ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

[MyFinalRest]

It was hardly in an open space?

Not sure what you mean with the rest of your post..

I'm not sure what you mean with this garbled grammar, but let's think about an engine cylinder in a combustion engine. It wouldn't work very well if it had glass windows in it or a big gaping hole in it.

Even if the ignited kerosene generated enough pressure to blow out the windows, that's it. It's pressure would have escaped through the blown out windows, not through the steel coulumns. Now RDX demoltion explosives are different. Unlike kerosene, they don't need to ignite in a pressurized environment to push something. They supply their own pressure in the form of an explosive shockwave.

 

[rickolasnice]

Why do millions of scientists and blahblahblah not think the same? Thousands and thousands and thousands of people seem to think that a plane crashing into a building will cause an explosion.. are they all wrong?

Garbled grammar for you it is yes? (Seriously though.. sorry if I don't make sense I haven't slept in a while)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSoF1kkiBEY

 

[MyFinalRest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSoF1kkiBEY

Haha, that's not kerosene blowing up. I've used a heater just like that thousands of times and they don't blow up like that. Those good ol' boys put something else in it.

I made this while you were posting that:

 

[MyFinalRest]

I made another one! Damn, I keep finding all these strange "holes" in the official story!

 

[rickolasnice]

The plane, the explosion and / or the fires?

 

[L2R]

what you are labelling as "breakage" is smoke stains. they appear to be consistent with the floors. also the fire you note may not be where a hole is, but it certainly is on a floor where a major part of the plane entered.

MFR, for a rocket scientist, you sure are insane.

 

[MyFinalRest]

what you are labelling as "breakage" is smoke stains. they appear to be consistent with the floors. also the fire you note may not be where a hole is, but it certainly is on a floor where a major part of the plane entered.

MFR, for a rocket scientist, you sure are insane.

No, you better look closer than that. I labeled broken steel columns and broken aluminum facade cladding.

There are some bizarre blackened streaks outside of the lables, likely from whatever incendiary compounds were used.

The cladding around the plane hole should have the worst smoke stains shouldn't it? Not some part far over to the right and below the crash site.

 

[MyFinalRest]

Look at the whole supposed "portside wing" impact zone. No blackened smoke stains. This is where a supposed wing that carried lots of fuel blew up. No scorch marks.

For the streak on the right, you can see a raging fire above it, but no fire on that same floor.

Not to mention the nice steel shredding from that glorious last half of the wing! Impossible!

Even at the splices, those connections were very strong. It was two end plates fastened together with 4 large bolts. It would have had nearly the strength as a solid piece of column; maybe more if it was welded too. I don't think an airplane wing could break them like that.

 

[MrGrunge]

Damn, I keep finding all these strange "holes" in the official story!

"Why doesn't this thing look like I think it should?"

Real solid hole-poking you're doing, MFR. Keep it up!

MFR, for a rocket scientist, you sure are insane.

It's pronounced Rocket Surgeon, L2R.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I could fathom some busted and broken steel where the fusilage hit, but a full cookie cutter cutout of the enitre plane? No way.

Cookie cutter hole proof of a conspiracy? Check.

Things don't really fit right now that I look at some more. It's a vaguely airplane shaped hole, but not consistent with a 767 crash.

A hole that isn't an exact cutout of a 767? Still proof of a conspiracy? Check.

It must be nice that no matter what the evidence, you can find proof of a conspiracy.

 

[L2R]

The cladding around the plane hole should have the worst smoke stains shouldn't it?

Not essentially.

The places where fire catches are based on far more than entry point alone.

At those heights the smoke stains would also be subject of wind direction and building air flow.

As an aside, keep in mind that fire moves, at any one point in time fuel to burn may either be present in various degrees or exhausted. Once there is nothing left to burn, fires go out.

It's pronounced Rocket Surgeon, L2R.

Oh dang I dropped the ball!

 

[severely etarded]

How many attempts will it take to prove a conspiracy theory?

The world may never know.

 

[MrGrunge]

"Burden of proof lies with the person who lays the charges" and whatnot.

Everything posted in here that claims to debunk the official story can in turn be debunked. This is not proof of anything...it's not even evidence - it's conjecture.

 

[L2R]

We doctors call it "drooling gibberish".

 

[MyFinalRest]

Not essentially.

The places where fire catches are based on far more than entry point alone.

At those heights the smoke stains would also be subject of wind direction and building air flow.

That doesn't look like natural wind movement to me, and building airflow? The air would be flowing out the gaping hole, and hot smoke tends to move upwards, not in perfect horizontal lines. These are not the "smoke stains" one would find in their dirty underwear.

You're right, fire isn't about the entry point or where a 767 supposedly blew up, it's about where they set the explosives!

 

[Jabberwocky]

^lol, amateur/armchair consp.-theoriests are adorable.

 

[MyFinalRest]

There is no fucking way a 767 wing tore out chunks of these columns...

As to tearing out entire pieces of the "chex" patterned steel, consisting of three columns that were three floors high, securely bolted to another "chex" with 24 bolts, bolted and welded horizontal spandrels, and bolstered by floor trusses and steel-reinforced concrete floors is a total bullshit ruse. These weren't lego blocks standing on their own that come apart easy.

You can't convince me an airplane pushed entire pieces of these "chex" inward having to plow through three steel and concrete floors without encountering the slightest bit of reactionary damage or even a slowdown of momentum as it did this. The reason the airplane appeared to do this so effortlessly is that it was a bad special effect. Some sort of combination of explosives did the damage.

 

[MyFinalRest]

You can see the effects of different materials being propelled at the same velocity in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7jqfRlSoK60

You can see that the German metal jacketed plastic core bullets lacked any effective pentrative strength on the steel, even though it was going very fast. The 767 has even less density per square inch than the German plastic ammo, and was travelling much slower than an AK-47 bullet. The author of this video doubts that the German plastic ammo could even pentrate an 1/8" of steel. The video shows what was truly effective against the steel, and it was the Chinese AP rounds with the incindiary compound!

Plain and simple, the 767 lacked the force need to tear chunks out of the WTC steel or push entire sections through multiple steel reinforced concrete floors without letting up and submerging itself fully into the building before exploding.

It's sad how bad people want to believe in the 911 myth of the clashing civilizations. Did this event give meaning to your life? Does exposing it as the biggest lie ever threaten your sense of self and community? Find something else to believe in, because it was an inside job, pulled by our own White Zionist race, not an act of war committed by Arabs.

P.S. We haven't even touched on WTC7 yet and still this many inconsitencies and total lies in the official story?

 

[rickolasnice]

^ Why not? They are hollow, pretty thin, tubes of steel.. Have you flown a plane into a similar building and seen different results or something?

Nobody claimed there were.. But a 767 would easily ripped through a whole bunch of them.. Fuck up one and you fuck up the strength of the others.. I don't see how you are coming to these conclusions? THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN AND NEITHER COULD THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN THIS BECAUSE THE INTERNETS TELL ME SO!

Again.. are you talking about those hollow, pretty thin tubes of steel? No, you're right.. There's no way a plane could have done any damage to them what soever.. in fact.. it should have made them clean and sparkly.

The steel columns are hollow. The concrete floor was 5inches. The floor would have had NO structural integrity ones the support beams were damaged..

You can see the plane crumple as it enters the tower.. To work out the resistance it would have encountered and what that would ulimately lead to would be a near impossible feat.. Plane materials, speed, etc and all the obvious ones but then there are all the others.. like imagine what the plane would look like as the second half of it gets to the building.. compressed metals here there and everywhere.. but where? and in what densities? Where are the harder components of the plane? What had already been damaged by the first half of the plane? .. It would literally be impossible to accurately, mathematically map what actually happened.. but hey.. the evidence is there.. a plane hit the building and the blew up.. thousands of people saw it..

Eurgh.. How many planes have you seen fly into a skyscraper? Did it flying effortless into the building or did it behave in exactly the way that a 767 would behave when flying 100s of miles an hour into a steel framework skyscraper? Please. Tell me how you know what it SHOULD have looked like.

Because the damage to the support beams do not look like controlled explosions.. Wouldn't the massive blocks of the steel columns have flown away from the building? Where are they? They are clearly not where they should be (side of building).. they are not on the ground below? Oh shit.. they must be inside the building.. what could do that? I dunno.. A huge plane flying into them, maybe?

Plain and simple, the 767 lacked the force need to tear chunks out of the WTC steel or push entire sections through multiple steel reinforced concrete floors without letting up and submerging itself fully into the building before exploding.

Guess work.. pure and simple.

Thousands of people have studied it and saw nothing out of the ordinary.

I don't believe in the clashing of the civilizations. I know all about there being a TINY occurrences of al-Qaeda in Iraq in the first few years.. then the longer American and UN troops were there, murdering civilians, the more encounters with "al-Qaeda" happened.. Occupation middle east, seemingly, created a much larger terrorist network than there ever was.. 100s of time larger. I know the war on terror is a complete pile of shit. 1 by 1 America and the UN are *liberating* countries, to gain control and sort out some pretty fucking sweet trading deals.

Bring on the "smoking gun" WTC7.

Edit: Btw.. You got a link for me to go and see what the 767 were actually made out of?

 

[MyFinalRest]

The steel columns are hollow. The concrete floor was 5inches. The floor would have had NO structural integrity ones the support beams were damaged..

This is a falacious argument set forth by debonkers when they start to fail - the twin towers were weak. That's not true. Those columns may have been hollow, but they were still quite strong and there were an abundance of them. Each column was a sturdy structure in and of itself. The non fallacious argument is to focus on how hollow and thin the lightly framed and thin skinned airplane was!

Also, steel reinforced concrete actually does have strucural integrity - plenty of it too.

You can see the plane crumple as it enters the tower..

I have watched it many times and I must be missing something, but I don't see anything crumple on impact. There was no "impact" it just...like you say..."enters the tower" as if a door opened up to let it in.

To work out the resistance it would have encountered and what that would ulimately lead to would be a near impossible feat..

To translate any event such as this in exact terms of pure mathematics would be a long and laborious task for sure, but we can get a pretty good idea and some close estimates. You would also think a little common sense would come into play here too, but that shit goes out the window to believe in the myth of St. George the bush.

Plane materials, speed, etc and all the obvious ones but then there are all the others.. like imagine what the plane would look like as the second half of it gets to the building.. compressed metals here there and everywhere.. but where? and in what densities? Where are the harder components of the plane? What had already been damaged by the first half of the plane? .. It would literally be impossible to accurately, mathematically map what actually happened.. but hey.. the evidence is there.. a plane hit the building and the blew up.. thousands of people saw it..

I still don't know how some chap in England has friends and friends of the family that eyewitnessed this firsthand. But figuring this out it relatively easy. Your countryman, Isaac Newton, set forth a statement that said "for each reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That helps us understand the physics of a plane crash. Too bad England is not producing great minds anymore...just a bunch of chavs, wankers, skanks, and blokes...and Dr. Who.

Eurgh.. How many planes have you seen fly into a skyscraper? Did it flying effortless into the building or did it behave in exactly the way that a 767 would behave when flying 100s of miles an hour into a steel framework skyscraper? Please. Tell me how you know what it SHOULD have looked like.

There are hundreds of pics of plane crashes on the net. Common sense helps me figure some things like this out. It's a great starting point. There is a reason why I wouldn't bring a piece of aluminum foil to a knife fight.