Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    Captain Bligh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Captain Bligh


    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11 this is a quote from a post up the page!! messed up the quote part!

    Why did they let the Lusitania cross the atlantic even though the Germans specifically told em we'll sink it! to get the public onside to allow entry to WW1

    Why did they lie about not spotting the japs crossing the pacific to Pearl.
    to get the public onside to get entry to WW2

    Why did they lie about the battleship being attacked prior to Vietnam
    to get the public on side to get entry to VN
    incidently Colon powell (yes colon not colin) was a LT in Vietnam and was one of those who took part in the cover up of the mai lea masacre( mai lea spelling!) Naturally he was promoted!!!!!

    why did they{USA} fabricate false fotage of sadams forces lined up to go into kuwait? to get public onside to get entry to iraq.
    Colon powell later came out to confirm they made the pics up!!!!! looks like the habits learned murdering people in VN stood to him.

    So why did they "allow attacks" of a different nature in 1 and 2 above on their public. i simply think they hold their people with contempt.

    i think its clear they like making money from the WAR machine


  • #253
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tim allen wrote: »
    You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.

    It was a bogey or bird sh!t, but whatever it was was on the window pane and it's embarrassingly obvious.


  • #254
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Captain Bligh wrote: »
    incidently Colon powell (yes colon not colin)
    Nope, Colin Powell.


  • #255
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

    That's a full sized aircraft hitting the building.

    I'm not not a proponent of the no planes theory, but video these days is hardly evidence..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXy_enhxG4


  • #256
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    RichieC wrote: »
    I'm not not a proponent of the no planes theory, but video these days is hardly evidence..
    Indeed - but as always, the providence of the evidence is of key importance. That point would carry a lot more weight if there was only a single video of the event.


  • #257
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    15ydhr8.jpg


  • #258
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    15ydhr8.jpg
    I'm thinking some of the variables may have been different. For example, in one case they were skyscrapers, in the other case it was a tree.


  • #259
    anniemcl
    Site Banned Posts: 25 ✭anniemcl


    stats are maths for dummies.


  • #260
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm thinking some of the variables may have been different. For example, in one case they were skyscrapers, in the other case it was a tree.
    so we should build everything with trees!!! ;)


  • #261
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    re jet fuel didnt bring down the tree - well it didnt exactly crash straight through the tree,when jet fuel ingites it causes fire all it takes is a spark from the metal of the plane grinding against the exterior of the twin towers block..


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,562 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    15ydhr8.jpg

    Actually, timber performs quite well in fire. When burning, a char layer is formed in the first 25-40mm (I think 40mm anyway, can't exactly remember) of the timber. The char layer then actually slows down the effects of the fire in the rest of the timber behind the char layer and acts as a barrier. It's why if you had a log in a fireplace, you would poke and move the log to remove some of the char layer which would then keep the log burning.

    So if you had a 200mm block of timber and set it alight, approx 25mm from each side would form the char layer, leaving the internal 150mm of wood relatively unaffected. Of course, the 25mm char layer on each side loses all strength, but in the case of a tree such as in that picture, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the trees are still standing (unless they suffered structural damage from the plane crash.

    Steel on the other hand loses structural strength in the event of fire, which is why steel requires more fireproofing than timber.

    (a friend of mine did his thesis on timber in the event of fire which I proofread for him, so I'm not exact on facts for this, but the general idea is close enough)

    Edit: And before it's asked; Steel is structurally stronger, easier to construct and has a smaller size:strength ratio which is why it's more commonly used. All it really needs is more fireproofing.


Advertisement