Give them hell, it's close to my bed time. I hand the torch or curling iron over to you Wednesday. Show no mercy. Merci.
Charlie Sheen's Statement to the London Guardian on 9-11
- Thread starter aeon
- Start date
Sassy
Have a great evening - think I will search the fridge for something to pass for "dinner"....
The forum as always is in good hands - the night shift is slowly winding its way through the halls into the light....
Have a great evening - think I will search the fridge for something to pass for "dinner"....
The forum as always is in good hands - the night shift is slowly winding its way through the halls into the light....
RE: Charlie Sheen's State
I just want to fire off a blurb in regards to this. As I sat here on a sunny Saturday morning, with the girlfriend out of a town and nursing a hangover, I flipped through some old posts. I came across this one and dismissed it at first because, well, this whole conspiracy theory shit is tiresome. Then I figured, what the hey, lets have a look again. Then I decided to hit google video and bring up some camera shots of the WTC towers going down. It may have been a while since you folks have seen these grisly images, and i'll admit I still got that stick stomach in my feeling watching jumbo jets slamming in to buildings. However one thing I did notice was the way the buildings fell. I've heard a lot of crazy things vis-a-vis the collapses since 2001, up to and including controlled demolitions. Now i'm not expert folks, but to me a controlled explosion is contained, minimizing collateral damage. I suggest you find a video of WTC 1 collapsing (its the first tower, but the 2nd one to fall). As you watch you'll realize that there is no explosion, in fact the bulding doesn't even telescope. One side sheers off above where the plane impacted, just as if someone were cutting cheese from a brick. Shortly thereafter the entire building leans that way and falls over, pancaking the remains of WTC 2 and a few buildings next to it. Now as I said, i'm not demolitions expert, but I do know a little about explosives, given my profession. When an explosion goes off, naturally, there is an outward force, blowing debris outwards in a conical nature from the point of explosion. There was none of that with WTC 1. I'm serious, watch the video. I'll just briefly touch on WTC 2 as WTC 1 was the more significant. When WTC 2 went down (the first tower to go), the wall buckled INWARD, there is no way an explosion can project itself inwards, it defies all physics. Just my 68 cents on this moronic subject. Where's the aspirin?
I just want to fire off a blurb in regards to this. As I sat here on a sunny Saturday morning, with the girlfriend out of a town and nursing a hangover, I flipped through some old posts. I came across this one and dismissed it at first because, well, this whole conspiracy theory shit is tiresome. Then I figured, what the hey, lets have a look again. Then I decided to hit google video and bring up some camera shots of the WTC towers going down. It may have been a while since you folks have seen these grisly images, and i'll admit I still got that stick stomach in my feeling watching jumbo jets slamming in to buildings. However one thing I did notice was the way the buildings fell. I've heard a lot of crazy things vis-a-vis the collapses since 2001, up to and including controlled demolitions. Now i'm not expert folks, but to me a controlled explosion is contained, minimizing collateral damage. I suggest you find a video of WTC 1 collapsing (its the first tower, but the 2nd one to fall). As you watch you'll realize that there is no explosion, in fact the bulding doesn't even telescope. One side sheers off above where the plane impacted, just as if someone were cutting cheese from a brick. Shortly thereafter the entire building leans that way and falls over, pancaking the remains of WTC 2 and a few buildings next to it. Now as I said, i'm not demolitions expert, but I do know a little about explosives, given my profession. When an explosion goes off, naturally, there is an outward force, blowing debris outwards in a conical nature from the point of explosion. There was none of that with WTC 1. I'm serious, watch the video. I'll just briefly touch on WTC 2 as WTC 1 was the more significant. When WTC 2 went down (the first tower to go), the wall buckled INWARD, there is no way an explosion can project itself inwards, it defies all physics. Just my 68 cents on this moronic subject. Where's the aspirin?
Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State
Firefighters witnesses, police reports, and the way the tower fell, only come to the conclusion that controlled demolition made both tower fell.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/
In this documentary , you clearly hear explosion before collapse, where the filmaker filmed the entire attack and collapse on the other side of the river, very interesting.
Mogz said:
Firefighters witnesses, police reports, and the way the tower fell, only come to the conclusion that controlled demolition made both tower fell.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/
In this documentary , you clearly hear explosion before collapse, where the filmaker filmed the entire attack and collapse on the other side of the river, very interesting.
The Jetfuel.....
...melted the steel bones (girders) of the building construction and the floors pancaked downward losing support as the girders turned to molten.
The planes were all filled with fuel as they had just taken off.
...melted the steel bones (girders) of the building construction and the floors pancaked downward losing support as the girders turned to molten.
The planes were all filled with fuel as they had just taken off.
The twin towers are not the problem
Like everyone else, I watch the towers fall about a hundred times on 9/11. Being an engineer, though not a structural engineer, I can get my head around the structural steel losing strength in the heat and deflecting enough to change the load characteristics and joints pulling apart etc. and the bldg falling.
Call this a conspiract theory if you want but I can't for the life of me think of a reason why the mechanical penthouse on bldg 7 should be the first to fall from a few small fires.. That penthouse would have had, structurally, the strongest floor in the bldg.
Like everyone else, I watch the towers fall about a hundred times on 9/11. Being an engineer, though not a structural engineer, I can get my head around the structural steel losing strength in the heat and deflecting enough to change the load characteristics and joints pulling apart etc. and the bldg falling.
Call this a conspiract theory if you want but I can't for the life of me think of a reason why the mechanical penthouse on bldg 7 should be the first to fall from a few small fires.. That penthouse would have had, structurally, the strongest floor in the bldg.
Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State
The Jet Fuel started the Fire which fed off the office Furniture, Office Equipment, Papers, Carpet which kept it going reaching High Temperatures that caused the Steel supports to buckle as they couldn't support the above weight in the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2.
When the planes hit the fire protection was blown off the steel supports leaving them exposed to the fire. Steel melts and bends at high temperatures, how else do you think steel is formed?
The explosions were infact the impact of the upper towers giving way secs before they started to collapse.
The reason WTC 2 did collapse the way it did was because of the damage the plane caused where it hit, the fire weakend the outer steel supports on that side and when it fell it fell sideways onto itself.
The reason WTC 1 panacaked onto itself is because when the plane hit, it was a direct dead center right in the middle where the steel support collums were, when it collapsed it collapsed within itself panacaking one floor onto another ripping itself away from the outer skeleton of the towers which is why you see parts of the outer skeleton of WTC1 standing for a breif second.
Aeon, sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
:roll:
aeon said:
The Jet Fuel started the Fire which fed off the office Furniture, Office Equipment, Papers, Carpet which kept it going reaching High Temperatures that caused the Steel supports to buckle as they couldn't support the above weight in the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2.
When the planes hit the fire protection was blown off the steel supports leaving them exposed to the fire. Steel melts and bends at high temperatures, how else do you think steel is formed?
The explosions were infact the impact of the upper towers giving way secs before they started to collapse.
The reason WTC 2 did collapse the way it did was because of the damage the plane caused where it hit, the fire weakend the outer steel supports on that side and when it fell it fell sideways onto itself.
The reason WTC 1 panacaked onto itself is because when the plane hit, it was a direct dead center right in the middle where the steel support collums were, when it collapsed it collapsed within itself panacaking one floor onto another ripping itself away from the outer skeleton of the towers which is why you see parts of the outer skeleton of WTC1 standing for a breif second.
Aeon, sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
:roll:
Wednesday's Child said:
So?? both tower were meant to survive 3 jet impact each.
Boeing 707:
Fuel Capacity: 23,000 Gallons
Wingspan: 146 ft.
Length: 153 ft.
Cruise Speed: 607 MPH (796 KM)
Weight: 336, 000 pounds.
Boeing 767:
Fuel Capacity: On 9/11 Official sources say the two flights had approx. 10,000 Gallons of fuel.
Wingspan: 156 ft.
Length: 159 ft.
Speed: Flight 11 was flying at 470 MPH(752 KM) and Flight 175 was flying at 590 MPH(944 KM)
Weight: 395, 000 pounds.
World Trade Center 7 could have had structural flaws when it was built which is why with the fire in the basement, the seismic shocks of WTC1 and WTC 2 coming down could have done it in.#juan said:
The report on WTC 7 will answer all these questions.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 did have a design flaw in the stairwells as the outer walls were drywall not concrete, if they were concrete the stairwells could have maybe survived the planes impact allowing those trapped above the impact zones to escape.
Truth is no building could be built strong enough to with stand a Jet filled with Jet Fuel barreling down at 400mph.
It sure didn't stop the planes from going inside the WTC Towers now did it? :roll:aeon said:
When they built the Towers to with stand a 707, they never built them to with stand a larger plane filled with Jet Fuel being driven directly into it at 400mph with the intention to bring the towers down because when the towers were built no one ever thought of that.
Keep grasping at straws scrapping the bottom of the barrel trying to prove your Moonbat conspiracy theories. It only makes you look like a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about. :wink:
Johnny Utah said:
Boeing 707:
Fuel Capacity: 23,000 Gallons
Wingspan: 146 ft.
Length: 153 ft.
Cruise Speed: 607 MPH (796 KM)
Weight: 336, 000 pounds.
Boeing 767:
Fuel Capacity: On 9/11 Official sources say the two flights had approx. 10,000 Gallons of fuel.
Wingspan: 156 ft.
Length: 159 ft.
Speed: Flight 11 was flying at 470 MPH(752 KM) and Flight 175 was flying at 590 MPH(944 KM)
Weight: 395, 000 pounds
And that just trash down the toilet what you just said.
Apparently there were flaws in the structures....
That is a given in most structures of that height - as much as anyone can determine when construction is taking place, until the towers are fully loaded with people and equipment, and the necessaries such as water and air - nobody can calculate how they will behave in an earthquake or a catastrophic hit such as the one on 9/11.
Any insurance man will tell you there are no real predictions on "earthquake safety" either. We humans just do the best we can.
The concrete is what fascinated me - it pulverized into powder from the immense heat while the girders turned to liquid - I think the expression "liquifaction" was used over and over concerning where much of the construction material went.
It is the same thing which happens to solid ground when an earthquake is happening beneath it. Turns into liquid motion and can sustain no weight.
I hope they learned some things from this in the way of foreseeable events - things are not over.....
(back into my black helicopter now)...
There was a bomb blast in the basement of the Twin Towers (one of them) in 1993 I believe - also set by the madmen. It did damage but not very much and the explosives were position for impact greater than they actually did. I think manmade explosives would not have had such a devastating effect as did the planes and their heavy load of combustibles. Flying bombs.
That is a given in most structures of that height - as much as anyone can determine when construction is taking place, until the towers are fully loaded with people and equipment, and the necessaries such as water and air - nobody can calculate how they will behave in an earthquake or a catastrophic hit such as the one on 9/11.
Any insurance man will tell you there are no real predictions on "earthquake safety" either. We humans just do the best we can.
The concrete is what fascinated me - it pulverized into powder from the immense heat while the girders turned to liquid - I think the expression "liquifaction" was used over and over concerning where much of the construction material went.
It is the same thing which happens to solid ground when an earthquake is happening beneath it. Turns into liquid motion and can sustain no weight.
I hope they learned some things from this in the way of foreseeable events - things are not over.....
(back into my black helicopter now)...
There was a bomb blast in the basement of the Twin Towers (one of them) in 1993 I believe - also set by the madmen. It did damage but not very much and the explosives were position for impact greater than they actually did. I think manmade explosives would not have had such a devastating effect as did the planes and their heavy load of combustibles. Flying bombs.
The 767 was larger and going faster and still wasn't stopped by the outer skeleton of the Towers from going inside.aeon said:
The damage to the steel beams, collums, the temparture of the fire feeding off material inside the Towers caused the exposed steel beams and collums to bend, melt and buckle giving way due to the weight above because the steel beams and collums couldn't support it anymore.
There was no bombs explosives inside the WTC Towers, only in your mind there was. You can post facts figures all you like it still doesn't support your Moonbat Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen Conspiracy Theories.
sell crazy someplace else, i'm all stocked up here. :roll:
JohnnyUtah
I think Charlie Sheen's political prowess has gone to his head - since his daddy played a president on teevee!
He and Baldwin must be burning up the e-mails.
I think Charlie Sheen's political prowess has gone to his head - since his daddy played a president on teevee!
He and Baldwin must be burning up the e-mails.
I doubt they will ever build Towers with the open space on each floor the WTC Towers had.Wednesday's Child said:
When they bombed the basement of the WTC in 1993 their intention was to knock one Tower into another and that didn't happen for if it did it would have been worse then 9/11 in the numbers of lives lost.
If you notice these celebs who are saying this are not A list stars because the A list stars know better to keep their opinions to themselves.Wednesday's Child said:
You should read Alec Baldwin's rants along with other celebs rants on the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
They are so out of touch with the real world. :lol:
JohnnyUtah
Agreed - artists begin to believe their own publicity and become more than human. Which is fine if they are better actors for it.
But politics? Hmmmmmm I think it is way too deep for their little worlds of narcissism and lotus lapping. If they want to help - let them get over there and entertain the troops - or visit the hospitals and spend a few bucks for the families who are empty of a loved one.
Celebrity status never seems to equate with intellect does it?
Huffington isn't certain where she belongs - just as long as she is getting the necessary attention. I think she did not survive PMS too well!
Agreed - artists begin to believe their own publicity and become more than human. Which is fine if they are better actors for it.
But politics? Hmmmmmm I think it is way too deep for their little worlds of narcissism and lotus lapping. If they want to help - let them get over there and entertain the troops - or visit the hospitals and spend a few bucks for the families who are empty of a loved one.
Celebrity status never seems to equate with intellect does it?
Huffington isn't certain where she belongs - just as long as she is getting the necessary attention. I think she did not survive PMS too well!
Go with the experts rather than conspiracy theorists.
I am amazed how much credence is given to arm chair nutters.
I am amazed how much credence is given to arm chair nutters.