9/11, what really happened?
| Do you think the US administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks? |
| yes |
|
68% |
[ 17 ] |
| no |
|
32% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:38 am |
 |
|
| bg_turk |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2005 |
| Posts: 1172 |
| Location: Bulgaria |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| miltiades wrote: |
""keep him in Guantanamo bay indefinitely. ""
The mixed up Bulgarian Turk flying a Greek flag states the above.
Can you take this guy seriously ?
|
If you do not believe a Bulgarian Turk irrespective of my avatar, you maybe will believe this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59wc6i62UgI
Bush turned this country into a fascist state. |
|
|
|
|
 | |  |
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:42 am |
|
|
| GorillaGal |
| professor |
|
| |
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 4108 |
| Location: new york |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bg_turk wrote: |
| miltiades wrote: |
| Piratis that is where you are dreadfully wrong. The Americans value life ! Sanctity of life is enshrined in the greatest ever constitution .The lives not only of humans but of animals . Do not allow yourself , because of the situation in Cyprus , to become embittered about America the greatest nation ever , without which the world today would have been under the descendants of the Nazis. |
Piratis is absolutely right, and you militades are an idiotic idealist. The bush administration cares about human life? Since when? They did not have any scruples invading a sovereign country that lead to the death of around 600,000 people.
Oh, but the great American constitution. The American constitution, dear millitades, has been reduced to a worthless piece of paper by Patriot Acts I and II. Bush can today declare any citizen a traitor, an enemy combatant or a terrorist and keep him in Guantanamo bay indefinitely. The once great American nation has now become a bunch of easily manipulated nationalist mob that is willingly giving up its civic liberties and believes anything that the corporate media feeds it.
The Bush administration, just like any other government, follows its own interests and their doctrine today is that of the New American century - that of total domination over the rest of the world. It is ridiculous to kiss Bush's ass in the hope that he will somehow help you unify Cyprus. Bush does not care about you, he does not care about me, he does not care about ordinary Americans. He cares about his power, and the interests of his oil companies. It is as simple as that. And for him the lives of 3,000 Americans are wothless in comparison to the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. He wants to control them, and that is why he occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. |
the great american constitution changed as a result of 9-11, and it is to keep us safe. THIS IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY, and you are just jealous you do not live in a country as big and strong and generous and free as mine. which is why it is made up of so many foreigners. they all came here for a better life. and this country gives them a better life. Goddess bless the USA. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:57 am |
|
|
| THE HIGHLANDER |
| instructor |
|
| |
| Joined: 30 Nov 2006 |
| Posts: 494 |
| Location: PAPHOS/DUNDEE/SCOTLAND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| THAT'S A GIRL, GORRILA GAL YOU TELL THEM SWEETHEART !!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:01 am |
|
|
| GorillaGal |
| professor |
|
| |
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 4108 |
| Location: new york |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| i love you too Highlander. |
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11, what really happened? | |
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:36 pm |
|
|
| Kikapu |
| professor |
|
| |
| Joined: 16 Apr 2006 |
| Posts: 5631 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bg_turk wrote: |
| Kikapu wrote: |
The towers were built like a cage. Steel girdles on the outside, from the ground, all the way to the top, with each "horizontal beam floors" attached to the vertical cage structure. Once some of the vertical cage structures were destroyed due to the impact, followed by intense heat from the fire, with all the wight from the above floors, it was a matter of time, that the "Gravity" was going to take over, and push the above floors to the weakened floors below. From that point on, "Gravity" was in charge, pushing the above floors down on the next, and the next, and the next, and the next with ever increasing speed, energy and force. Just like tearing the telephone book, one page at a time. That's why the tower that collapsed 1st, had more weight above the impact point, than the tower that collapsed 2nd.
|
If your theory is correct, you would expect the upper floors to remain intact during the collapse, as they were undamaged. But if you watch the video they all "pulverize". How do you explain that? |
The upper floors were intact, until the moment of the "internal" callapse. Then, the upper floors kept hitting each floor within this "cage" with tremendous force and speed on the way down at "almost" the speed of Gravity, and finally pulverizing upon hitting the ground. It was as if, the whole collape was happening within a large tube, and that is the reason, why the upper floors did not "tip" over. Don't forget, Gravity works at 90° (vertical), and not sideways.!!
As far as for the other buildings collapsing around the Twin Towers, could have easily caused by "ground shake", by the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have been in few Earthquakes in San Francisco, including the one in 1989, which destroyed concreate highways, part of the Bay Bridge, and dozens of other buidings. For all we know, the foundations on WTC 7
could have shifted enough, to cause the collape.
If you really want to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, you need to ask yourself this one very important question, which I deliberatly emphasized in my original post.
Why did the South Tower, that was hit 2nd, collapesed first. Surely, had it been planned to destroy the buildings with explosives, it would have been most logical to bring down the North Tower down first, since it was the 1st tower to be hit by the planes. This would have made more sense and more believable. |
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11, what really happened? | |
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:07 pm |
|
|
| bg_turk |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2005 |
| Posts: 1172 |
| Location: Bulgaria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kikapu wrote: |
The upper floors were intact, until the moment of the "internal" callapse. Then, the upper floors kept hitting each floor within this "cage" with tremendous force and speed on the way down at "almost" the speed of Gravity, and finally pulverizing upon hitting the ground. It was as if, the whole collape was happening within a large tube, and that is the reason, why the upper floors did not "tip" over. Don't forget, Gravity works at 90° (vertical), and not sideways.!!
|
Kikapu,
do the calculation and you will see what you say does not make sense. Each floor has its own inertia, and according to the pancake theory the collapsing top floors need to accelerate the bottom floors.According to calculations for this to happen it would require at least 40s. Collapse at the free rate of gravity does not make sense unless all steal beams are cut all at once.
The 30 top floors did not "pulverize" as they were hitting the floors below, they suddently disappeared in mid air:
| Quote: |
We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block
turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
|
| Quote: |
As far as for the other buildings collapsing around the Twin Towers, could have easily caused by "ground shake", by the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have been in few Earthquakes in San Francisco, including the one in 1989, which destroyed concreate highways, part of the Bay Bridge, and dozens of other buidings. For all we know, the foundations on WTC 7
could have shifted enough, to cause the collape.
|
Except WTC7 no other building collapsed, even those nearer to the twin towers. They were badly damaged by falling debris, and yet they did not collapse.
WTC7 did not collapse during the artificial "earthquake" (2nd on the Richter scale according to a nearby station), but hours later when everything had settled. If a building like that can collapse 10 hours after a minor earthquake, this raises serious questions about building safety and should have been seriously investigated. It was not. why?
| Quote: |
If you really want to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, you need to ask yourself this one very important question, which I deliberatly emphasized in my original post.
Why did the South Tower, that was hit 2nd, collapesed first. Surely, had it been planned to destroy the buildings with explosives, it would have been most logical to bring down the North Tower down first, since it was the 1st tower to be hit by the planes. This would have made more sense and more believable. |
If they wanted to make it believable they should not have brought down WTC7. They cannot hide that:
Three buildings collapse symmetrically onto their own footprint
30 structurally intact stories pulverize in midair after the initiation of the collapse sequence.
Molten metal flowing and in pools for weeks after the event
Horizontal plumes and pluffs of smoke right before the collapse
Early drop of North Tower Antenna
Ejection of Steal beams and debris hundreeds of feet away from the tower
Eyewitnesses report flashes and explosions. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:14 pm |
|
|
| miltiades |
| professor |
|
| |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2006 |
| Posts: 6170 |
| Location: UK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Do you have any theories on flying pigs in Bulgaris ? |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:42 pm |
|
|
| bg_turk |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2005 |
| Posts: 1172 |
| Location: Bulgaria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 9/11, what really happened? | |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:48 am |
|
|
| Kikapu |
| professor |
|
| |
| Joined: 16 Apr 2006 |
| Posts: 5631 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bg_turk wrote: |
| Kikapu wrote: |
The upper floors were intact, until the moment of the "internal" callapse. Then, the upper floors kept hitting each floor within this "cage" with tremendous force and speed on the way down at "almost" the speed of Gravity, and finally pulverizing upon hitting the ground. It was as if, the whole collape was happening within a large tube, and that is the reason, why the upper floors did not "tip" over. Don't forget, Gravity works at 90° (vertical), and not sideways.!!
|
Kikapu,
do the calculation and you will see what you say does not make sense. Each floor has its own inertia, and according to the pancake theory the collapsing top floors need to accelerate the bottom floors.According to calculations for this to happen it would require at least 40s. Collapse at the free rate of gravity does not make sense unless all steal beams are cut all at once.
The 30 top floors did not "pulverize" as they were hitting the floors below, they suddently disappeared in mid air:
| Quote: |
We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block
turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
|
| Quote: |
As far as for the other buildings collapsing around the Twin Towers, could have easily caused by "ground shake", by the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have been in few Earthquakes in San Francisco, including the one in 1989, which destroyed concreate highways, part of the Bay Bridge, and dozens of other buidings. For all we know, the foundations on WTC 7
could have shifted enough, to cause the collape.
|
Except WTC7 no other building collapsed, even those nearer to the twin towers. They were badly damaged by falling debris, and yet they did not collapse.
WTC7 did not collapse during the artificial "earthquake" (2nd on the Richter scale according to a nearby station), but hours later when everything had settled. If a building like that can collapse 10 hours after a minor earthquake, this raises serious questions about building safety and should have been seriously investigated. It was not. why?
| Quote: |
If you really want to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, you need to ask yourself this one very important question, which I deliberatly emphasized in my original post.
Why did the South Tower, that was hit 2nd, collapesed first. Surely, had it been planned to destroy the buildings with explosives, it would have been most logical to bring down the North Tower down first, since it was the 1st tower to be hit by the planes. This would have made more sense and more believable. |
If they wanted to make it believable they should not have brought down WTC7. They cannot hide that:
Three buildings collapse symmetrically onto their own footprint
30 structurally intact stories pulverize in midair after the initiation of the collapse sequence.
Molten metal flowing and in pools for weeks after the event
Horizontal plumes and pluffs of smoke right before the collapse
Early drop of North Tower Antenna
Ejection of Steal beams and debris hundreeds of feet away from the tower
Eyewitnesses report flashes and explosions. |
OK, I give in. What I say does not make any sense at all, so tell us why was it necesary to blow up the buildings with pre-positioned explosives, that were so carefully placed as not to go off while the buildings were in flames for over an hour. Why after North and South Towers were hit by the planes, which caused a great deal of damage, was it necesary to blow up the buildings. Those building could never have been able to be used again, even if they did not collapsed. They would have been demolished anyways, few weeks later, so what was the hurry.??
If you ever watched a brick chimney that's couple of hundred feet high, and it is brought down, it always breaks up in the middle, in mid air. No, it is not because CIA had placed explosives, but rather the top part of the chimney is travelling faster than the base section, as it is falling to one side. The tops of the Twin Towers were almost 1/4 mile in the air, and now they were in a free fall with the rest of the building. What did you expect for the building to happen, make a "soft" landing intact or what. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:03 am |
|
|
| G.Man |
| instructor |
|
| |
| Joined: 03 Jun 2006 |
| Posts: 853 |
| Location: Strovolos |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| miltiades wrote: |
| I think it was the work of Elvis Presley who along with Marylin Monroe and assisted by John F Kennedy carried out this murderous act. The collapse of the buildings had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with two Jumbo Jets crashing on to them loaded with thousand of gallons of jet fuel . Once again conspiracy theories -moneymaking documentaries - have as consider the possibility that Pigs do really fly. |
1. The buildings were designed to withstand a hit from a 707, a faster plane than hit the towers, roughly the same in every other aspect (it wasnt a 747 either)
2. Planes only hit 2 towers, not 3
3. Jet fuel is kerosene, and in no way can it burn hot enough to melt steel...
I doubt highly that the US govt was involved, but summat is definitely smelly especially as the towers had recently changed hands and been reinsured at a much higher figure than their previous value...
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
