| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
balding13 Great Old One Joined: 22 Sep 2006 Total posts: 190 Gender: Male |
 Posted: 07-09-2008 14:03 Post subject: my 5 magic beans |
 |
|
|
| Well, if you buy them and eat them instead of meat you will save the planet. Too topical? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| escargot1 Joined: 24 Aug 2001 Total posts: 17711 Location: Farkham Hall Age: 3 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 07-09-2008 17:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Already vegetarian.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2645 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 07-09-2008 19:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| balding13 Great Old One Joined: 22 Sep 2006 Total posts: 190 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 07-09-2008 20:35 Post subject: You realise idle jack will be flying the planes.... |
|
|
|
| .......but some will insist it was really the giant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DougalLongfoot Great Old One Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Total posts: 450 Location: New England, NSW, Australia Age: 39 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 08-09-2008 05:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| rynner Location: Still above sea level Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-09-2008 09:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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...?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Zilch5 Vogon Poet
Great Old One Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Total posts: 1463 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-09-2008 12:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hokum6 I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Total posts: 842 Location: Location Location Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2008 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2645 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-09-2008 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| hokum6 I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Total posts: 842 Location: Location Location Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 10-09-2008 21:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Metal get hot, metal get bendy.
Not a difficult concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17657 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-09-2008 11:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| Zilch5 Vogon Poet
Great Old One Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Total posts: 1463 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Gender: Male |
| Posted: 12-09-2008 12:43 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| hokum6 I am one can short of a six-pack!
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Total posts: 842 Location: Location Location Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 12-09-2008 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 12-09-2008 23:10 Post subject: |
|
|
|
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.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Analis Great Old One Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Total posts: 838 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 13-09-2008 09:01 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
