9/11 tribute...NOT a conspiracy - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 12th, 2007, 10:58 PM   #41
Smiley23
Senior Member
 
Smiley23's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: MI
Posts: 2,153
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Does this look like a missile?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=3

Here is a slower one:

YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Smiley23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 12th, 2007, 11:04 PM   #42
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley23 View Post
Does this look like a missile?

[
Beats me. I guess it could be a plane. It is the tip of something. I don't know. How about all the other videos that the Government has conficated? I'm sure that when combined, you would get a pretty good picture.

so yeah, could be a plane. Am I convinced it was, NO but I'm still open to that option.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 11:05 PM   #43
Smiley23
Senior Member
 
Smiley23's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: MI
Posts: 2,153
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Now this one looks like fun

I guess support for the other theory - even though it is not in the plane is not in the air - it is obviously more turbulent at the ground level:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7
Smiley23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 11:09 PM   #44
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley23 View Post
Now this one looks like fun

I guess support for the other theory - even though it is not in the plane is not in the air - it is obviously more turbulent at the ground level:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7
It did knock over a few light poles, whatever it was. And yes those guys rule!!
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:12 AM   #45
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Not a good representation. That plane hit a super thick reinforced concrete wall. The pentagon did not have these kind of walls.
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 05:53 AM   #46
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley23 View Post
Does this look like a missile?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=3

Here is a slower one:

YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
like I said earlier, missiles fly as fast as bullets. no way this crappy cctv camera could get a missile flying. It would just be a blur and would only be in one frame.
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 06:07 AM   #47
pso728
Senior Member
 
pso728's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-07
Location: Kalamazoo, MI (Midwest)
Posts: 401
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
That was just a joke. I know what your saying but I've also seen other plane crashes and the visual evidence just doesn't match up. I know that in most plane crashes they are going as slow as possible and that might be the reason there is more debris but even in crashes when a plan runs into a mountain there is a lot more debris then was was at the Pentagon. So I just don't know for certain and am still entertaining ideas. Your position is one of them.

Dude.....put your little aluminum foil hat on...the government is scanning your thoughts.......

Think about this....mountains DONT FRIGGEN MOVE!
The building....moved.
Are you sitting down? I am gonna pull all this together for you. Because the mountain doesn't move the debris is scattered and there appears to be more.....the building gave way and the debris was scattered outside AND INSIDE the building.
pso728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 06:11 AM   #48
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

yes, thanks pso. plus all of the fuel was inside of the building and burned a lot more than if the debris were scattered on the mountian.
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 12:02 PM   #49
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Okay, you've got me leaning towards a plane.

Now please explain WTC#7 to me.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 12:52 PM   #50
pso728
Senior Member
 
pso728's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-07
Location: Kalamazoo, MI (Midwest)
Posts: 401
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
Okay, you've got me leaning towards a plane.

Now please explain WTC#7 to me.
Are you really R.osie O'Donnell in disguise?

Fire weakens steel by causing it to expand. The steel twists during expansion which causes catastrophic failure. It can't support the weight. It falls.

I tried to make it as simple as possible so you could wrap your mind around it. Here is a link to a Popular Mechanics article that discusses it. I think the title is "Rosie O'Donnell is nucking futs"...or something like that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

Last edited by pso728; September 13th, 2007 at 02:14 PM.
pso728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 01:39 PM   #51
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

READ THIS MY FRIEND
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 03:51 PM   #52
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pso728 View Post
Are you really R.osie O'Donnell in disguise?

Fire weakens steel by causing it to expand. The steel twists during expansion which causes catastrophic failure. It can't support the weight. It falls.

I tried to make it as simple as possible so you could wrap your mind around it. Here is a link to a Popular Mechanics article that discusses it. I think the title is "Rosie O'Donnell is nucking futs"...or something like that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by clint357 View Post
So a building that sits next to one on fire also falls down as if a plane hit it is what your trying to tell me?
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 07:35 PM   #53
pso728
Senior Member
 
pso728's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-10-07
Location: Kalamazoo, MI (Midwest)
Posts: 401
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Did you realize that all that marijuana you smoke makes you paranoid?

Picture this, WTC 1 and 2 fall. You can clearly see damage to WTC 7 and firefighters on scene stated that one whole corner of the building was missing.

Is it possible that when WTC 7 took a hit from WTC 1 or 2 with the debris taking out part of the building......(are you sitting down?)..... started an electrical fire? Is it possible that fire was caused from the major fireball of WTC 1 and 2 taking a hit? Do you think all that jet fuel just burned up in mid-air? You can clearly see in the photos of WTC that part of the building is missing which takes away its structural integrity. You can also see that a couple floors have fire damage to the outside of the building.

From the PM article I left the link to....

"Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse."


It is NOTHING for a common commercial structure fire to reach 1000 degrees farenheit, I know as I am a firefighter/PSO. Add in the heavy fuel load to feed the fire for hours and it is not a stretch for the building to collapse. I am suprised it didn't fall earlier! A building burning for seven hours speaks volumes for the way it was built!

What is your theory on the collapse of WTC 7 there Mrs. O'Donnell?

I can't believe I responded to a troll.....
pso728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 07:58 PM   #54
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pso728 View Post
Did you realize that all that marijuana you smoke makes you paranoid?

Picture this, WTC 1 and 2 fall. You can clearly see damage to WTC 7 and firefighters on scene stated that one whole corner of the building was missing.

Is it possible that when WTC 7 took a hit from WTC 1 or 2 with the debris taking out part of the building......(are you sitting down?)..... started an electrical fire? Is it possible that fire was caused from the major fireball of WTC 1 and 2 taking a hit? Do you think all that jet fuel just burned up in mid-air? You can clearly see in the photos of WTC that part of the building is missing which takes away its structural integrity. You can also see that a couple floors have fire damage to the outside of the building.

From the PM article I left the link to....

"Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse."


It is NOTHING for a common commercial structure fire to reach 1000 degrees farenheit, I know as I am a firefighter/PSO. Add in the heavy fuel load to feed the fire for hours and it is not a stretch for the building to collapse. I am suprised it didn't fall earlier! A building burning for seven hours speaks volumes for the way it was built!

What is your theory on the collapse of WTC 7 there Mrs. O'Donnell?

I can't believe I responded to a troll.....
So this fire rages up and down the building to cause the whole structure to weaken to the point of total collapse in a way that it falls down at near free fall speed. The house around the block for me burned for 4 hours and the heating oil exploded and the house collapsed but guess what, the steal beam in the basement was still standing strong. Amazing when I compare that it was I guess built better then a commercial building that requires the steal to have fire protection unlike that of a common house. O yeah, the building fall in on itself and then another section fell and then another wall. I guess you could call that pancake effect since the bottom gave out where the fire was but it sure didn't happen at free fall speed.


I'm surprised you fight any fires knowing that a fire can cause steal to just melt and weaken to the point that it becomes molten. Wouldn't you be scared to even go inside when you compare it to a giant building such as the WTC could fall in just after an hour or so after burning. I guess that jet fuel was the shit since it took WTC7 seven hours to fall. Good thing there isn't a lot of jet fuel around for "terrorist" to get their hands on since they now know of how deadly it really is.

Another thing is that I'm surprised that these fuel cells in the basement coudl catch on fire soooo quickly. I mean you would think that if the side and top was damaged that the sub-basement a few flows below ground level would be atleast a little protected. I guess not though since they no doubtly in your mind caused this huge building to collapse.

Lets look at the video again and just be amazed at how a fire can cause something like this.


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/322787/wtc_7_fall_4/

Man I sure am glad that those fires in Cali during the last major earthquake didn't burn as hot as the ones in NY. Just think of all those sky scrapers that caught fire and didn't fall to the ground. They all would have fallen down if they were a few thousand miles to the east so you say in your explaination.


Edit: I also love how you can just put your views out their but have to say stuff like, "Did you realize that all that marijuana you smoke makes you paranoid?" and the Ms. O'Donnald stuff. Interesting tactics which well, defiantly doesn't make me take your oppinion for what it might be worth. You could learn alot from Duffman for example. Disagreed with a lot of stuff people say but always puts for an intelligent well written statement of what he believes without the name calling. Duffman has my respect

Last edited by Chiefwoohaw; September 13th, 2007 at 08:11 PM.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 07:59 PM   #55
Smiley23
Senior Member
 
Smiley23's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: MI
Posts: 2,153
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
So a building that sits next to one on fire also falls down as if a plane hit it is what your trying to tell me?
Vibration and falling debris that hit the roof. There was obviously so much debris - it formed around the base of WTC #7 and the pressure/weight damaged the foundation.
Smiley23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 08:27 PM   #56
bj house
Senior Member
 
bj house's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-02-06
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 5,289
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

UL - You wrote steal beam in the basement was still standing strong.

I would guess that a steel beam in a house does not get crushed and twisted because of the relatively low weight of the structure above it compared to what fell down on top of the steel in the WTC buildings.
bj house is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 08:44 PM   #57
Smiley23
Senior Member
 
Smiley23's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: MI
Posts: 2,153
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
... the steal beam in the basement was still standing strong....
This makes sense - since hot air rises - the coolest point of a camp fire is on the bottom. Until the coals begin to form - which is when the first set of logs fell (or building in this case).

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
Lets look at the video again and just be amazed at how a fire can cause something like this.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/322787/wtc_7_fall_4/
After doing some deeper research - I found something that I vaguely remember hearing the day of the disaster. It was an intentional, controlled demolition.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Smiley23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:05 PM   #58
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

O well, I'm off this topic. It's just sad that so many people believe what they were told. Some call it the truth, I call it a sham.

I'm also surprised that out of the thousands that are on GL4x4 there isn't another person that at least has doubts about 9/11, There probably are some folks but just don't want to be that person. I'm glad to be that person and if you have any doubts about me I just want to let you know that I have just as much fun wheeling as all you guys that think it was caused by terrorist
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:07 PM   #59
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley23 View Post
This makes sense - since hot air rises - the coolest point of a camp fire is on the bottom. Until the coals begin to form - which is when the first set of logs fell (or building in this case).



After doing some deeper research - I found something that I vaguely remember hearing the day of the disaster. It was an intentional, controlled demolition.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Sorry, one more thing since I couldn't resist. So your telling me that in a few hours a demolition was set up that had the same precautions and the same outcome (fall straight down) as one that takes months to plan. Such as Hudson in detroit for example??!!?? Now to me that is crazier then the whole incident.

Okay, I'm out. Peace in the middle east! Booya.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:13 PM   #60
Smiley23
Senior Member
 
Smiley23's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-07
Location: MI
Posts: 2,153
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLove View Post
Sorry, one more thing since I couldn't resist. So your telling me that in a few hours a demolition was set up that had the same precautions and the same outcome (fall straight down) as one that takes months to plan. Such as Hudson in detroit for example??!!?? Now to me that is crazier then the whole incident.

Okay, I'm out. Peace in the middle east! Booya.
lol - yes. Think about it - the months of planning is done to minimize dust, analyze wind drift, minimize damage to surroundings, setup base walls, clear the area of homeless etc. The choice and placement of explosives does not take long at all.

The area is already cleared of people and surrounded by damaged buildings - what difference would it make.
Smiley23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.36886 seconds with 80 queries