Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/holocaust-denier-hosting-9-11.html
Better get those reservations in:
Better get those reservations in:
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For Eots and Other 'Truthers'
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
eots
no fly list
its just a hit piece trying to connect 911 truth to anti Semites but it wont work because this is the simple reality, people only need to understand the truth once and its done ,your not going to get them to re-believe a lie and ever day more and more people come to understand the truth of 911,which conversely means less and less are decived...terrorstorm,loosechange,freedom to fascism ,controlled demolitions have all entered googles top 100 and have been viewed by millions and they tell will two people and they will tell two people....its a numbers game..... its infowars...and there running scared
lmao I can't wait to find out the truthiness of what happened on 9/11! The scores of secret government workers that all conspired before hand. The evidence of explosives used to bring down the towers (well, except for the 757s full of fuel).
Roopull
Member
There was no holocaust. It was filmed in a Hollywood basement using the vacant studio from the moon landings. The WTC was also brought down by the government using lazer beams from super duper secret satellites developed under the Star Wars program. Bush didn't win the elections, either. He stole them. He stole them from a poor drunk elderly man named Chad in South Florida. I saw him do it. Not only that, but aliens built the pyramids, the microwave oven was reverse engineered from the Roswell spacecraft, blacks used to be able to fly til whitey cut their wings, my Honda is causing record snowfall in Alaska AND global warming, the lindburger moon doesn't crash into earth because the sun is sucking on it, swallowed gum stays in your stomach for 7 years (I'd lose 15lbs if I could poop it out,) my dog can talk to ghosts & if I think happy thoughts, I can fly, I can fly, I can fly!
Soon I'll zoom all around the room
all it takes is faith and trust
but the thing that's a positive just
is a little bit of pixie dust the dust is a positive must...
oh... sorry... kinda' got carried away with that there...
Anyone else like Peter Pan? I like make believe!
oh... sorry... kinda' got carried away with that there...
Anyone else like Peter Pan? I like make believe!
Sound like it could be the same person, there is a professor Fetzer of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth which is about 80 miles from me. He is basically a conpsiracy theorist. He had an editoral in a local paper about how Paul Wellstone was assasinated by Republicans. I e-mailed him to have a honest, objective conversation about how he came to his conlclusions and he basically just stopped replying.
The truly tragic thing is that someone actually hired this buffoon to be responsible for teaching peole stuff.
The truly tragic thing is that someone actually hired this buffoon to be responsible for teaching peole stuff.
eots
no fly list
the controlled media manipulates you because truth is grassroots it is easy to attempt to link raging grannies 60s radicals ,elvis is alive clichés with serious minded scholars investigative journalist and government agents
calling for a proper scientific and forensic investigation of 911
calling for a proper scientific and forensic investigation of 911
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #8
the controlled media manipulates you because truth is grassroots it is easy to attempt to link raging grannies 60s radicals ,elvis is alive clichés with serious minded scholars investigative journalist and government agents
calling for a proper scientific and forensic investigation of 911
WTF does the above mean????
eots
no fly list
lmao I can't wait to find out the truthiness of what happened on 9/11! The scores of secret government workers that all conspired before hand. The evidence of explosives used to bring down the towers (well, except for the 757s full of fuel).
there would not be scores of government workers required,the official conspiracy theory only requires 12 guys and some box cutters and a suspension of the laws of physics,
there is evidence of explosives in the form of thermite and molten metal
and the collapse of building 7
the planes where not full of fuel and most of the fuel was gone in the initial fire ball
jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #10
there would not be scores of government workers required,the official conspiracy theory only requires 12 guys and some box cutters and a suspension of the laws of physics,
there is evidence of explosives in the form of thermite and molten metal
and the collapse of building 7
the planes where not full of fuel and most of the fuel was gone in the initial fire ball
jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel
think this link was posted somewhere else on the boards, but will make for interesting reading for you eots (not that your objective enough to believe a word of it).
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
eots
no fly list
WTF does the above mean????
wtf dont you understand the controlled media attempts to link x military .government agents and scholars that have serious questions about 911 with the anti war movement .Jane Fonda the far left ,big foot belivers ect..its a simplistic mind control technique to get the sheeple to associate 911 truth with tinfoil hats and twilight zone music and with some people its like taking candy from a baby
wtf dont you understand the controlled media attempts to link x military .government agents and scholars that have serious questions about 911 with the anti war movement .Jane Fonda the far left ,big foot belivers ect..its a simplistic mind control technique to get the sheeple to associate 911 truth with tinfoil hats and twilight zone music and with some people its like taking candy from a baby
And don't you allow for the fact that it is your mind that is being controlled?
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #14
think this link was posted somewhere else on the boards, but will make for interesting reading for you eots (not that your objective enough to believe a word of it).
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
That would have been me.
eots
no fly list
think this link was posted somewhere else on the boards, but will make for interesting reading for you eots (not that your objective enough to believe a word of it).
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
911 from alex jones infowars Popular Mechanics interview with ...Popular Mechanics or maybe Unpopular Mechanics making no sense at all! ... a load of S**T ... all » Charles Goyette radio show makes popular mechanics sound ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2064011173678536575 - 97k - Cached - Similar pages
the editors of popular mechanics fall to pieces when asked a few basic questions also important to note pm is a Hearst owned publication
i have read ever official and quasi official 911 report there is perhaps you should do the same you might notice things like how building 7 is simply omitted in the commission report or that lack of explanation for molten metal
or in the fema report where they states fire alone could not of brought down building 7 or admit there theory on the tower's falling from fire is alone is a low probability event.you believe what you believe because you haven't even studied official story never mind the alternative theory
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #16
911 from alex jones infowars Popular Mechanics interview with ...Popular Mechanics or maybe Unpopular Mechanics making no sense at all! ... a load of S**T ... all » Charles Goyette radio show makes popular mechanics sound ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2064011173678536575 - 97k - Cached - Similar pages
the editors of popular mechanics fall to pieces when asked a few basic questions also important to note pm is a Hearst owned publication
i have read ever official and quasi official 911 report there is perhaps you should do the same you might notice things like how building 7 is simply omitted in the commission report or that lack of explanation for molten metal
or in the fema report where they states fire alone could not of brought down building 7 or admit there theory on the tower's falling from fire is alone probability event.you believe what you believe because you haven't even studied official story never mind the alternative theory
How about some print links about Popular Mechanics falling to pieces?
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
there would not be scores of government workers required,the official conspiracy theory only requires 12 guys and some box cutters and a suspension of the laws of physics,
there is evidence of explosives in the form of thermite and molten metal
and the collapse of building 7
the planes where not full of fuel and most of the fuel was gone in the initial fire ball
jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel
building 7 didn't get hit by a jet.....steel fails before it melts.....concrete spalls and explodes...the cores of the WTC were?
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.
It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.
Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.
Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.
The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.
It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.
Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.
Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
This section added 14 January 2006
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down?
The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
This section added 14 January 2006
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down?
The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
eots
no fly list
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
This section added 14 January 2006
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down?
The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
What a load of garbage the writer admits to not knowing anything about building 7 but then goes on to offer his opinion anyway ,studies showed there is no wat the impact could remove the fire proofing there would be Resistance in a pancake collapse that would slow the collapse from free fall speed .no explanation of molten metal this is clearly propaganda not science
Similar threads
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 61
- Replies
- 73
- Views
- 424
- Replies
- 108
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 9256
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 497
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-