The 911 challenge thread - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2008, 09:50 PM   #1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default The WTC challenge thread

I challenge you to go through this presentation and not think that explosives is the more likely cause of the 3 buildings' collapse on 911 than the planes and the ensuing fires. The physical evidence does NOT say people in the government did it, it says explosives brought the buildings down. The complicity of certain people in gov't is ANOTHER TOPIC.

NO stupid comments unless you've gone thru the presentation please.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php

It is from this site:
http://www.ae911truth.org which is set up by architecs and engineers, not by a bunch of amateurs.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 01-27-2008 at 10:40 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 09:56 PM   #2
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

ugh not this again, and no chance I'm going through this 300+ page presentation. For every engineer who swears it was explosives, there are 10000 that say it was not.

How could the buildings be prepped for demo in a totally undetected way? It would take thousands of pounds of explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. The pulls would be obvious. And there would be evidence after the blast.

One member here is actually an engineer that is uniquely qualified (he does disaster modeling) to levy an expert opinion. Perhaps he'll chime in.

There's a reason why you guys are called "paultards"
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:01 PM   #3
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Ben, both theories (planes+fire, and explosives), have unanswered questions. But the evidence clearly leans towards explosives.

Show me an engineer who says "it's not explosives" after looking at the evidence.

This presentation is relatively new.. I've never seen a lot of this stuff before.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:05 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Theres another sucker born every day.

Do some research on why the federal building in OK city collapsed. It wasn't "blown up" with a bomb, the bomb damaged a supporting beam and the building fell in on itself. Put a hole the size of a ******* 747 in a building with 40,000 gallons of JET FUEL and tell me it'll hold together. I've seen hundreds of reports and believe 100% with out a doubt the buildings were destroyed by damage caused from the aircrafts.
elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:06 PM   #5
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Trent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,625
Total Cats: 5
Default

This thread failed to deliver. I was expecting Porsche material.
Trent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:12 PM   #6
Newb
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 21
Total Cats: 1
Default

the least we can do is to keep an open mind and subject official pronouncements to critical thinking. this is all that jason is trying to remind us to do. i, for one, laud his efforts.

keep it up, jason!
joeyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:18 PM   #7
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Mach929's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: lansdale PA
Posts: 2,500
Total Cats: 0
Default

if they were brought down with explosives, then why bother flying planes into them? fly them into something else without explosives in it
Mach929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:19 PM   #8
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (5)
 
bryantaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: jacksonville, fl
Posts: 1,720
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyb View Post
the least we can do is to keep an open mind and subject official pronouncements to critical thinking. this is all that jason is trying to remind us to do. i, for one, laud his efforts.

keep it up, jason!
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach929 View Post
if they were brought down with explosives, then why bother flying planes into them? fly them into something else without explosives in it
then there would be no-one to blame
bryantaylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:19 PM   #9
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
Theres another sucker born every day.

Do some research on why the federal building in OK city collapsed. It wasn't "blown up" with a bomb, the bomb damaged a supporting beam and the building fell in on itself. Put a hole the size of a ******* 747 in a building with 40,000 gallons of JET FUEL and tell me it'll hold together. I've seen hundreds of reports and believe 100% with out a doubt the buildings were destroyed by damage caused from the aircrafts.
You need to go through the presentation.

The building's designer has specifically said the building will hold up to a 707 sized hole in it, no problem. The outer skeleton is like a mosquito net. You punch several holes in it, it won't collapse. If the OK city building blast knocked out a support beam, then yes part of it would collapse. But the whole building DIDN'T come down, unlike the towers and building 7.

The ensuing fire in the 3 buildings would not be enough to make the steel hot enough to yield - in the same way a steel grill in your fireplace doesn't melt.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:21 PM   #10
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach929 View Post
if they were brought down with explosives, then why bother flying planes into them? fly them into something else without explosives in it
The possible explanation is that it was a false flag event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:25 PM   #11
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
The ensuing fire in the 3 buildings would not be enough to make the steel hot enough to yield - in the same way a steel grill in your fireplace doesn't melt.




Jet fuel burns at 1500 F. Steel looses half its strength at 1100F. It doesn't have to melt. It just has to buckle.
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:27 PM   #12
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

More facts:

NIST didn't model the "global collapse". They only modelled the collapse of the burning floors. They made it a foregone conclusion that the rest of the building would collapse. Many vehemently deny this. NIST *refused* to release their computer models of the collapse of the burning floor.

See page 22 of the pres'n to see a building demoltion gone wrong - the first floor blew out, the building fell vertically 10 feet, but stopped. It didn't continue pancaking.

Steel beams were ejected >300 feet horizontally. The calculated exit speed was 55 mph. Steel doesn't collapse this way, and air pressure cannot cause that ejection.

The concrete was pulverized. Only explosives can do this. When a building collapses in earthquake, very large pieces of concrete and twisted networks of steel beam remain. In contrast, the towers and building 7 had truck sized pieces of beam, and the largest piece of anything else was palm sized.

There were traces of thermate in the initial FEMA report, and the EPA studying enviro issues much later. Thermate is used to cut metal by building demolitions experts.

The ends of the broken beams did not show shearing failure - they were cut by heat from explosives.

There is much much more.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:30 PM   #13
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

The first building that collapsed burned for a much shorter time than the other one, despite the fact that most of the fuel burned in a fireball OUTSIDE the building because the plane hit the corner at an angle.

When metal gets hot enough to yield, it will slowly sag, not collapse with acceleration equal to gravity.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:31 PM   #14
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 882
Total Cats: 0
Default

I thought this would be about some kind of Porche 911 thing, oh well. I used to work in one of the towers. Security was extremely tight. To get a mess of explosives through would have required a tiny bit at a time, and hopefully not set off the explosive sniffing devices they used.
soflarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:31 PM   #15
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
 
paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Point Pleasant, NJ
Posts: 2,957
Total Cats: 2
Default

why isn't this **** banned yet? god i would anally rape this guy with the ban stick if only i had the power. just for one day. and i'd put explosives on the tip of it too.
paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:31 PM   #16
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 502
Total Cats: 0
Default

People also forget that there were gourmet kitchens on every few floors. (Usually with stoves powered by natural gas) Also pockets of air coming in contact with fire creates intense back drafts that are much hotter than the original flame.

There is usually a simple solution for complicated questions.


and for the traces of thermite.... it can easily be made from iron/aluminum shavings +intense heat. (Pretty much stuff that can be found in an airplane and building.)
drewbroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:32 PM   #17
I'm Miserable!
iTrader: (5)
 
bryantaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: jacksonville, fl
Posts: 1,720
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post

There is much much more.
the buildings also fell at free fall speed, that wouldn't happen if they were "pancaking"
bryantaylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:32 PM   #18
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

Here's sisemic readings





So all the explosives must have gone off at the *exact* time the planes hit?

The plane hit, the floor failed. It collapsed down onto the floor below, causing another failure. Which in turn collapsed to the floor below, and so on until the building fell.

Any explosives involved were jet fuel and natural gas.
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:34 PM   #19
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Guys you need to go through the presentation.
I was hoping to not have to answer questions if you guys just went through it.

The collapse of the buildings occured at FREE FALL speeds. This violates Newton's 2nd law, invalidating the "pancake theory".

Instead of banning me, how about everyone chill and anyone who wants to comment, go through the presentation?

My main point in this thread is to make people aware of the presentation.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 10:35 PM   #20
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
So all the explosives must have gone off at the *exact* time the planes hit?
No, the explosives were used to bring the buildings down.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.