|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 35)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um, so what youre telling me is that the US government carried out the most extraordinary & complicated conspiracy in history, so they could award some re-building/supply contracts to some of their 'friends' (friends you havent listed and shown connections with btw)?
and you dont seem to think that this is a slightly complicated means to make a small profit, and one fraught with so many difficulties??
i mean seriously, thats almost as ludicrous as it being a missile that struck the pentagon :rolleyes:
now, if you wanna argue we're there for oil supply reasons, thats a much better argument. oil is an important commodity after all. |
No, you are forgetting that re-builing is actually a very big business in Iraq seeing as how WE BOMBED THE COUNTRY TO RUBBLE.
We are also there for oil, I was just trying to open your mind, but that failed. |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, and you havent answered my question regarding how exactly the US government is making a profit from the wars?
|
Well it isnt the U.S. govt making money. Its the companies that recieve no bid contracts from the military & other rebuilding projects in Iraq. Oh yeah that pipeline going to Afgan too. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
No, they didn't. Just one word was spelled wrong and that was 'grammar'.
And yeah I'am sure your grammar skills were my equilivant while you were in primary school. You are in your late twenties and they still lack those of a primary student. |
look, i already addressed your NUMEROUS mistakes in a previous post. im not going to bother to do it again since you obviously didnt understand me the first time. again, this is what im talking about. you lack the basic skills to understand general arguments. um, yeah. i scored my honours degree with primary-school skills in english and grammar.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
People admire other individuals because they lack confidence in themselves and admiring a PDD member while not being a bad thing it isn't something to hold yourself highly. |
oh do they? and whered you learn that tidbit? man, now i see why theres such little respect for the public school system in the US. they produce pretty ing average results. i hope your stockmarket investing is going well for you, coz otherwise youve got nothing to offer.
so, if i admire, say, NASA for designing the first moon landing mission, that means i lack confidence does it? great logic there mate. i admire some PDDers coz they have greater knowledge and/or abilities to present their thoughts in a logical manner. yeah, i lack confidence for sure! :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Once, again you have a narrow minded vision of the way things will work. |
no, thats not it. you write badly. dont take my word for it- go into your movie thread, im not the only one that thinks so.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Oddly, enough I won't be the one stuck at a deskjob. Just what is your \"profession\"? |
yeah, coz nobody in their right mind would give you a job that would require any problem-solving or sentence construction. im not kidding.
im a graduate research officer with a government department. yeah, pretty boring, but it pays the bills. and no, you dont have the mediocre skills required to do similar. sorry.
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
No, you are forgetting that re-builing is actually a very big business in Iraq seeing as how WE BOMBED THE COUNTRY TO RUBBLE.
We are also there for oil, I was just trying to open your mind, but that failed. |
you dont even realise how ridiculous you sound. ill start from the top.
**
the american government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
in full view of the world.
they planted demolition charges right below where the planes were to hit as luck would have it.
with the entire world looking on they killed 3000 of their own citizens.
hundreds of various experts have examined the data from that day, and for every conspiracy nut 'expert' theres 100 others who disagree with them.
every single person that was a part of this conspiracy, from the demolition experts, to the intel agencies, the airlines, NORAD workers, the 1000s of investigators, the pentagon, the white house, the two houses of parliament, the airforce etc- are all keeping this top secret.
bill clinton couldnt keep his infidelity a secret.
so they could attack afghanistan. FIRST mind you.
so they could attack iraq 2 years after the initial event.
so bush and cheney's mates could get some money re-building the nation.
oh, and osama claimed responsibilities for the attacks because he wants the credit for something he had nothing to do with.
rightyo, is there anything you care to add? |
|
|
| Blake |
| sure why not. it's not unusual for an event like that for there to be at least some stuff covered up i.e. JFK's murder. With the internet having grown so much though, it's becoming harder to pull off these things without information leaking. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
i am not saying that conspiracy is out of the question, but all these claims of the WTC towers falling due to controlled demolition charges or mislie explosion are completely ludicris.
steel buildings are notorious for poor performance in fire conditions (hence why the building codes specify a minimum of 4cm of fire and heat detection on all exposed steel structural members)
kerosene based combustion can reach temperatures exceeding 900 degrees celcius. steel will melt at aprox 1200 degrees celcius but as you can see as the temperature approaces 900 degrees celcius, the ratio of room temperature yield strength (the stress limit where steel will begin to yeild (necking leading to failure)) to yield stress at n degrees approaches 0.1.
High strength structural steel is typically rated at 450 MPa. so at 900 degrees celcius the yield strength of the steel is reduced to 45 MPa
doing some very basic calculations, yielding load would be equal to [yield strenght * x-section area of member. At yielding the beams would begin plastic deformation (buckling of columns and tortional deformation of perimiter girders.
once the perimeter girders yield and drop the floor slabs, the building would basically dominoe down. this is a widely accepted failure mode for these buildings by structural engineers who are considered experts in their fields.
in order for a controlled demolition explosion to succesfuly re create this type of failure, shape charges would have had to be placed directly on all the columns on each floor and fired in sequence to systematically cut the support columns. these charges will leave a tell tale residue on the cut beam sections (beams typically are cut on a 45 degree angle and will have a copperish tinge to the cut surface)
shape charges are placed on either side of the beam to be cut, when detonated the explosive forces a jet of liquid coper at very high velocity through teh steel which "cuts" it. The cut edges of the steel is most often coated with the jet material, usually copper or other soft metals. |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
|
"In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," says Bollyn. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
"In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," says Bollyn. |
the problem with the thermite theory is it has to be placed ontop of the object you want to cut with it as thermite burns at over 2500 degrees celcius.
secondly the "what really happened consipiracy site" is mistaken in that the thermite reaction does not produce molten steel, instead it produces molten iron (on the ocasion that it reacts in a non oxygen rich environment)
thermite is comercially used as a welding method for fix in place applications like railcar axels. the ammount of thermite needed to cut through a column on a perfect 45 degree angle could not be held in place long enough to cut cleanly through. im skeptical of this photograph as it is quite possible that that column was cut after the colapse to facilitate in the rescue operations, colums of those dimensions are typically cut using a plasma arc. i have never heard of HSS steel of those dimensions being able to be cut using thermite |
|
|
| Haunted |
Penn and Teller: Bull! Conspiracy Theories
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
"In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite," says Bollyn. |
if you've ever worked around cut steel (i have) that was done with a torch. you can just tell from the cuts and the slag residue
you go ahead and let your imagination soar though, 'coug |
|
|
| Q5echo |
gee, how much f**kin thermite do you think was used.
such a horrible picture to look at. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
 |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
gee, how much f**kin thermite do you think was used.
such a horrible picture to look at. |
.
yeah guess your right... it was only 2 planes and some jet fuel :rolleyes:
In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes.
yup... still standing |
|
|
|
|
