the flaps may also cause pitch-up depending on the type of flap and the location of the wing.
Please note "lower stall speed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_ (aircraft)
Then the lower figure becomes the aircrafts actual absolute minimum stall speed.
We can talk three different stall speeds.
Clean stall no flaps, no spoilers, landing gear up.
Stall speed in landing configuration full flaps, full spoilers, landing gear down.
And Deep stall speed where the speed and angle of attack send the plane in flat spin.
Some call the lower figure "approach speed" with full flaps and landing gear down, but it's stall speed or any aircrafts stall speed is simply the lowest speed it can fly, in any configuration , thus going any slower will either be descending or will send the aircraft into a spin.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Catcher1 973,732
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Into The Night 63,605
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Steve III 653,824
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min Dr Banonator 106,484
music lovers 1 hr Notiflow 1
I prefer women's satin panties over men's under... 1 hr Blondie 25
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr WasteWater 2,570
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr New Age Spiritual... 618,731
More from around the web