Conquer Club

I believe these 3 videos on this site proves enough. Bush's grand plan gone wrong and these people show it all.

Just please stay out of the memorial thread.

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=31

thank-you

Seems like too grand a plan for a Texan.

unriggable wrote:Seems like too grand a plan for a Texan.

Did you see the videos? It says mayor Bloomberg knew it would happen before it did and told Peter Jennings. Explain that one...
And Norse, please come here and prove that they are being brainwashed.

I don't have the time to watch those.

Coleman wrote:I don't have the time to watch those.

Well when you do, you're view may (as in 85-90% chance) change. Unless you are just too ignorant and say "well, bush told me so."

I dont live in the U.S. plus im still young and not a lot of these conspiracies have reached me. But why would a country do that to its people?

duday53 wrote:I dont live in the U.S. plus im still young and not a lot of these conspiracies have reached me. But why would a country do that to its people?

Because countries have never attacked/killed/murdered its own citizens for whatever purpose?... Why is it hard to believe that the US is incapable of it? Sept 11 was the one single event that has given the US leverage to start any war it seems to choose.

My theory of what happened is pretty open ended - i haven't really researched it but i watched that first 25 min video in the link up there.. pretty interesting that i'd never heard about the bombs that witnesses claim they felt go off..

I doubt my views will change. I don't believe everything I see. He showed me a picture without a core. I was able to find one with one (although it was severally damaged). Which picture is the real picture? They could both be real and the core could have already been cleaned up as it was probably the easiest to move.

I can go find it again, as I've heard his first argument before now, if you want to compare. When I have more time. There is also the possibility that the other explosion is explainable in other means then 'bomb in building'. I haven't had time to watch more then the first 15 minutes.

Regardless, my field of study is Information Assurance, not structural engineering. So what the hell do I know?

My field is structural engineering, and I am perfectly satisfied with the traditional explanations given as to why the towers collapsed. I have watched the conspiracy theory videos previously and I find them compelling, and parts of them certainly seem like they could be true. However anyone who blindly believes what they are shown in the conspiracy theory videos is even worse than people who blindly believe what the mass media has said for years. If you didn't conduct the research yourself and you are not an expert in these fields of study you cannot say what is true and what is not (just as I cannot). You can choose to believe information from whatever source seems the most credible to you, and I will almost always choose the mass media and not the faceless creators of videos on the internet. I know that some eye witness accounts have said they thought there were bombs in the building but there are many more eyewitnesses and experts who would never back such a story.

I'm the kind of guy who believes that we did in fact send men to the moon and that there was probably only one shooter in Dealey plaza. I do believe that the holocaust happened and that the World Trade Center was brought down by terrorists and not the American government. There are many conspiracy theorists who would claim otherwise, but none of them can prove their position is the truth any more than I can.

I would like to believe that I wake up every day and conduct my daily business by my own free will, and that everything I encounter in my life actually exists. Of course I cannot prove that any of that is true...Everything I experience in my life could be images created in my head and I could actually be living inside the matrix. Or I could be a character in the video game or story of some much more advanced creature than I can imagine.

So yes, everything we are told could be false and the entire world could be a conspiracy, but I hope and believe that its not true.

sully800 wrote:My field is structural engineering, and I am perfectly satisfied with the traditional explanations given as to why the towers collapsed. I have watched the conspiracy theory videos previously and I find them compelling, and parts of them certainly seem like they could be true. However anyone who blindly believes what they are shown in the conspiracy theory videos is even worse than people who blindly believe what the mass media has said for years. If you didn't conduct the research yourself and you are not an expert in these fields of study you cannot say what is true and what is not (just as I cannot). You can choose to believe information from whatever source seems the most credible to you, and I will almost always choose the mass media and not the faceless creators of videos on the internet. I know that some eye witness accounts have said they thought there were bombs in the building but there are many more eyewitnesses and experts who would never back such a story.

I'm the kind of guy who believes that we did in fact send men to the moon and that there was probably only one shooter in Dealey plaza. I do believe that the holocaust happened and that the World Trade Center was brought down by terrorists and not the American government. There are many conspiracy theorists who would claim otherwise, but none of them can prove their position is the truth any more than I can.

I would like to believe that I wake up every day and conduct my daily business by my own free will, and that everything I encounter in my life actually exists. Of course I cannot prove that any of that is true...Everything I experience in my life could be images created in my head and I could actually be living inside the matrix. Or I could be a character in the video game or story of some much more advanced creature than I can imagine.

So yes, everything we are told could be false and the entire world could be a conspiracy, but I hope and believe that its not true.

well im not a structural engineer but I do know that jet fuel (kerosine) doesnt melt, bend, or break steel beams and the cores of steel buildings, it also doesnt pulverize concrete into pcs smaller than a wrist watch.

So to some it up....you better go ask for your money back, that college of yours did you a diservice...also please stay away from designing any steel framed buildings, you obviously have a turd for a brain.


here is a 20 second video im sure you can understand, even with your pee size brain.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html







more

from http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm



What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

Satellite shot of WTC ruins
The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom)
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."
Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously.We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes — each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers — two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't — all collapsed in essentially the same way.

can we please just get over it already... its been like what 6 years now? happened in 2001 when my now ex was in boot camp.. its been 6 years let it die with diana!

salvadevinemasse wrote:can we please just get over it already... its been like what 6 years now? happened in 2001 when my now ex was in boot camp.. its been 6 years let it die with diana!

[Whiny ignorant person]
But the life of the human race has been so damaged by the deaths of 3000 people that we can't forget it. ][/Whiny ignorant person]

I think the main shock is that no matter what is true, (if Terroists or the U.S. Gov destroyed the WTC) is that the U.S thought they were the invicible country, and when the destroying of the WTC happened, they felt terribly vulnerable.

xtratabasco wrote:well im not a structural engineer but I do know that jet fuel (kerosine) doesnt melt, bend, or break steel beams and the cores of steel buildings, it also doesnt pulverize concrete into pcs smaller than a wrist watch.

So to some it up....you better go ask for your money back, that college of yours did you a diservice...also please stay away from designing any steel framed buildings, you obviously have a turd for a brain.


here is a 20 second video im sure you can understand, even with your pee size brain.

While resorting to personal attacks may make you feel like a bigger man, it makes your attitude and arguments seem childish. Also, while attempting to insult another's intelligence you should try not to make so many errors in your own writing, as it does nothing but undermine your position.

Anyway, as I stated there are many parts of the conspiracy theories which are believable, and there are many details of the official story that don't add up. The main one for me is the damage to the pentagon. It looks nothing like the damage I would expect from a plane crashing into the building, and the lack of large debris and or fuselage is extremely suspicious. However I know relatively little about the effects of crashing a plane into a building in such a manner, so I acknowledge the fact that my intuition could be wrong. Tower 7 and the pentagon are mysteries to me, but I do not immediately believe that the government attacked its own people because of such apparent inconsistencies.

I do know that jet fuel (kerosine) doesnt melt, bend, or break steel beams and the cores of steel buildings

Nor would I claim that the kerosene melted, bent or broke steel beams in the WTC collapse. Of course fire greatly weakens steel (which is a main reason that it is usually covered in concrete and not left exposed) but not to the degree required to melt a steel girder. The research as to why the towers collapsed showed that the failures in the structure occurred at the joints supporting the floors, not in the beams themselves. This leads to the theory of the floors pancaking on top of each other, that the article you cited mentions.

The main point of that article seems to be that the floors would not be able to pancake on top of one another to cause a fast collapse like the towers experienced. Most of that evidence is based on a gut instinct of the author, though he does cite a scientist who claims the floors in free fall would take 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. The towers actually fell in about 14 seconds by the author's own measurement, and the error between those two numbers is relatively minor. I'm not an expert in impact and dynamics, but a collapsing building is very similar to materials free falling. The fact that Tower 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds and freefall would require 6.0 seconds seems to be expected (I know, only carries as much weight as the author's own gut instincts)

Essentially, people like to reference how quickly buildings fall in planned demolitions, and since the towers fell quickly they say this must have been a planned demolition as well. But in the same breath they say that the floors free falling to the ground would take longer than the period of time in which the buildings physically collapsed. My point is that even in a planned demolition, the floors and supporting structure still pancake on top of themselves to reach the ground. And once a building is rid of its primary support structure (whether by planned explosives or collapsing floors) it will fall at very close to the same speed as a free fall. Once it starts to go, its not going to slow down.

As for why no steel frame buildings have previously collapsed due to fires, there are two main reasons I can name. 1- The fires in the WTC covered an enormous area of the building and were coupled with damage from the impact of the crash. 2- (the main reason) The WTC employed tubular construction, not traditional steel frame construction as seen in buildings like the empire state building. An interlocking grid of steel columns and girders can support itself even if the floors and exterior are removed. The WTC on the other hand was built around a strong central core and a strong tube system at the exterior of the building. The lateral support between the two systems was provided by the floors and if you remove them the tower would not be able to stand.

Once again, I will say that I am not 100% satisfied with the official explanations given to the events of 9/11. I, like many of the people that support the conspiracy, have read and watched other accounts as to what may have happened on that day, and I will not simply shut out new information that goes against what I think is true. I also am not a Bush fan boy or someone who supports everything that America does as Norse tried to paint me in the other thread.

But despite all that, I do not believe the leaders of the American government to be so malicious as to attack and murder thousands of its own people. You may call me naive, I may call you overly cynical, but insulting or antagonizing someone who disagrees with you does not help you find out the truth of a subject. I understand I will not have swayed those who disagree with me on this subject, and if that were my goal I would be a fool. I instead aim to say in this post what I believe and some reasons why I think that way. If you continue to disagree with me by all means go ahead. I will listen.

sully800 wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:well im not a structural engineer but I do know that jet fuel (kerosine) doesnt melt, bend, or break steel beams and the cores of steel buildings, it also doesnt pulverize concrete into pcs smaller than a wrist watch.

So to some it up....you better go ask for your money back, that college of yours did you a diservice...also please stay away from designing any steel framed buildings, you obviously have a turd for a brain.


here is a 20 second video im sure you can understand, even with your pee size brain.

I do know that jet fuel (kerosine) doesnt melt, bend, or break steel beams and the cores of steel buildings

Nor would I claim that the kerosene melted, bent or broke steel beams in the WTC collapse. Of course fire greatly weakens steel

not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

xtratabasco wrote:not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

If you read what I wrote you would understand that your latest post is completely nonsensical. At the very end of the sentence you cut off I said it would not happen to the degree required to cause failure in the steel beams.

sully800 wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

If you read what I wrote you would understand that your latest post is completely nonsensical. At the very end of the sentence you cut off I said it would not happen to the degree required to cause failure in the steel beams.

jet fuel cant bring down steel buildings in less than 2 hours and polverize everthing in site to the size of a fucking baseball.


good, im glad you got it.

GreecePwns wrote:

unriggable wrote:Seems like too grand a plan for a Texan.

Did you see the videos? It says mayor Bloomberg knew it would happen before it did and told Peter Jennings. Explain that one...
And Norse, please come here and prove that they are being brainwashed.

Thanks greecepwns, I've not seen that particular video before.

The biggest question is this....

If a government was willing to sacrifice 4000 of it's own citizens, in an attempt to rally support for an illegal war, what is it going to happen next?


I fear for my future children.

Something has got to be done about this, the silent majority really has to stand up and do aomething. We need to rise, overthrow, and execute all involved with fabricating this, and putting to death thousands of people.

Else it just going to get worse.

xtratabasco wrote:

sully800 wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

If you read what I wrote you would understand that your latest post is completely nonsensical. At the very end of the sentence you cut off I said it would not happen to the degree required to cause failure in the steel beams.

jet fuel cant bring down steel buildings in less than 2 hours and polverize everthing in site to the size of a fucking baseball.


good, im glad you got it.

Hehe, I loved the way that the towers came down sooooooo perfectly central, just like a well prepared demolition....

Norse wrote:
Hehe, I loved the way that the towers came down sooooooo perfectly central, just like a well prepared demolition....

Why wouldn't they fall straight down? Nothing, short of another building, is going to stop several hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete from following the most direct path downwards.

I've never known you to be anything other than humorous or joking, Norse, so it is quite difficult to take your dire warnings of impending doom seriously.
In fact, I'm still not quite sure that your entire stance will turn out to be some vast, obscure joke.

xtratabasco wrote:
just keep it simple....stupid

lol

Planes hit buildings.......buildings colapsed

which part do you not understand

watch the discovery channel episode about the movie "loose change".

The guys who made loose change are going to have a part 2...

xtratabasco wrote:

sully800 wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

If you read what I wrote you would understand that your latest post is completely nonsensical. At the very end of the sentence you cut off I said it would not happen to the degree required to cause failure in the steel beams.

jet fuel cant bring down steel buildings in less than 2 hours and polverize everthing in site to the size of a fucking baseball.


good, im glad you got it.

Size of a baseball?

Hehe, I loved the way that the towers came down sooooooo perfectly central, just like a well prepared demolition....

As previously mentioned, the buildings were made with all of their strength in the core of the building. Outside of the core there was nothing holding the building up. For the building to fall, the core must have weakened, and once the core weakened the building is going to fall straight down, and thats the natural way, its called gravity. It would only fall sideways if there was something which stopped it falling straight down, which there wasnt.

Also, a researcher has shown that in order for the towers not to have fallen straight down they would have had to vary by more than 100 ft off centre, which is close to impossible for buildings that size.

xtratabasco wrote:

sully800 wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:not hundreds of 46 inch steel beams it dont....and not under a couple of hours. Only in a Blast Furnace (where they were made could this happen)

research it and get back to me....

you dont have to write thousands of words or dozens of paragraphs...

just keep it simple....stupid

lol

If you read what I wrote you would understand that your latest post is completely nonsensical. At the very end of the sentence you cut off I said it would not happen to the degree required to cause failure in the steel beams.

jet fuel cant bring down steel buildings in less than 2 hours and polverize everthing in site to the size of a fucking baseball.


good, im glad you got it.

is this a quote from AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE COLLAPSE EXPERT?

yes, no larger than a baseball.

no desks, no chairs, no bodys. only paper and pulverized concrete.

jet fuel dont weaken hundreds of large steel beams and pulverize millions of tons of concrete and rebar.


just dont happen....sorry folks.