Honda and Acura Car Forums banner
21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Tiger79 said:
One Theory:

Bush planned these attacks so he could start at war, rebuild america his own way and be the most powerful man in the world and make a hell of alot of $$.

Yeah you can tell his wife laura is shiesty like that to, she if prolly helping him...oh his 2 daughters are in support all they want is more money!!!becuase they dont already have enough :bash ..

this stuff is rediculous...money would be the last thing on his mind, even if there were a conspiracy it would be for somthing a bit more admirable like protecting the west, or christianity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,384 Posts
oh lord, i wish they would just release the other videos to shut up conspiracty theorists and to answer relevant questions... :rolleyes

videos like this just corrupt young minds and it's sad to see.

exploding twin towers? hardly. i'm not sure which tower got hit in the side (2 i think), but it CLEARLY falls to the side it was hit on, not a freefall, demolition-type collapse.

FUCK! if they had weeks to set this up, why the hell didn't they make it fall straight down!

second, in order for a collapse to happen, the structural integrity of the steel needed to be effected. "but steve, the steel in the WTC's could withstand temperatures up to 2200 degrees F!"

no shit? fuck me that's when steel starts to LIQUIFY. at 1100 degrees the integrity of the grade of steel in the WTC towers 1 & 2 would have been at 50%. According to documents from NIST, who recreated the fireon computers using building layouts and other technical shit to calculate how hot fires really got -- their reports came back as some areas got as hot as 1832 degrees.

"but steve, there was fire-proofing insulation on the beams!"
Really? so spray-on insulation is now rated to withstand a fucking boeings impact?! why the fuck didn't they make the towers out of that shit then?

For the pancaking... I can't say anything that will sway you there, only that fucking enineers say that's what happened. those assholes are usually rich anyway, and don't need payoffs. and as easy as it is to keep 1 asshole quiet, how easy do you think it is to keep 5,000 people quiet? pretty fucking hard i bet.

now, should i go ahead and tackle the pentagon?

sure, let's.

"steve, there holes in the pentagon were'nt large enough to say a 757 hit it."
so, the actual fuselage of a 757 is wider than 75 ft? what the fuck do people expect to see? a fucking cartoon cut-out of a 757 in the wall of the pentagon? it was a reenforced wall people, and this ain't looney tunes.
"but steve, there's a 16 foot hole in the c ring... that's not 75 feet wide!"
reports say that 12 foot hole in the c ring was caused by landing gear. i'm at a loss on this one. no photos to back that up, no science. i dunno.
it is said that upon initial impact and what made it through the initial hole was "in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass." Which if burning at 1000 degrees, i probably would be too.

"but steve, wheres the rest of the plane then smartass?"
gee, i don't know.... fucking everywhere!
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

if you would like to learn more about what happened, enlighten yourself please, and take a look at this:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

it's the other side to the conspiracies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,384 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
IISaiNtII said:
and just in case you don't buy my bullshit on the plane hitting the pentagon,

here's a site that took more than 10 minutes putting their shit together. read this and tell me a plane didn't hit the pentagon:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
atentaten







This was a comment on that site:

posted on 12-9-2004 at 12:42 PM - printer friendly
pentagon

A very well crafted argument indeed.. Ok, so a plane did hit the pentagon as it were told. Planes also hit the WTC. We have no way of knowing the degree of culpability of any governement elements, and we cannot assume that they were asleep or just allowed it to happen. Individual Ideas and theories about the 911 event will be all over the radar. However, there is a preponderous amount of compelling evidence that makes what our government told us not the whole truth to say the least.

oh yea and one of the pictures they had the rim from the planes tires, if you look at it the one that they said was at the pentagon had a huge hub in the middle that i didn't see in the picture of the other wheel that was suppose to be that wheel exact.


And like i said in the start of the thread were is the plane in the video. and why dosen't the most secure place in america have camaeras that record real-time. Thank you for your thoughts IISaiNtII.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
ok I see where you are comong from on the there was a plane on the pentagon but until they relaese the videos I wont take he official stories.

if their story IS infact true WTF wouldnt they back it up with CLEAR video evidence from the 7/11 and the hotel?why would they confenscate the CLEAR evidence to back their story up withing MINUTES of the crash?

as for the "families dont want to see it" coment on one of those sites, over 400 families are in a lawsuit against Bush and goverment to release the tapes and audion.

as far as the pic of the plane goes remove that outline of the plane and look at it you wont pick the plane out, YOu could get anything out of a shot THAT grainy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
speedjunky01 said:
ok I see where you are comong from on the there was a plane on the pentagon but until they relaese the videos I wont take he official stories.

if their story IS infact true WTF wouldnt they back it up with CLEAR video evidence from the 7/11 and the hotel?why would they confenscate the CLEAR evidence to back their story up withing MINUTES of the crash?

as for the "families dont want to see it" coment on one of those sites, over 400 families are in a lawsuit against Bush and goverment to release the tapes and audion.

as far as the pic of the plane goes remove that outline of the plane and look at it you wont pick the plane out, YOu could get anything out of a shot THAT grainy.

we'll done :clap
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
speedjunky01 said:
OMG do you see what I see??

wow your right lol. you drew a line and said it was missle you have to be right because you drew the line right? lol :number1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49,788 Posts
okay first off i do think that the government was involved with this, i think they did plan this out especially in New York. I don't, however, think that Bush had anything to do with it, i think that the whole office is against him (plus America) but do you honestly think that this man is smart enough to put this together (even though the cover up sucks). Second, Bush doesn't look like the kind of guy to do that to his own people. i'll be honest, i voted for the retard.. but for gods sake i wouldnt do it again (even though i thought he was the better canidate between him and kerry) and the comment about the woman that said she was picking up pieces of plan off the ground.. i didnt see any pieces to be picked up! and if it decetigrated(sp) then how could she have possibly be holding pieces of the flight attendants uniform, doesnt really add up. sounds like someone paid her off
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
also the fires in the towers was "hot enough to melt steel" or whatever, why wasnt it melted in the pentagon?

as far as the steel weakening under pressure, the man that certified the steel for 2000 F and no weakening sent a letter to the commision stating just that
weakening and pancake theory is crap.also agree on the bush(THE DECIDER) want healf smart enough.

seriusly the guy is retader come on he has a book out about all of his bushisms(aka ******* words that dont exist and he doesnt know they dont exist)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,384 Posts
speedjunky01 said:
also the fires in the towers was "hot enough to melt steel" or whatever, why wasnt it melted in the pentagon?

as far as the steel weakening under pressure, the man that certified the steel for 2000 F and no weakening sent a letter to the commision stating just that
weakening and pancake theory is crap.also agree on the bush(THE DECIDER) want healf smart enough.

seriusly the guy is retader come on he has a book out about all of his bushisms(aka ******* words that dont exist and he doesnt know they dont exist)
if you're going to make fun of someone for the way they talk, you might want to think about proofreading your own post first.

i never said the steel melted, it doesn't need to melt to be incapacitated enough not to hold several thousand tons of weight to collapse. Also, I'm not sure if you've bothered to look at pictures of the pentagon, but it collapsed where the 757 hit too. :rolleyes OoOOOooOo, there's a big suprise.

where's this letter you speak of to carry your burden of proof? or is that some hear-say feeble-minded individuals pass on as fact?

Your statements, need to be backed up with some sort of fact from an engineering standpoint to hold merit. not some internet hear-say some fat-ass is spewing from his keyboard while drinking a slurpee and pretending to be a 14 year old girl to get a free trip to florida.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
domscivic said:
okay first off i do think that the government was involved with this, i think they did plan this out especially in New York. I don't, however, think that Bush had anything to do with it, i think that the whole office is against him (plus America) but do you honestly think that this man is smart enough to put this together (even though the cover up sucks). Second, Bush doesn't look like the kind of guy to do that to his own people. i'll be honest, i voted for the retard.. but for gods sake i wouldnt do it again (even though i thought he was the better canidate between him and kerry) and the comment about the woman that said she was picking up pieces of plan off the ground.. i didnt see any pieces to be picked up! and if it decetigrated(sp) then how could she have possibly be holding pieces of the flight attendants uniform, doesnt really add up. sounds like someone paid her off
i don't think a guy with that much money and who is cunrrently president and was elected agian is stupid. i think he's pretty damn smart, i still don't like him but i hate when people say he's dumb. i mean he messes up on words on purpose so we can say oh he's not perfect and we can relate to him, bush is not an idiot.

IISaiNtII said:
not some internet hear-say some fat-ass is spewing from his keyboard while drinking a slurpee and pretending to be a 14 year old girl to get a free trip to florida.
wow where did you get that one, it's a creative thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
here is the letter writen by a man that certified the steeel to withstand the conditions that were casued by the planes

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

but ok, lets say that the buildings did fall because of the jet fires, lets say ok the floors pancaked onto eachother and the building went down just the ay that they said, jet fule caused the beams to weaken bend and fail ok.

but why did WTC7 implode in an identical manner? a basement fire according to the officials. I have NEVER heard or even FOUND a case of any post 1940's steel sky scaper stile bulding under ANY fire conditions, in brazil a building burned for over 30 hours and nothing. Explain to me that one my friend and I will bow to you :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,384 Posts
speedjunky01 said:
here is the letter writen by a man that certified the steeel to withstand the conditions that were casued by the planes

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

but ok, lets say that the buildings did fall because of the jet fires, lets say ok the floors pancaked onto eachother and the building went down just the ay that they said, jet fule caused the beams to weaken bend and fail ok.

but why did WTC7 implode in an identical manner? a basement fire according to the officials. I have NEVER heard or even FOUND a case of any post 1940's steel sky scaper stile bulding under ANY fire conditions, in brazil a building burned for over 30 hours and nothing. Explain to me that one my friend and I will bow to you :).
building 7 was brought down. they admitted that.

also, 7 was designed to be able to shift it's weight from one set of colums to another. well, it just so happens that the outer columns got the most damage from 1 & 2 collapsing (which makes sense because the outer columns are on the street, facing the street, blah, blah) so the load of the building was on it's center.

the fact of the matter is, no modern skyscraper has collapsed since the 1900's due to fire. Fuck brazil. how's that for an explanation :lol2
anywho, there's been alot of skyscrapers on fire in the last 60ish years, none of which fell/collapsed. do i really need to explain why? NONE OF THEM HAD A FUCKING AIRLINER FLY INTO THEM.

actually, the empire state building was hit by a b-25, caught fire, and didn't collapse, but a b-25 is no where near the size of a 747 (b-25 = 67 feet wide, 53 feet long, 16 feet tall vs 747 =195 / 231 / 63)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
true, but the big fireball was the jet fuel burning off and the brave men who were up there said most of the jet fuel burned off and they could have put it out. Also the men who were up there said they heard explosions level by level and then saw it colapse.

Even if you disregard all of the evidence from oth of the sides, I still take the testimmony of the men who were inside the building as the best evidence out of all of it.

nice catch on the b-25 :). why was it brought down on the same day completley una anounced? ususaly buildings that are beig demolished are sectioned off, evacuated for blocks and then "pulled". why werent peoples lives taken into consideratin when WTC7 was brought own on puropse u anounced?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Jamo_asleep said:
am i the only that thats having trouble watching the vid? lol still doesnt work for me
yea I'm with him, I cant view it either
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
I think the point that does it for me as far as why it was explosives is the fact that as the wtc buildings fell dust clouds came shooting out the side of it. Look at any implosion vid's Im sure there are lots of them and no dust cloud is visible until the building hits the ground. I also agree with the statements that there was no fuel to support a fire that would burn hot enough to even get the steel 50% close to failure. And Im not sure though but were the planes that hit actually 747's their fuesalages(sp) look to be a constant diameter which 747's are not
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top