Page 9 of 16

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:25 pm
by Freakaloin
THATS ALL OUT SIDE THE BUILDING AND HAS NO FORCE BEHIND IT LIKE EXPLOSIVES...JUST FLAMES...

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:26 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
yeah it's all outside... nothing like that was inside

and that's not a huge hole

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:28 pm
by losCHUNK
thats not a tower its a slipper

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:29 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
geoff do you know what sort of heat and force are created in a small explosion (say 1 gallon of deisel with 1 gallon of unleaded petrol and some gun powder?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:34 pm
by Freakaloin
yeah 1000'sX less then HE...

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:49 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
'Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings.'

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ ... llapse.mpg

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:50 pm
by plained
oh no

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:52 pm
by plained
oh wrong butten

OH NO GEOFF NO MY DREEMS :WAHAA:

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:22 pm
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
Freakaloin wrote:THATS ALL OUT SIDE THE BUILDING AND HAS NO FORCE BEHIND IT LIKE EXPLOSIVES...JUST FLAMES...
Because we all know that jet fuel isn't explosive right? So it wouldn't have any force at all.

I hearby nominate Freakagoof to the "who is dumber" thread.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:35 pm
by bitWISE
Why is this thread so long? Where am I? My head hurts.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:51 pm
by saturn
the conclusion of this thread is that all americans are fat and dumb

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:59 am
by RiffRaff
Freakaloin wrote:the official theory is a conspiracy...unless they supply some evidence its no different then all the other theories...

Incorrect. They have facts, if not at least plausible facts, on their side.

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:03 am
by RiffRaff
R00k wrote:Like they have tried to report Cheney's energy task force? Like they have reported the conspiracy behind the Downing Street Memo, that they've had in their hands for over a month?

Yea, you keep listening to CNN and MSNBC. They'll tell you everything you need to know. :smirk:
My point is at least it's out there somewhere in "legitimate" reporting. Just so you have the facts, I don't get my news from CNN, never MSNBC and least of all the NYT's. :icon25:

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:33 am
by Freakaloin
RiffRaff wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:the official theory is a conspiracy...unless they supply some evidence its no different then all the other theories...

Incorrect. They have facts, if not at least plausible facts, on their side.

show me the facts they have then...

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:35 am
by Freakaloin
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:THATS ALL OUT SIDE THE BUILDING AND HAS NO FORCE BEHIND IT LIKE EXPLOSIVES...JUST FLAMES...
Because we all know that jet fuel isn't explosive right? So it wouldn't have any force at all.

I hearby nominate Freakagoof to the "who is dumber" thread.
u obviously don't know the difference between a hydrocarbon explosion and he... *snicker*...

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:51 am
by Pooinyourmouth_needmerge
Freakaloin wrote:
Pooinyourmouth_needmerge wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:THATS ALL OUT SIDE THE BUILDING AND HAS NO FORCE BEHIND IT LIKE EXPLOSIVES...JUST FLAMES...
Because we all know that jet fuel isn't explosive right? So it wouldn't have any force at all.

I hearby nominate Freakagoof to the "who is dumber" thread.
u obviously don't know the difference between a hydrocarbon explosion and he... *snicker*...

So what you are telling me is that jet fuel isn't explosive and has no force behind it.

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:58 am
by Dave

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:27 am
by RiffRaff
Freakaloin wrote:
RiffRaff wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:the official theory is a conspiracy...unless they supply some evidence its no different then all the other theories...

Incorrect. They have facts, if not at least plausible facts, on their side.

show me the facts they have then...
Here's some facts but I'm sure you don't believe any information gov't related? :icon27:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:31 am
by RiffRaff
That's a sure example of planted explosives. Did you notice how the fireball erupted from under the right wing THEN engulfed the fuselage? :icon27:

:icon32:

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:32 am
by Dave
Yeah, I assume they moved the fuel out of the wings to the fuselage to make it look like the fuel would explode on impact

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:35 am
by RiffRaff
Dave wrote:Yeah, I assume they moved the fuel out of the wings to the fuselage to make it look like the fuel would explode on impact

Precisely :lol:

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:23 am
by Freakaloin
jesus u guys r retarded...a big fireball is nothing but show...he and other explosives have massive energy...a shock wave which travels way out...that flimpsy plane was mostly intact...the ground did all the damage...a bomb would have blown that to bits...

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:23 am
by Freakaloin
btw...morons...

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:38 am
by Nightshade
R00k wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
R00k wrote:
No, it can obviously happen that way by complete accident. Why do we even bother spending so much time rigging buildings when it's obvious they will implode on themselves naturally with just a fire?
Exaggerating a bit here, aren't we? Simple physics tells us that it's logical for a massive building to fall straight down in its own footprint due to the great inertia it possesses. Controlled demolitions are executed to ensure that it happens that way.
You say your dad worked in demolitions, then you should know just how many explosions would be seen in taking down a building the size of WTC1 or 2.
Louie Cacchioli, was one of the first firefighters to enter the South Tower as it burned. A 20-year veteran of the fire department, Cacchioli told People Weekly: 1
I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.

*************

Eyewitness Neil deGrasse Tyson recounted his recollection of explosions at the onset of the collapses in an e-mail he sent to his family on the day after the attack:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. 3
...
As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

*************

The video 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold contains several excerpts of video reports in which witnesses describe what they saw and heard. In the first, a reporter gives the following account:
The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.

*************

The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:
I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.

*************

The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:
and all of a suddend it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.

*************

Other accounts are in the form of video records. One is of firefighters recalling detonations in the South Tower, in a firehouse discussion:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___
just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin' to die.
Those are just some.

It would be very hard to see any explosions at all, considering how far away everyone had to get from the buildings. Everyone had their backs to them and were at a dead run.
But people heard them, and the FDNY firemen who were working that day are under a gag order.
I really don't want to sound like I'm dismissing eyewitness accounts, but are these people qualified to say what a bomb detonating sounds like? Can they verify that it was a bomb? Can they tell the difference between a series of explosions and a succesion of 3000 ton floor slabs collapsing? Just because they use words like 'detonated' doesn't mean that that's what happened.

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:40 am
by Dave
One time I heard a capacitor blow up after someone pumped a couple hundred volts of AC into it. I thought it sounded like a gun blast, but it wasn't even close.