BF2S Forums Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

link doesn't work - http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0706 … nnWTC.html

Interesting.  What they have found is that the kinetic energy of the fuel is what caused most of the structural damage.

Now I want a scientifically accurate animation of the towers crumbling.

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx

ROFL!

So no planes even hit the buildings - it was all faked? What about the hundreds, even thousands of eye-witnesses for a start?

IG-Calibre wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx

ROFL!

So no planes even hit the buildings - it was all faked? What about the hundreds, even thousands of eye-witnesses for a start?

If you actually watch it, it's quite interesting who all the "eyewitnesses" were

I have watched it - it's rubbish, not interesting in the slightest, it is completely devoid of any serious content. They haven't accounted for all the hundreds and thousands of witnesses who saw it happen, forget video documentation, it was the heart of New York - after the first plane hit, a lot of eyes were trained on the towers.

Bertster7 wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx

ROFL!

So no planes even hit the buildings - it was all faked? What about the hundreds, even thousands of eye-witnesses for a start?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266 … part4.aspx

That vid talks about the witnesses. It's 1am... I have work tomorrow. Wtf am I doing up?

sometimes, you see, what others want you to see. what about copperfield´s tricks? do you really think, he can fly and let elephants disappear, only because you "see" it?

Interesting video. Would have been a cool shot from inside the plane as well.

Flecco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx

ROFL!

So no planes even hit the buildings - it was all faked? What about the hundreds, even thousands of eye-witnesses for a start?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266 … part4.aspx

That vid talks about the witnesses. It's 1am... I have work tomorrow. Wtf am I doing up?

So what?

That's just a few witnesses who were on TV, who all say that a plane hit the building - there are inconsistencies, sure, but not significant ones. Things like describing the noise of the plane as a sonic boom, that's just someone being silly - those who thought they saw a missile, I suppose it could be easy to confuse them.

What about the people I know who were in New York and saw the planes themselves?

The planes were there, trying to suggest that no planes hit the WTC is simply laughable.

Whoa, slow up there Bertster... Just giving a link. Previous posts of mine on this subject mention that I in no way endorse odd theories that have popped up regarding this subject.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

ROFL!

So no planes even hit the buildings - it was all faked? What about the hundreds, even thousands of eye-witnesses for a start?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266 … part4.aspx

That vid talks about the witnesses. It's 1am... I have work tomorrow. Wtf am I doing up?

So what?

That's just a few witnesses who were on TV, who all say that a plane hit the building - there are inconsistencies, sure, but not significant ones. Things like describing the noise of the plane as a sonic boom, that's just someone being silly - those who thought they saw a missile, I suppose it could be easy to confuse them.

What about the people I know who were in New York and saw the planes themselves?

The planes were there, trying to suggest that no planes hit the WTC is simply laughable.

I think the thought of the thinkers who think the thoughts of conspiracy, think the planes aren't what you thought as planes, rather government "missiles" made to resemble planes. The thinkers thinking aren't saying nothing hit it, they just don't think it was an airliner like so many think they thought.

I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Flecco wrote:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266 … part4.aspx

That vid talks about the witnesses. It's 1am... I have work tomorrow. Wtf am I doing up?

So what?

That's just a few witnesses who were on TV, who all say that a plane hit the building - there are inconsistencies, sure, but not significant ones. Things like describing the noise of the plane as a sonic boom, that's just someone being silly - those who thought they saw a missile, I suppose it could be easy to confuse them.

What about the people I know who were in New York and saw the planes themselves?

The planes were there, trying to suggest that no planes hit the WTC is simply laughable.

I think the thought of the thinkers who think the thoughts of conspiracy, think the planes aren't what you thought as planes, rather government "missiles" made to resemble planes. The thinkers thinking aren't saying nothing hit it, they just don't think it was an airliner like so many think they thought.

I know what they're saying, I watched their videos. It's laughable. There is no way anything other than a plane (two planes even) hit the WTC.

Even if that were the case, which it isn't, what happened to the planes? Were they shot down and then had the wreckage concealed - bollocks they were. They hit the WTC.



On an unrelated tangent:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.

I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.

Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?

Bertster7 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

I could care less. It happened. Its over. We're playing in the sand now.

I never understood the saying "I could care less", which I see used a lot by Americans, I'm very familiar with the phrase "I couldn't care less" - which makes perfect sense to me. "I could care less" suggests (definitively states, actually) that you do care about it, but that seems completely contradictory to the usage of it.

Why is this phrase used in such a bizarre and flummoxing manner?

It reminds me of how a lot of people say 'same difference' over here. It really does annoy me because they could just say same thing instead.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lavadisk wrote:

Conspiracy theorists need to get a grip. Anyone who says that the September eleventh attacks were set up by the government is just as crazy as the people who deny that the holocaust ever went on.

I agree to an extent.

My only 2 questions about 9-11;

What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.

Was the flight over Penn. shot down like Rummy slipped up and said?

Im not doubting a terrorist attack happened. But I feel we're not getting the whole story either.

Yeh. I always am open for new content. But I'm going to make sure that I wont go out of my way to convince my self 'facts' that aren't even backed up.