RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 6:58:37 AM)

I applaud your good intention. Please continue your attempt.




mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 7:01:38 AM)

does you have the actual foreskins of the people on the planes that landed safely and didnt crash into the WTC for your proof to us?




Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 7:30:24 AM)

You'd better find your own, eh? Besides, I never provide any proof. So the latter you will have to find yourself as well. Good luck!




mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 7:32:09 AM)

I am not going to bother with it, it is not only insane at its core as this thread is, but has no redeeming value even to a maggot.  (who are in dire need of redeeming values)  




lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 9:28:36 AM)

That is incorrect.  I told you to fast forward past Ted Nugent.  Why would you mis-characterize my post that way?  The cite that began with Nugent was Larry Silvertein saying Building 7 was "pulled". 

Look...as far as Ted Nugent is concerned, the 9/11 report is Gospel.  So don't be trashing Ted, he is on YOUR side.  All I'm saying is that no one can explain why Building 7, which was NOT struck by a plane, which had only a few scattered fires in it, collapsed into its own footprint. 

I gave you some things to watch and read.  If they don't raise questions in your mind......they don't.  That's cool.  But it sounds to me like you didn't review what I posted and I think you should.  And if it STILL doesn't raise questions in your mind....fine.  I'm not out to shake your cage.  At least not on this issue. 

As far as your political views go, however, you are the same *&((&  *&#@)+^%$#@  ******** !@#(*&^?  &!@(*  ding*&(#*&$))#_____+++
gutter (*&$#%$%(O  that you have been right along.  Fair enough??




MusicalBoredom -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 11:24:03 AM)

My very best friend in the whole world and several other people I know teach at BMCC.  That's blocks North of the WTC site.  One building was completely destroyed by falling hunks of building and two others were severely damaged.  They have been renting office space in nearby offices since then waiting for new school buildings to be built.  Now while I don't teach at BMCC am am there regularly as I go there almost daily for lunch for the weeks I'm in the city.  No conspiracy, just damage and building.  For the record, the Burlington Coat building was also damaged.  It was for sale ever since then.  Of course that building didn't matter to anyone until it became the proposed site of a mosque.  The Marriott was also completely destroyed by falling objects.  So it just seems logical to me that other nearby buildings would be destroyed as well.  I know that people like to say that everything fell into a nice neat hole but it didn't.  Block after block and building after building had a ton of damage and so much junk on the roofs and roads that you couldn't get around.  Now they cleared the roads first for obvious reasons.




Rule -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 11:32:13 AM)

Never mind them buildings. In any case 7 ought to have survived whatever tidbits - about the amount of bird droppings - that fell on it.

What is important is that you testified that you saw a plane fly into a building. Did you really, or were you perchance fooled by distance, mirrors or other deceptions? If you would have had your finger at arm's length, what then would have been the apparent size of the plane that you saw? Larger or smaller than the width of your finger?




Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 11:39:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.




Rule myriad of posts on the topic must have all gone over your head. He even states on this thread there were no planes. You are so busy calling others stupid that you cant even follow whats being said.




lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 1:37:53 PM)

POLITE.....I don't give a fuck what Rule posted.  I couldn't care less about his thread?  There were hundreds of bystanders.  Do you think Rule governs what I talk about????

I posted some things.  Did you look at it?  If you want to talk about something that truly is a bit curious, the perfect collapse of three buildings especially one that wasn't struck by a plane, I'm up for that conversation.  I'm not going to engage in whether planes struck the towers although I will certainly engage in a discussion regarding whether a plane struck the Pentagon. 

Ok?




MusicalBoredom -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 1:58:57 PM)

It wasn't a perfect collapse. Blocks and blocks of debris as my previous post mentioned.  Now that it wasn't knocked over makes sense given physics.  A rocket wouldn't even be able to knock it over.  It would go through or into a building and weaken the structure.  A weakened structure will simply collapse in on itself given the cage design which is what's been used for quite some time now.

And Rule, response #75 has what I secretly saw.




Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 2:16:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I really hope all of this is just a joke. Otherwise this is the biggest disrespect  and insult I have ever seen on this site to date.

Sadly Rule is serious. He and a few others on here are convinced 9/11 was all a conspiracy.

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.

Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm




lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 2:19:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

It wasn't a perfect collapse. Blocks and blocks of debris as my previous post mentioned.  Now that it wasn't knocked over makes sense given physics.  A rocket wouldn't even be able to knock it over.  It would go through or into a building and weaken the structure.  A weakened structure will simply collapse in on itself given the cage design which is what's been used for quite some time now.

And Rule, response #75 has what I secretly saw.



I disagree, it was a perfect wedge shaped implosion and was reported as such when it went down.  Now...what weakened Building 7?  Because it wasn't simply a "fire".  What caused the collapse.  Did you review what I posted here?  Do you have any thoughts on what you read or saw?  Any comment to Silverstein saying that they made the decision to "pull" the building?




lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 2:24:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I really hope all of this is just a joke. Otherwise this is the biggest disrespect  and insult I have ever seen on this site to date.

Sadly Rule is serious. He and a few others on here are convinced 9/11 was all a conspiracy.

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.

Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Are you talking Building 7 or Towers 1 and 2?  I don't think you could have had a more "luck" collapse of the towers, do you?  It didn't shear off, didn't leave a spire, didn't topple over.  Floors that were perfectly in tact, dozens of them to be exact, were beautifully pulverized. 

And you can say "hey, the impact from the floors collapsing onto each other pulverized it."  That's fine except one of the planes impacted below the 80th floor on one of the towers leaving 30-40 floors above it intact.  What happened to the "literally" hundreds of desks?  Thousands of chairs?  The filing cabinets??  Filing cabinets are metal too, I'm sure those didn't "melt". 

And then, again, what caused 7 to collapse.  Metal buildings don't melt.  Metal buildings don't collapse due to a fire....I'm sorry, it just doesn't happen.

You said that "pull it" had a different context and the context you are giving it is that Larry Silverstein referred to dozens of firemen as "it".  So instead of saying "pull them out" he said "pull it"?  Which is nomenclature for implode the building.  Is that what you are saying?  I can't go there with you, to me it sounds far too implausible and something "thought up" after the fact.




Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 2:45:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Are you talking Building 7 or Towers 1 and 2?  I don't think you could have had a more "luck" collapse of the towers, do you?  It didn't shear off, didn't leave a spire, didn't topple over.  Floors that were perfectly in tact, dozens of them to be exact, were beautifully pulverized. 

I'm talking about all the towers but particularly 7 which was the focus of your point. As Musical said, it wasn't a tidy collapse. Numerous buildings were severely damaged or completely destroyed so it is wrong to call this a controlled demolition as keeps being repeated on conspiracist sites.

quote:


And you can say "hey, the impact from the floors collapsing onto each other pulverized it."  That's fine except one of the planes impacted below the 80th floor on one of the towers leaving 30-40 floors above it intact.  What happened to the "literally" hundreds of desks?  Thousands of chairs?  The filing cabinets??  Filing cabinets are metal too, I'm sure those didn't "melt". 

And then, again, what caused 7 to collapse.  Metal buildings don't melt.  Metal buildings don't collapse due to a fire....I'm sorry, it just doesn't happen.

Yeah Tower 7 had a metal frame but it was carrying a seriously heavy load and if the structure was undermined then its certainly not a given the metal would keep it up. You should realise the collapse of a 110 story building would release immense energy. A penny dropped from a tallish building will split a person's head open. Contents wouldn't stand a chance.

quote:


You said that "pull it" had a different context and the context you are giving it is that Larry Silverstein referred to dozens of firemen as "it".  So instead of saying "pull them out" he said "pull it"?  Which is nomenclature for implode the building.  Is that what you are saying?  I can't go there with you, to me it sounds far too implausible and something "thought up" after the fact.

Pull as a word has numerous meanings besides demolition. Other uses of "pull" include the context of an article from a magazine, pull a project etc. He did use "it" but he was talking to one of the senior fire chiefs about pulling his men out as in pulling the plug on the effort to check the environs of the building. That was the context of how he said it:
quote:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."




lockedaway -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 3:21:01 PM)

So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing.  But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  




jlf1961 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 3:28:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing.  But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  


There was a 20 story gash in building 7 from debris from the tower that collapsed OUTSIDE of its foot print.

Hell the history channel specials on 9/11, not to mention National Geographic specials on the collapse of the twin towers AND building seven made this point abundantly clear, as did statements of firemen fighting the fires, the fire division commander in charge of fighting the fires, AND building 7's emergency response director who made sure the damn building was evacuated after the collapse of the tower.

I really hope the mods jerk this thread like they have every other 9/11 conspiracy bullshit thread.




Kaliko -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 3:31:10 PM)

I've seen a similar show on History Channel or something, in which it was explained just how the buildings collapsed and why it took some time after impact and how the pressure and heat built up to that point. It was pretty clearly and thoroughly explained, as I recall.

ETA - I don't recall mention of Building 7. May have been....it was awhile ago. But as far as the towers, I felt it was explained well.




Owner59 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 4:26:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I've seen a similar show on History Channel or something, in which it was explained just how the buildings collapsed and why it took some time after impact and how the pressure and heat built up to that point. It was pretty clearly and thoroughly explained, as I recall.


Building 7`s collapse was ironically caused by Rudy Guliannis`s stupid decision to place the disaster command center, in building 7.

Going against the advice of most experts and the FDNY heads,Gulliani placed the command center in the very spot that was previously attacked by bin-laden.He was advised to put it across the river in a nondescript location, underground.

He said he wanted to be able to walk to it from Gracie Mansion in the event of a problem.

So,when the towers were attacked,again,his command center became useless.

That`s the reason he was walking around outside like a clown with a dust mask on,with no real means of communication besides hand radios and cell phones,which weren`t working or not working well.

People were saying how brave he was to be walking around outside.That was all he could do,lol,now that the command center was buried in rubble.

Now the command center was a multi floor,multi room set-up.There were living quarters and food/water/supplies for a number of people.There were rooms for the communication equipment,the best money could buy.There were meeting places and storage.

And there were huge diesel generators and huge tanks of stored diesel fuel.Thousands and thousands of gallons.

It was that fuel,placed there by stupid rudy,that feed fires already started by the collapse.

For days the diesel leaked,feeding a fire that otherwise might not have done much.There was so much smoke,steam,dust and vapor rising that it went un-noticed.

The fire doesn`t have to melt the steel to make it fail.The only thing the fire needs to cause failure is to "anneal" the metal,taking away the steal`s heat tempering and it`s strength.

This is a big point for truthers,the claim that a diesel fire couldn`t melt steel,or jet fuel(which is like diesel fuel).Which is true.But is didn`t have to melt the steal,just cause it to lose it`s tempering.A deisel fire set under steal for days,will eventually turn the steel red hot.

The steal during prouction, is treated with heat or stress to create a tempered steal.

Untempered steal is softer and more maliable than tempered metal.Easier to form and work with but to weak to support much weight.By tempering the steal(with heat, then cold) it makes the steal much stronger than without heat treating.

Car chasis are tempered.Without that added step in productio,cars would fold in half under normal use.

If you build a structure with tempered steal and load a lot of weight on top of it,then heat the steal to the point where the steal is annealed,the weight of the loads will cause the steal to bend.

It doesn`t have to be very hot to turn metal red hot,you can do it with a knife in a stove flame.That`s all it takes to anneal tempered steal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)

It was this series of events that led to building 7`s collapse.

The new command center was moved off of Manhattan, across the river, under a plain low-key building,like it should have been before 9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo





Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 5:09:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

POLITE.....I don't give a fuck what Rule posted.  I couldn't care less about his thread?  There were hundreds of bystanders.  Do you think Rule governs what I talk about????

I posted some things.  Did you look at it?  If you want to talk about something that truly is a bit curious, the perfect collapse of three buildings especially one that wasn't struck by a plane, I'm up for that conversation.  I'm not going to engage in whether planes struck the towers although I will certainly engage in a discussion regarding whether a plane struck the Pentagon. 

Ok?



Hey brains......You started by calling me stupid after I had mentioned Rule thought 9/11 was a conspiracy. If you are so stupid that you cant even understand your own posts, you have little chance of understand mine.




Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/9/2011 5:40:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing. 

No I didn't say that. I made that point in relation to the destructive power of a collapse completely destroying the contents within if you look back at the quote of your's I was responding to in post 94. I seem to recall the Millennium Hilton Hotel suffered extensive damage and was closed for a long time, two years or so.

quote:


But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  

Locked, I understand you have questions but you should understand most conspiracists spread this stuff with an obvious far-right agenda as all you have to do is look at the other content on many of their sites. I suggest you have a look at the article I posted a link to and a few other anti-conspiracy sites to at least weigh the plausibility of their explanations.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.921875