Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Beerfart wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Occam's razor, anyone?

We get it, you think we're paranoid, that's 3 posts now to that effect.

Anything new?

Well, you've got upwards of 15 or 16 posts to the effect that you ARE paranoid. . . anything new from you either?

That's false.

I have actually been contributing to this discussion. Unfortunatly, you cannot say the same.

Excellent, you ignored my initial question Beerfart. You have proved my point you are, in fact, a fearmongering child that doesn't put logic in any of his assumptions.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Both sides have a valid argument, but theirs no WAY a plane could have brought down the whole tower like that.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.

Pic is broken.

Karon wrote:Excellent, you ignored my initial question Beerfart. You have proved my point you are, in fact, a fearmongering child that doesn't put logic in any of his assumptions.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed your question since it was bracketted with a comment of "BS" and "head in your ass". I normally skim over such childish comments....

What I've never understood is if the U.S. orchestrated this attack (which is complete bs), why did they hit the Pentagon and then attempt to hit the White House with the Plane that was taken down by the passengers and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

I beleive I already answered that earlier in this thread.

beerfart wrote:
It acheives a war in the middle east to further certain factions control of the oil resources there.

War, as pointed out earlier by one of our posters here, is very profitable already. Oil not withstanding....and will build new buildings and planes.

As to how old I am...this is irrelevant to the conversation here and none of your business.

Please try to be less emotional with your posts in the future. Thank you.

bombboy1252 wrote:Both sides have a valid argument, but theirs no WAY a plane could have brought down the whole tower like that.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.

Nowhere in that article does it say that the bomber was fully loaded, nor does it say that it even had a full load of fuel. In fact, I would imagine that a bomber traveling over domestic airspace for non-combat purposes likely wouldn't be loaded... any military folks on the site care to confirm or deny my assumption?

Furthermore, the article states that the bomber weighs 10 tons. The planes that crashed into the WTC were 767s which weigh well over 100 tons.

So.... No?

bombboy1252 wrote:Both sides have a valid argument, but theirs no WAY a plane could have brought down the whole tower like that.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.

That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.

Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.

I see no one cares for my post

nvrm.....

I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.

Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.

You will learn when you grow.

Karon, I agree. Why would the US need 4 planes if they just wanted to take down the World Trade Center? And why would President Bush order a 767 to hit the White House, where he was?

Coolyo294 wrote:Pic is broken.

No it's not.

just for the record...I'm neutral in this flame war that's going on at the moment.....

Chowderhead wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:Both sides have a valid argument, but theirs no WAY a plane could have brought down the whole tower like that.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.

That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.

Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.

Fact:

until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.

Fact:

The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.

Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.

Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.

You will learn when you grow.

Not all people under 20 fit the description you just... err, described.

The fire from the planes wouldn't have been able to destroy the towers, I'm not saying its the government im not saying that what the government says is true, im just saying that theirs no way they would have fallen just by planes.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:Pic is broken.

No it's not.

It was for me.

Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.

Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.

Beerfart wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:Both sides have a valid argument, but theirs no WAY a plane could have brought down the whole tower like that.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

This is the story of a US bomber crashing into the empire state building and it never collapsed. A WW2 bomber is carrying more explosive stuff than the planes that hit the towers.

That's such bs. A 767 with a full tank of gas would atomize anything on impact. The bomber you are talking about had it's small fuel tank blow up. A 767 with 23980 U.S. gallons of modern jet fuel is a missile waiting to happen.

Check your facts. People have a very hard time with this on Dakka.

Fact:

until now there has NEVER been a case of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings.

Fact: Airplanes haven't hit a building with such force until now. The weakened building was destroyed because the Explostion caused by the 23980 gallons of high explosive Jet Fuel might have helped a slight bit.

Fact:

The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.

No it wasn't. It was earthquake resistant. Wherever you got that fact, I want to see it. I can assure you that unless your building is made of 10 feet of concrete, it's not plane-proof.

Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.

Two planes into the Trade Center would be enough, the other two planes weren't necessary.

Necessary for what? Generating MORE terror amongst the populace in order to gain support for a pointless war?

Not answering my question? I'm 24, and if you aren't going to answer, I'll put my guess at 15 or under, at which point your young mind is much more impressionable to retardation from other adults who are fearmongers and conspiracy nuts.

Again, irrelevant and inflammatory. If you are indeed 24...please act your age. This is a discussion, not a schoolyard cut-down contest.

You will learn when you grow.

Indeed.

bombboy1252 wrote:The fire from the planes wouldn't have been able to destroy the towers, I'm not saying its the government im not saying that what the government says is true, im just saying that theirs no way they would have fallen just by planes.

It wasn't just the fire from the planes, it was the planes themselves. You have a big chunk of metal flying into more chunks of metal and both of them are going to get messed up. Couple that with the fire weakening the beams that had the protective coating knocked off of them and you get a tower that will collapse.

Coolyo294 wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:Pic is broken.

No it's not.

It was for me.

Notice the "edited one time" at the bottom of the post

halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.

Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.

We already tried that.

Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "

Beerfart wrote:

Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.

Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.

Chowderhead wrote:Fact: Airplanes haven't hit a building with such force until now. The weakened building was destroyed because the Explostion caused by the 23980 gallons of high explosive Jet Fuel might have helped a slight bit.

Fact:

The world trade center was designed to withstand the collision of a large aircraft.

No it wasn't. It was earthquake resistant. Wherever you got that fact, I want to see it. I can assure you that unless your building is made of 10 feet of concrete, it's not plane-proof.

Wow, you need to get your facts straight...it's common knowledge that they were.

A quick internet search of "was the WTC designed to withstand the impact of aircraft" will get you all the info you need.

Platuan4th wrote:

halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.

Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.

We already tried that.

Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "

So I guess the people in charge don't want money, but want middle to lower class people to die in wars?

halonachos wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

halonachos wrote:Two wars that have profited us immensely! Look at our economy, its on the rebound after those two wars you know. Our gas is cheaper and all of our troops are back home while Iraq and Afghanistan are enjoying prosperous democracies. Not to mention the additional payments those two countries are giving to us to pay us back for everything we spent during the war. Our economy isn't tanking at all thanks to the Bush administration and their destroying the World Trade Centers in order to coerce the public into going to war.

Not to mention the best way to improve our economy and the stock market is to blow up one of the largest economic hubs of the country.

We already tried that.

Beerfart's response: "They don't care about the economy. They care about their own agenda. "

So I guess the people in charge don't want money, but want middle to lower class people to die in wars?

Also according to Beerfart, the people in charge don't get their money from the economy.

See Page One, this conversation has been had.

Chowderhead wrote:

Beerfart wrote:

Karon wrote:I'm not buying it, not buying the bs with starting a War.

Well, these are my theories, especially as to the collapse of building 7. I'm still waiting to hear yours....without the emotional explatives.

Heavy debris from Towers One and Two hit Seven, which was facing One and Two. It had massive structural damage, and the building failed. A Fire also broke out inside the building.

Again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.


I'd also be interested to know how damage to a portion of debris results in a "controlled" collapse of a building. One would think that the building would list to one side rather than "bow" in the middle and collapse upon itself.

Let's get along and agree to disagree folks. That way we can go back to playing with our toy soldiers.....

Beerfart wrote:Also, again, fires do not cause fire protected buildings to "collapse"....until now.

Just for the record thanks to a civil engineer friend and industrial technology friend: Fire protected does NOT mean fire immune.