Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
SEPTEMBER 11 – The History of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 61, 62, 63, 64  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
balding13Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Total posts: 197
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-09-2008 13:03    Post subject: my 5 magic beans Reply with quote

Well, if you buy them and eat them instead of meat you will save the planet. Too topical?
Back to top
View user's profile 
escargot1Offline
Joined: 24 Aug 2001
Total posts: 18650
Location: Farkham Hall
Age: 4
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 07-09-2008 16:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

Already vegetarian. Spiny
Back to top
View user's profile 
jimv1Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Total posts: 3127
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-09-2008 18:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be ludicrous to suggest anyone should attempt to grow a giant beanstalk in this day and age.
Unless you're planning to insure it against having planes deliberately fly into it and then it could prove pretty lucrative.
Back to top
View user's profile 
balding13Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Total posts: 197
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-09-2008 19:35    Post subject: You realise idle jack will be flying the planes.... Reply with quote

.......but some will insist it was really the giant?
Back to top
View user's profile 
DougalLongfootOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Total posts: 464
Location: New England, NSW, Australia
Age: 40
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 08-09-2008 04:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

For Australian FTMB readers:

4 Corners tonight (Monday 8th September 2008)

Quote:
9/11: The Third Tower

Reporter: BBC

Broadcast: 08/09/2008

Seven years on, the destruction of New York's Twin Towers, played and replayed thousands of times over, is seared into collective memory.

A third skyscraper also fell that day. Unlike the Twin Towers, the 47-storey building known as Tower Seven was not hit by a fuel-laden plane, yet it collapsed neatly in 6.5 seconds.

The official explanation is that it was destroyed by fire. But in the seven years it has taken to present the final investigation report, suspicion has filled the information vacuum. Tower Seven has fed an industry of conspiracy theories that grew up around 9/11. Claims are pressed – by a phenomenally popular movie on the Internet and by supposedly credible "experts" – that someone in or close to the US Government brought the building down by controlled demolition.

How, among the many questions they ask, could Tower Seven be the first and only steel-framed skyscraper in the world to collapse due to fire? Why did the New York fire department not fight the fires? Why did it fall so symmetrically at freefall speed? Why did TV stations report that Tower Seven had collapsed before it had done so, when it was still clearly visibly behind reporters?

This BBC documentary explores some of these questions. In doing so it demonstrates how, when good information is scarce, or late, many people will believe the worst. "9/11: The Third Tower" – on Four Corners 8.30 pm Monday 8 September and 11.35 pm Tuesday 9 September (also 8am Tuesday on ABC2).


http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2355522.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
rynner
Location: Still above sea level
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-09-2008 08:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse
By Steve Connor
Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.

The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.

"Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right 'medicine' to make steel stronger at high temperatures... and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html

Now why didn't I think of that...? Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zilch5Offline
Vogon Poet
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Total posts: 1580
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-09-2008 11:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

Magnetic Forces? Well, let's see... Only three steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire: WTC Tower 1, WTC Tower 2 and Building 7.

And no other fire in a similarly constructed building has ever exceeded 500C and caused a collapse?

Seems a bit hard to swallow. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-09-2008 11:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And no other fire in a similarly constructed building has ever exceeded 500C and caused a collapse?

Seems a bit hard to swallow.


Other buildings weren't hit by planes, though, and the construction of the towers was different to other skyscrapers.
Back to top
View user's profile 
jimv1Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Total posts: 3127
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-09-2008 18:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the steel in building 7 underwent a molecular change due to magnetism?

Could this same magnetic anomaly have also been responsible for the Tom & Jerry plane into the Pentagon effect?

It's really a shame all of this fundamentally-changed steel was carted away and disposed of so quickly. There could have been more conclusive tests.
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-09-2008 20:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Metal get hot, metal get bendy.

Not a difficult concept.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 20719
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 11-09-2008 10:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Study: 70,000 may suffer post-9/11 stress disorder

New data from a public health registry that tracks the health effects of 9/11 suggest that as many as 70,000 people may have developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the terrorist attacks.

The estimate, released Wednesday by New York City's Department of Health, is based on an analysis of the health of 71,437 people who enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Registry. They agreed to be tracked for up to 20 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the study was based on answers they volunteered about their health two and three years after the attack.

Of the estimated 400,000 people believed to have been heavily exposed to pollution from the disaster, data suggests that 35,000 to 70,000 people developed PTSD and 3,800 to 12,600 may have developed asthma, city health officials said.

They include rescue and recovery workers, lower Manhattan residents, area workers, commuters and passers-by.

Overall, half of the respondents said they had been in the dust cloud from the collapsing towers; 70 percent witnessed a traumatic sight, such as a plane hitting the tower or falling bodies; and 13 percent sustained an injury that day.

"The consensus among physicians is that when it comes to physical health, the vast majority of people felt symptoms in the first year," said Lorna Thorpe, the deputy commissioner for epidemiology at the New York City Health Department. "A small proportion of people, however, developed symptoms years later. And in some cases, it's hard to tell whether they're World Trade Center-related or a result of allergies or existing conditions."

The post-traumatic stress disorder rate was highest among injured, low-income and Hispanic study volunteers. In general, minorities and low-income respondents experienced higher rates of mental and physical problems, as did women.

The study was conducted by the city health department and the federal Centers for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It was released in the Journal of Urban Health.

The city offers free physical and mental health care to eligible people affected by the attacks.

----

On The Web:

World Trade Center Health Registry: http://www.nyc.gov/9-11healthinfo
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zilch5Offline
Vogon Poet
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Total posts: 1580
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-09-2008 11:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:


Other buildings weren't hit by planes, though, and the construction of the towers was different to other skyscrapers.


Doesn't matter what caused the fire - it's the temperature that matters! The impact of the planes didn't cause them to collapse as they stood for hours after the attacks.

Oh, and Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, by the way...and from what I understand its construction was utterly conventional.
Back to top
View user's profile 
hokum6Offline
I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Total posts: 842
Location: Location Location
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-09-2008 21:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does matter what caused the fire when it was a big aluminium tube filled with jet fuel that ripped the fireproofing material off the building and weakened its structure.

And yes, building 7 was conventional and it wasn't hit by a plane, but it was also missing a big chunk out of one side and was on fire. There was no fire fighting going on in it because the fire brigade had decided it was too dangerous.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-09-2008 22:10    Post subject: Reply with quote

You forgot the bit about their, 'unique construction.'

That's the official theory clincher.

All three buildings were kept up by wodges of chewing gum and sprinkles of magic pixie dust.

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 920
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-09-2008 08:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

hokum6 wrote:
It does matter what caused the fire when it was a big aluminium tube filled with jet fuel that ripped the fireproofing material off the building and weakened its structure.

And yes, building 7 was conventional and it wasn't hit by a plane, but it was also missing a big chunk out of one side and was on fire. There was no fire fighting going on in it because the fire brigade had decided it was too dangerous.


It was missing a big chunk out of one side and was on fire. Or was it ? The info relating to the missing chunk comes from Tiernach CASSIDY, who spoke too of arsons consuming the whole facade, like Harry Meyers. But they claimed that only later. This very day, no firefighters spoke of such fires. On the contrary, they told that there were only minor arsons. As confirmed by radio communications. In any good investigation, the first declarations take precedence. They're corroborated by the fact that no photos or videos confirm the existence of such fires. They show no big smokes coming from the south side of the building, as thare should have been, if huge arsons existed. The likely conclusion is that Cassidy and Meyers made up those fires. And it was probably the same of the big missing chunk, mentionned by noone this day.

An other info, covered in an usually low fashion by the media (could be posted in Terror Alerts, but not off-topic on this thread in my mind) :
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4429
Seems the liquid bomb plot was bogus...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 61, 62, 63, 64  Next
Page 62 of 64

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group