Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Game Time on April 04, 2013, 01:44:48 PM
-
This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?
Only element missing is jet fuel.
-
its missing George Bush and Dick Channy
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003430011/1659662500_9_11_jet_fuel_xlarge.jpeg)
-
CIA took down the twin towers
-
What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?
-
Mass243 has a meltdown, that's all folks
-
This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?
Only element missing is jet fuel.
This answer is easy - no demolition.
-
What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?
Then it would have collapsed outright or partially after impact.
In fact, the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 would have been partial if it was natural failure. Not free fall demolition style as what happened.
-
Controlled Demolition
-
"Where did the Towers go?"
-
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
-
(http://genealogyreligion.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/303188-good_making_fun_conspiracy_theorists.jpg)
-
(https://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/aj.jpg)
-
No worries, the FBI found one of the Terrorist passports on the streets of new york right before the towers fell
The Magical Passport found its way out of the terrorists pocket, out of the plane before it exploded in the plane and towers
(http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpg)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/rh50105339.jpg)
-
Nails is a GREAT poster
-
I'm not an engineer, but have a general understanding of how this went down. These towers were built like a cage, with the reinforcement of the building being the outside skeleton. It does have support beams inside, but it was mostly held together by the exterior. Plane crashed into that. Then, you have jet fuel burning so hot, it weakens the integrity of the steel. Once it starts weakening, it's like a domino effect. Think about bending a metal spoon back and forth at the neck, and eventually it breaks. Not because you're so strong, but because steel is significantly weaker when heated. Now I know most getbiggers won't understand this analogy, as we dine with only sterling silver. ;D
-
10 years later and noone brought this to court succesfuly?
are the courts in on it too?
look, the cia cant be trusted, and govt cant be trusted each one loves themselves the most, but wheres court proof evidence?
the whole government was in on it
The only ones not in on it was the people :D
-
I'm a Structural Engineer.
Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure.
8)
-
I'm a Structural Engineer.
Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure.
8)
I don't know where you got your info, as the 747 wasn't even invented when these things were built, let alone when they were conceived. Being a structural engineer, you'd know these things were probably drawn up no less than two years before the first excavator was brought on site. I am not a structural engineer, but have been around enough bridge and building projects to have talked to people in the know, and all of them say the same thing, there was no "controlled demolition". And as far as structural engineers go, I've seen some pretty stupid ones, who on jobs I had to tell them the correct way to do something. You're a structural engineer, shit, you could just be a dude who fixes foundation cracks on residential houses and is spouting off as an expert. Not attacking you, as I'm sure it comes off that way, but don't believe the conspiracy theory hype.
-
I don't know where you got your info, as the 747 wasn't even invented when these things were built, let alone when they were conceived. Being a structural engineer, you'd know these things were probably drawn up no less than two years before the first excavator was brought on site. I am not a structural engineer, but have been around enough bridge and building projects to have talked to people in the know, and all of them say the same thing, there was no "controlled demolition". And as far as structural engineers go, I've seen some pretty stupid ones, who on jobs I had to tell them the correct way to do something. You're a structural engineer, shit, you could just be a dude who fixes foundation cracks on residential houses and is spouting off as an expert. Not attacking you, as I'm sure it comes off that way, but don't believe the conspiracy theory hype.
He talked about the 747 after the 9/11 attack. He's on record about the entire thing. Lot's of QA/QC for a buildings of that magnitude.
A licensed structural engineer can do anything, you are right about that. BUT, they are legally liable for when it FAILS. You can go to jail if someone dies due to a design flaw.
I don't care if it was a demo or not, just giving my experience.
8)
-
I'm not an engineer, but have a general understanding of how this went down. These towers were built like a cage, with the reinforcement of the building being the outside skeleton. It does have support beams inside, but it was mostly held together by the exterior. Plane crashed into that. Then, you have jet fuel burning so hot, it weakens the integrity of the steel. Once it starts weakening, it's like a domino effect. Think about bending a metal spoon back and forth at the neck, and eventually it breaks. Not because you're so strong, but because steel is significantly weaker when heated. Now I know most getbiggers won't understand this analogy, as we dine with only sterling silver. ;D
Ok the exterior has a hole on one side going almost from corner to corner and some of the floors missing and some core columns damaged. But. Think how the massive torque gets distributed. The building distributes it on every side that is intact going up the building and down the building.
There probably was a minimal amount of jet fuel present at the impact floors since the building was not designed to hold large amounts of liquid inside. What burned was furniture and maybe some parts of the building itself. Every floor on average weighed about 5000 tons or 11 million pounds. There has never been any talk about concentrated heating effect on a specific support structures so we are lead to believe the building heated up fairly evenly on the crash floors and above. Heat energy and output estimations would be fairly easy to calculate but I don't bother. Simple logic dictates that if the building came down naturally it was on the absolute brink of failure right after the plane crash. What a coincidence right.
-
Here's a cluster of very basic questions those would subscribe to a CT theory need to answer before they can be taken seriously. The plausibility of the answers proffered will set how seriously we can take such persons:
What do you know about structural engineering that structural engineers don't? What do you know about how the federal government functions and how this functionality could make a 9/11 conspiracy viable that political scientists, historians, and those who work for the federal government don't? How did you come to acquire this knowledge?
How has every single conspirator remained silent on the matter, despite the hundreds that would have been necessarily and the inability of the Bush Administration to keep a lid on literally everything occurring under its auspices? Why did Al Qaeda act exactly as if it had carried out the attacks -- its operatives confessing to the operation, its leader declaring it a success, its insistence on carrying out similar such attacks, and its being virtually exterminated in response -- if they in fact did not? How did you come to acquire this knowledge?
Thanks in advance
-
This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?
Only element missing is jet fuel.
Not all buildings are built the same. Unless we know how the Russion building was constructed, what it was constructed out of, the quality of engineering/materials, heat of the blaze and on and on you can't quite do a straight up comparison.
It's a lot more complex than saying "both buildings on fire and one didn't collapse. WTF?"
-
I'm a Structural Engineer.
Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure.
Overload just crushed the correct ^
-
From what I've read the WTC had a pretty solid core structure that "should" have survived the collapse so who knows.
-
You have to believe that when the floors came down the floor supports (and the floors) were so strong they pulled the whole core down also (every column did not even directly support a floor). So you have to believe the building was very strong but also very weak at the same time.
I have never really seen or paid attention to what kind of supports the floors had but the material thickness of a core column was about an inch halfway up the building.
Sorry I was wrong. This may have been the typical smaller core column at halfway point:
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/core_column.gif)
-
No worries, the FBI found one of the Terrorist passports on the streets of new york right before the towers fell
The Magical Passport found its way out of the terrorists pocket, out of the plane before it exploded in the plane and towers
(http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpg)
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/rh50105339.jpg)
Wasn't this guy on a terrorist watch list? Why the FUCK would he use his real passport.....BULLSHIT
-
I have a question for those
dipshits skeptics that think the CIA or the .gov were the ones that made the towers collapse. Are you contending that there were no Islamic hijackers?
Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"? Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough? I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.
I can understand people that are curious about the buildings collapsing the way they did. It was odd. What I don't get is those people that deny the mountain of evidence showing the hijacked planes hit the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Some people belive that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It's pretty obvious what happened on 9/11.
Are the .gov, the airlines, the victims, the victims families and the terrorists all in this together? All those people are keeping their mouths shut about the "truth"? Doubtfull.
-
I'm a Structural Engineer.
Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure.
Overload just crushed the correct ^
Interesting.
-
Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"? Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough? I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.
Always follow the money trail. Silverstein made quite a profit after just buying the complex through insurance payouts:
Before:
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
After:
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html)
If the complex was only partially destroyed they would have had to restore it. But with everything collapsing it was very convenient for Mr. Silverstein and his fake tribe.
-
It's obvious that the twin towers didn't come down due to a comparatively small fire or the planes hitting them, not to mention Building 7 which had no plane hit it. The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil. Some people's mind will literally be blown if they start to accept that things maybe aren't quite right, there whole world-view will be shattered into a thousand tiny pieces. How anyone could buy the official story and not even think that it is suspicious for 3 large buildings all to collapse in an identical way due to fire when historically, there isn't a single precedent.
-
It would be hard to watch this professional presentation, supported by highly qualified professionals and not come away at the very least sceptical and suspicious. I don't imagine those who buy the official line would ever watch such a documentary. It is produced by "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth)" which is an American non-profit organization of architects, engineers, and demolition experts who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report. It supports the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition.
-
This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?
Only element missing is jet fuel.
Are you really so dumb? Only elements missing are the plane hitting to the building, 40 tons of kerosene etc. and still you are missing the point completely. This house wasn't on fire as a house. Instead of that, only the plastic insulation of the facade of the building was on fire. So it is just stupid to compare this to WTC towers.
Second point you are missing is this: The idiots with the foil hats has claim that WTC towers were demolished by the explosives. While all explosives in this world are made of chemical compounds, and all chemicals react to heat, how you can make completely heat resistant explosives out of them?
In the documents from the WTC we see that collapse starts exactly from the area hit by the plane. That simply means that explosives have to be in that area. How the hell, while first of all you has to know where plane hits, what damages it does, how to hide tons of explosives from flames and heat for an hour.
In real world there isn't any explosives which doesn't react to heat, so it is completely impossible scenario. You don't believe it? Answer these simple questions: Where is all signs of the explosions? Where is the shock wave? Where is the burst of light? Where is the sound made by tons of explosives going off? Why even the windows of the building doesn't break, when collapse begins? There was 56 massive core colums made of steel, and cutting those with explosives doesn't even break windows? Even idiots like you shoud understand that it is impossible.
-
Are you really so dumb? Only elements missing are the plane hitting to the building, 40 tons of kerosene etc. and still you are missing the point completely. This house wasn't on fire as a house. Instead of that, only the plastic insulation of the facade of the building was on fire. So it is just stupid to compare this to WTC towers.
Second point you are missing is this: The idiots with the foil hats has claim that WTC towers were demolished by the explosives. While all explosives in this world are made of chemical compounds, and all chemicals react to heat, how you can make completely heat resistant explosives out of them?
In the documents from the WTC we see that collapse starts exactly from the area hit by the plane. That simply means that explosives have to be in that area. How the hell, while first of all you has to know where plane hits, what damages it does, how to hide tons of explosives from flames and heat for an hour.
In real world there isn't any explosives which doesn't react to heat, so it is completely impossible scenario. You don't believe it? Answer these simple questions: Where is all signs of the explosions? Where is the shock wave? Where is the burst of light? Where is the sound made by tons of explosives going off? Why even the windows of the building doesn't break, when collapse begins? There was 56 massive core colums made of steel, and cutting those with explosives doesn't even break windows? Even idiots like you shoud understand that it is impossible.
What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.
-
What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.
And not a word mentioned about it in the 9/11 commission report
-
These are some of the things that make me sceptical about it all, not a complete list, but just a few of the things of the top of my head.
- The building fell through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed
- Pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite.
- Researchers found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Centre
- Many of the eyewitness accounts that recounted many explosions were ignored by the official investigation.
- Academic professionals like Steven E. Jones who support 9/11 conspiracy theories have been fired from their jobs. Effectively silencing academics who disagree with the official line.
- And no modern high rise has ever collapsed from fire, before or since 9/11
-
What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?
Oh no no no. A 200 ton jet, going 500 mph wouldn't cause any damage. That's just silly. Just last Tuesday a 200 ton jet going 500 miles per hour ran into me and it just knocked me over. I got back up.
-
I have a question for those dipshits skeptics that think the CIA or the .gov were the ones that made the towers collapse. Are you contending that there were no Islamic hijackers?
Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"? Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough? I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.
I can understand people that are curious about the buildings collapsing the way they did. It was odd. What I don't get is those people that deny the mountain of evidence showing the hijacked planes hit the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Some people belive that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It's pretty obvious what happened on 9/11.
Are the .gov, the airlines, the victims, the victims families and the terrorists all in this together? All those people are keeping their mouths shut about the "truth"? Doubtfull.
holy shit I have been saying that for years!
Bin laden didn't even think about the towers coming down he only wanted to hit them.
-
Oh no no no. A 200 ton jet, going 500 mph wouldn't cause any damage. That's just silly. Just last Tuesday a 200 ton jet going 500 miles per hour ran into me and it just knocked me over. I got back up.
It's not the first time a building has been hit by a plane. The Empire State Building has been hit by a plane before. And the WTC had massive interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.
-
The fire was so intense that it burned steel, yet the entire time the building stood, every floor above the flame had people hanging by the window, the fire melted steel not not flesh or bones
Like this woman chillin in building where the plane hit
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/woman_wtc.jpg)
-
just watch Loose change 9/11
-
It's not the first time a building has been hit by a plane. The Empire State Building has been hit by a plane before. And the WTC had massive interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.
That was a 15 ton, B-25 flying around 150 mph, carrying almost no fuel. It was looking for it's landing strip in New Jersey and was at the end of a long flight. I don't think that is remotely close to a 200 ton jetliner, filled to the top with fuel and going 500 mph.
Yes, I looked up those silly weights and numbers. ;)
-
That was a 15 ton, B-25 flying around 150 mph, carrying almost no fuel. It was looking for it's landing strip in New Jersey and was at the end of a long flight. I don't think that is remotely close to a 200 ton jetliner, filled to the top with fuel and going 500 mph.
Yes, I looked up those silly weights and numbers. ;)
it warms me inside that Tommy WB isn't a delusionite.
-
Smart enough to bring down the towers, but not smart enough to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hmmmmmm
-
The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil.
Check Mate
-
What are you talking about, plane hitting buildings is irrelevant, WTC7 collapsed identically to the twin towers and never experienced a plane hitting it.
And that is complete bullshit. WTC 7 came down because WTC 1 collapsed on it and make serious damages in it's structure, and setting it on fire. It burn hours before collapsing, and when it finally goes down, foil hat idiots has to lie their ass of to make it look unusual. Was there something odd about the collapse? Use your own eyes:
Original video
Foil hat idiot version with a loads of bullshit. In their version collapsing starts from the still picture, which hasn't even a clue about the penthouse which was collapsing with the front side of the building. In their video you see only the back and the side walls going down, and you don't even wonder why you can see sky behind the upper floor windows. You see it because the roof has been collapsed already.
-
And that is complete bullshit. WTC 7 came down because WTC 1 collapsed on it and make serious damages in it's structure, and setting it on fire. It burn hours before collapsing, and when it finally goes down, foil hat idiots has to lie their ass of to make it look unusual. Was there something odd about the collapse? Use your own eyes:
Original video
Foil hat idiot version with a loads of bullshit. In their version collapsing starts from the still picture, which hasn't even a clue about the penthouse which was collapsing with the front side of the building. In their video you see only the back and the side walls going down, and you don't even wonder why you can see sky behind the upper floor windows. You see it because the roof has been collapsed already.
That original video clearly shows parts of the building collapsing on the other side well before the rear facade falls. Nice find.
-
The wtc 7 collapse is just hilarious to watch. The idea of a burning building collapsing like that hahaha.
-
These are some of the things that make me sceptical about it all, not a complete list, but just a few of the things of the top of my head.
- The building fell through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed
- Pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite.
- Researchers found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Centre
- Many of the eyewitness accounts that recounted many explosions were ignored by the official investigation.
- Academic professionals like Steven E. Jones who support 9/11 conspiracy theories have been fired from their jobs. Effectively silencing academics who disagree with the official line.
- And no modern high rise has ever collapsed from fire, before or since 9/11
And where is the evidence for any of those claims? There is no such thing. Building collapsed in the direction of the largest force at the moment, gravity, because there isn't any force which could change that direction. No pools of molten iron, no nano thermite, but signs of iron and aluminium oxide which means only corrosion. Many eye witnesses has seen aliens and ufos, they beleve gods and leprechauns, but how about this: THERE WASN'T ANY SIGNS OF ANY KIND OF EXPLOSION AT THE RUINS.. Not even one column or beam which has been cut by the explosion. In whole 9/11 episode there isn't any sign of any explosion, which means there isn't any shockwaves, not sounds of explosion, nothing which would even look like an explosion. Please point out even one burst of pressure, which has speed at least of mach1? There isnt' such thing, but in the real life even this ridiculous nano-thermite shit detonates with the speed of more than 1000 meters per second. How that would look like in the enviroment like that, with all that smoke and dust? Furthermore, thermite and nano thermite is powder, which becomes the super hot liquid when it is ignited. It ignites by heat, so how it works in the building which is on fire? How you can cut massive columns by the liquid, which burns it way only to the direction of gravity? Where is all the smoke and light from that over 3000°C temperature of the thermite? It would glow brighter than sun. Don't forget that there was need for hundred of tons of that shit..
-
It's obvious that the twin towers didn't come down due to a comparatively small fire or the planes hitting them, not to mention Building 7 which had no plane hit it. The simple fact is, some people don't like to imagine that maybe their Government isn't quite what they think it is, that they might be up too no good, they may even in fact be borderline evil. Some people's mind will literally be blown if they start to accept that things maybe aren't quite right, there whole world-view will be shattered into a thousand tiny pieces. How anyone could buy the official story and not even think that it is suspicious for 3 large buildings all to collapse in an identical way due to fire when historically, there isn't a single precedent.
Small fires? There was 4000 square meters in each floor, and on each square meters there was 420 megajoules of fire load. There were 7 floors totally on fire, so do your math. 7 x 4000 x 420 000 000 joules = what. Small fire? You crazy bastard haven't seen anything as big as that in your life..
All your claims are based on lies of the foil hat idiots, and there isn't any evidence to prove any of them. If there would be something, you surely would point it out, would you?
-
.
-
All your claims are based on lies of the foil hat idiots, and there isn't any evidence to prove any of them. If there would be something, you surely would point it out, would you?
I have been down that route before, investigated 9/11 extensively and argued it here on Getbig, I am happy with my conclusions. Their is plenty of evidence out their for what I claimed and many documentaries and documents outlining this, I have provided a link for one of the better doco's, it is up to you to watch it or not. I am not going to argue my case when their is a video compiled by professionals and highly qualified academics already outlining everything I claimed.
[ Invalid YouTube link ].
Feel free to watch it and then come back to me with your analysis discrediting those individuals. The emotion of the people who believe the official story is quite telling, it is emotion fuelled by those in desperate need to prevent a pancake collapse of their current worldview. I don't care either way, the official story is suspicious and if it is a conspiracy, there were some clever bastards behind it.
-
I have been down that route before, investigated 9/11 extensively and argued it here on Getbig, I am happy with my conclusions. Their is plenty of evidence out their for what I claimed and many documentaries and documents outlining this, I have provided a link for one of the better doco's, it is up to you to watch it or not. I am not going to argue my case when their is a video compiled by professionals and highly qualified academics already outlining everything I claimed.
[ Invalid YouTube link ].
Feel free to watch it and then come back to me with your analysis discrediting those individuals. The emotion of the people who believe the original story is quite telling, it is emotion fuelled by those in desperate need to prevent a pancake collapse of their current worldview. I don't care either way, the official story is suspicious and if it is a conspiracy, there were some clever bastards behind it.
Why do you think that video full of claims without any real evidence, would have anything to do with truth? For example, they show red hot liquid pouring out from the building, but they don't tell you that temperatures at the fire isn't enough to melt steel. If that liquid would be from thermite, it would have three times higher temperature, so it would be sparkling white hot. Regarding it's colour it has temperature of 900-1200°C in it, so it can't be molten steel, because iron or steel doesn't melt in those temperatures.
-
Why do you think that video full of claims without any real evidence, would have anything to do with truth? For example, they show red hot liquid pouring out from the building, but they don't tell you that temperatures at the fire isn't enough to melt steel. If that liquid would be from thermite, it would have three times higher temperature, so it would be sparkling white hot. Regarding it's colour it has temperature of 900-1200°C in it, so it can't be molten steel, because iron or steel doesn't melt in those temperatures.
Aluminium starts to melt around there though.
-
So....multiple people directed by the government somehow orchestrated 9/11....the same government that can't even balance the Post Office budget and spends tens of thousands on African ball-washing programs. And for what purpose? To draw the US into a war with Iraq and get their oil. Nevermind the fact that the majority of Iraq's oil exports are going outside the US anyway. Oh, and to pass the Patriot Act. The Truthers have been discredited long ago.
-
The World Trade Center twin towers were of a different design, unlike other tall building in the New York such as...
The Empire State Building:
The Empire State Building's steel structure is made up of an array of cubes, like a three dimensional checkerboard. Each cube shares the load with an adjoining cube (like a large crystal). This results in the load bearing strength being distributed throughout the structure. This makes the building much more resistant to localized trauma. Also the beams are protected by fire brick.
The World Trade Center Twin Towers:
The developers wanted the interior spaces on each floor to be uninterrupted and clear of walls or vertical beams. (The "Open Plan"...) This was achieved by moving the load bearing members...some to the central core, but mostly to the exterior skin...creating what is called a "Framed Tube"
This arrangement is far more susceptible to local trauma inflicting a greater percentage of damage to structural integrity than in the style of structure that is the Empire State Building.
(Think of a beverage can that has a dimple in it's side opposed to one that is perfectly smooth.)
Also the beams are protected with spray on insulation rather than fire brick.
-
Aluminium starts to melt around there though.
True. And there is lot's of it in the building. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence of molten aluminiun in the ruins, so what that molten metal would be? Steel with no evidence at all, or aluminium with plenty of evidence. Do your math..
-
I have been down that route before, investigated 9/11 extensively and argued it here on Getbig, I am happy with my conclusions. Their is plenty of evidence out their for what I claimed and many documentaries and documents outlining this, I have provided a link for one of the better doco's, it is up to you to watch it or not. I am not going to argue my case when their is a video compiled by professionals and highly qualified academics already outlining everything I claimed.
You have investigated 9/11 extensively by that foil hat crap and propaganda? How smart is that. I have done same, by facts, by science, by physics. What I have found out is that there isn't any evidence at all about any explosions, which means that there isn't anything which by the laws of physics simple has to be evident. Therefore there can't be any explosions, and therefore it can't be controlled demolition. If you and the choir of the foil hat idiots can prove otherwise, just do it.
-
You have investigated 9/11 extensively by that foil hat crap and propaganda? How smart is that. I have done same, by facts, by science, by physics. What I have found out is that there isn't any evidence at all about any explosions, which means that there isn't anything which by the laws of physics simple has to be evident. Therefore there can't be any explosions, and therefore it can't be controlled demolition. If you and the choir of the foil hat idiots can prove otherwise, just do it.
You don't want proof, you reject any that's served up, if a witness tells his account of explosions, you dismiss them as Nutters, if academics discover thermite residue, you just simply say it's bullshit, if it's suggested that the huge structure underneath the collapse should offer resistance in the instance of collapse and eliminate any possibility of pancake collapse you claim their is some miraculous force from above overcoming the resistance of the supporting structure. None of what you have said makes any sense at all. You haven't offered a shred of proof for your case and yet you go around calling every one who disagrees dickhead's and tin foil hat wearers. Your raw emotion exposes someone who is afraid of the possibility that maybe he is wrong and his world-view needs to be questioned.
Like many others, including highly qualified academics have expressed scepticism with the official version of events, that doesn't make them whackjobs, if anything it makes them critical thinkers. I would argue only a whackjob would look at such an event and the resulting anomalies and just accept the official line that fire caused three buildings to collapse into their own footprint, when their has never been a precedent anywhere in the world before or since.
Like I said, I don't care either way, the official story is suspect and the one who comes across as a Nutter is you, why do you even care that others find the official story suspicious?
-
I'd like to know how a building that was engineered to have the exterior bear the structural load was taken down by invisible explosions on the inside that nobody on the planet saw.
-
I'd like to know how a building that was engineered to have the exterior bear the structural load was taken down by invisible explosions on the inside that nobody on the planet saw.
You are just trolling now, there is plenty of video evidence of what could be considered explosions similar to that found in controlled demolition and their are countless witnesses who claim to have seen and heard what seemed to be explosions.
-
There are enough foil hats in this thread to wrap my sandwiches for 2 weeks.
-
You are just trolling now, there is plenty of video evidence of what could be considered explosions similar to that found in controlled demolition and their are countless witnesses who claim to have seen and heard what seemed to be explosions.
Please post one video that shows thermite explosions on the exterior of the building .
"seemed to be" explosions. Could have been a thousand other loud noises. Funny that all of these people think they heard something somewhere in the building, but not ONE single person....out of the thousands who were inside....says they saw explosives going off in a building that was supposedly rigged from top to bottom to be collapsed. Nothing further is needed.
-
Please post one video that shows thermite explosions on the exterior of the building .
"seemed to be" explosions. Could have been a thousand other loud noises. Funny that all of these people think they heard something somewhere in the building, but not ONE single person....out of the thousands who were inside....says they saw explosives going off in a building that was supposedly rigged from top to bottom to be collapsed. Nothing further is needed.
I doubt any body would see an explosion during a controlled demolition, their is a series of small detonations that cut supportive beams, it isn't something that would be seen due to the location of the explosions, but they sure could be heard. And people were busy trying to flee via the stairwell, if indeed it was a controlled explosion, the detonations would have gone off right before the collapse, and as far as I am aware nobody survived after the buildings collapsing. If anybody did witness an explosion while in the building, it would have been the last thing they ever witnessed, as the building collapsed straight after. I also recall a journalist in a helicopter claiming to have seen an explosion right before the building collapsed.
-
And then watch these
-
I doubt any body would see an explosion during a controlled demolition, their is a series of small detonations that cut supportive beams, it isn't something that would be seen due to the location of the explosions, but they sure could be heard. And people were busy trying to flee via the stairwell, if indeed it was a controlled explosion, the detonations would have gone off right before the collapse, and as far as I am aware nobody survived after the buildings collapsing. If anybody did witness an explosion while in the building, it would have been the last thing they ever witnessed, as the building collapsed straight after. I also recall a journalist in a helicopter claiming to have seen an explosion right before the building collapsed.
I've seen a hundred controlled demolition vids, you can see the explosions as clear as day, and there are a lot of them. But you think one of the biggest buildings in the world was taken down by a few hidden charges that people think they saw, maybe they heard. And add to that the building was designed so the exterior skeleton was the main load bearing structure, and that is what needed to be compromised. Didnt see any exploding exterior beams
-
You don't want proof, you reject any that's served up, if a witness tells his account of explosions, you dismiss them as Nutters, if academics discover thermite residue, you just simply say it's bullshit, if it's suggested that the huge structure underneath the collapse should offer resistance in the instance of collapse and eliminate any possibility of pancake collapse you claim their is some miraculous force from above overcoming the resistance of the supporting structure. None of what you have said makes any sense at all. You haven't offered a shred of proof for your case and yet you go around calling every one who disagrees dickhead's and tin foil hat wearers. Your raw emotion exposes someone who is afraid of the possibility that maybe he is wrong and his world-view needs to be questioned.
Like many others, including highly qualified academics have expressed scepticism with the official version of events, that doesn't make them whackjobs, if anything it makes them critical thinkers. I would argue only a whackjob would look at such an event and the resulting anomalies and just accept the official line that fire caused three buildings to collapse into their own footprint, when their has never been a precedent anywhere in the world before or since.
Like I said, I don't care either way, the official story is suspect and the one who comes across as a Nutter is you, why do you even care that others find the official story suspicious?
You are so full of shit that you can't see straight. I want proof, not some foil hat idiot bullshit, and I am capable to evaluate what is bullshit and what not. I present earlier two youtube videos to show you what is the difference between truth and the bullshit. No, comments about that, because you know I am right. What comes to your academics who discover this and that, did you know where the samples were? They were from homes, and they were picked up from the ground zero after cleaning of ruins. It means that the samples were not from the actual collapse, but somewhere between collapse and end of the cleaning. They use these cutting bar's for cutting massive steel structures, and try to quess what these uses for cutting:
(http://www.mining-technology.com/contractor_images/oxylanceinc/1-Cutting-Slag-1.jpg)
There will be iron and aluminium oxides, like this:(http://www.truthnews.com.au/storage/images/red_chips_02.jpg)
That picture is from the academic study which you mentioned. What is odd about the picture? Look at the scale: 100µm, which means that those particles are more that 200µm wide. What is the difference between µ and nano? µ = 0,000 001, while nano is 0,000 000,001, so those particles are 200 000 times too big. This is just about same, than try to prove that there is mouses in the jungle by showing you an elephant.
-
.(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=465988.0;attach=512499;image)
That's not Big Ach
-
Leave the speculation to 'experts' here.
Crazy sight indeed and produced many spectacular pics, luckily no one died though
Meanwhile in Grozny ;D
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG_ofJ1CAAAGnNx.jpg:large)
(http://vdmsti.ru/img/photo/100471/100531_ns.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Azk5wKm.jpg)
-
The World Trade Center twin towers were of a different design, unlike other tall building in the New York such as...
The Empire State Building:
The Empire State Building's steel structure is made up of an array of cubes, like a three dimensional checkerboard. Each cube shares the load with an ajoining cube (like a large crystal). This results in the load bearing strength being distributed throughout the structure. This makes the building much more resistant to localized trauma. Also the beams are protected by fire brick.
The World Trade Center Twin Towers:
The developers wanted the interior spaces on each floor to be uninterrupted and clear of walls or vertical beams. (The "Open Plan"...) This was achieved by moving the load bearing members...some to the central core, but mostly to the exterior skin...creating what is called a "Framed Tube"
This arrangement is far more susceptible to local trauma inflicting a greater percentage of damage to structural integrity than in the style of structure that is the Empire State Building.
(Think of a beverage can that has a dimple in it's side opposed to one that is perfectly smooth.)
Also the beams are protected with spray on insulation rather than fire brick.
It's no use man, I posted something similar on page 1 :-\
-
I've seen a hundred controlled demolition vids, you can see the explosions as clear as day, and there are a lot of them. But you think one of the biggest buildings in the world was taken down by a few hidden charges that people think they saw, maybe they heard. And add to that the building was designed so the exterior skeleton was the main load bearing structure, and that is what needed to be compromised. Didnt see any exploding exterior beams
Right. And you see them even they are covered because of safety reasons. That means there is blasting covers to prevent flying debrish, which travels faster than speed of sound. Last summer there was minor accident in finnish building site, where they blasted granite. They detonate less than 20 kilos of ANFO, but there was insufficient covers, so pieces of rock fly over 500 meters. In WTC they claim to detonate tons of explosives, and the windows of the building itself do not go to smithereens. This has to tell even for the most stupid ones, that there can't be any explosions.
-
You are just trolling now, there is plenty of video evidence of what could be considered explosions similar to that found in controlled demolition and their are countless witnesses who claim to have seen and heard what seemed to be explosions.
Please point out even one original video where is something you can call explosion. I give you an example:
There is few bricks of C4 detonated. Do you now understand what is the speed of explosion? In WTC there has to be tons of explosives, so where is the explosion? And please tell which explosive can be in fire for an hour before detonation? And please tell who were clever enough to plant the explosives and cords so plane hitting in the tower doesn't detonate them, or spoil the detonation by cutting cords and burning explosives away. I know that is impossible, but are you smart enough to undestand it?
-
Oh snap, breaking news from India! A building just collapsed, it must've been the government. ::)
-
Please point out even one original video where is something you can call explosion. I give you an example:
There is few bricks of C4 detonated. Do you now understand what is the speed of explosion? In WTC there has to be tons of explosives, so where is the explosion? And please tell which explosive can be in fire for an hour before detonation? And please tell who were clever enough to plant the explosives and cords so plane hitting in the tower doesn't detonate them, or spoil the detonation by cutting cords and burning explosives away. I know that is impossible, but are you smart enough to undestand it?
What has C4 explosives got to do with controlled demolition using thermite. You can find countless demolition video footage that collapse a building identically to 9/11, you see zero explosions and some of them you can't even see the squibs. It seems a weird coincidence that is no precedent of other collapsed buildings pancaking into their footprint or resembling almost identically a controlled demolition.
-
What has C4 explosives got to do with controlled demolition using thermite. You can find countless demolition video footage that collapse a building identically to 9/11, you see zero explosions and some of them you can't even see the squibs. It seems a weird coincidence that is no precedent of other collapsed buildings pancaking into their footprint or resembling almost identically a controlled demolition.
Post one video of a building half the size of the twin towers being demolished with no audible or visibke explosions. No windows shattering, oh that's right, in every controlled demolition on earth they remove all the glass so it doesn't fly a thousand yards in every direction.
Controlled demolitions are over engineered with explosives so they will work and you don't have a half demolished building. You can hear them for miles
But the US Govt figured out a way to fly two 747s into two of the largest buildings on earth, and simultaneously execute an invisible, silent controlled demolition that has never been done on a building a fraction of the size....in front of the entire world
What could possibly go wrong ::)
-
Post one video of a building half the size of the twin towers being demolished with no audible or visibke explosions. No windows shattering, oh that's right, in every controlled demolition on earth they remove all the glass so it doesn't fly a thousand yards in every direction.
Controlled demolitions are over engineered with explosives so they will work and you don't have a half demolished building. You can hear them for miles
But the US Govt figured out a way to fly two 747s into two of the largest buildings on earth, and simultaneously execute an invisible, silent controlled demolition that has never been done on a building a fraction of the size....in front of the entire world
What could possibly go wrong ::)
Wiggs, did you finally take off the tinfoil hat?
-
Visit any video compilation of demolished buildings and see for yourself. And as for being silent, I can't believe that someone could just discount hundreds of witnesses saying they heard loud explosions and the video footage with audible explosions.
-
What has C4 explosives got to do with controlled demolition using thermite. You can find countless demolition video footage that collapse a building identically to 9/11, you see zero explosions and some of them you can't even see the squibs. It seems a weird coincidence that is no precedent of other collapsed buildings pancaking into their footprint or resembling almost identically a controlled demolition.
Thermite isn't suitable for controlled demolitions by any means, because it going to be in the liquid form. That's why in the real world they use it only for welding railroads or cutting metals in the direction dictated by the gravity. Do you understand? You can't cut core columns with the liquid, no matter how hot it is, because it burns its way trough the floor, not sideways toward the core columns. You can look as many videos about the controlled demolitions as you like, but you have to undestand the facts. Not one of those proves anything, because they are controlled, which means there is tons of covers to prevent flying debris. How that could be possible in the building, which is in use all the way up at the point, where plane hit the building? Furthermore, those covers are made to withstand explosions, so where are those after collapse? Why there isn't tons of blasting covers found in the ruins? Just because there isn't any, so all explosions would be visible, there should be windows flying all over manhattan etc. and how about the sound? Where is the sound of explosions? There isn't any. Your main problem is that you are teen twat, incapable to use your brains at all, so you have to use arguments made by foil hat idiots.
-
Visit any video compilation of demolished buildings and see for yourself. And as for being silent, I can't believe that someone could just discount hundreds of witnesses saying they heard loud explosions and the video footage with audible explosions.
So, what you are saying is that every sharp and loud noise in this world is explosion, no matter if there isn't any evidence at all that it is? That must be the most stupid argument at the matter in last eleven years. In real world only one out of the thousand gunshots reported to the police is really a gunshot, so human ear can do mistakes. In fact, every sharp and loud noise can be registered as an explosion, if you don't see what makes the noise. That doesn't mean that they all are explosions. Furthermore, first you claim that they demolished towers by thermite, which isn't explosive at all, and now you claim that hundreds of witnesses has hear explosions? What the fuck? And exactly how that crazy amount of thermite is going to survive up to one hour in fire?
-
Thermite isn't suitable for controlled demolitions by any means, because it going to be in the liquid form. That's why in the real world they use it only for welding railroads or cutting metals in the direction dictated by the gravity. Do you understand? You can't cut core columns with the liquid, no matter how hot it is, because it burns its way trough the floor, not sideways toward the core columns. You can look as many videos about the controlled demolitions as you like, but you have to undestand the facts. Not one of those proves anything, because they are controlled, which means there is tons of covers to prevent flying debris. How that could be possible in the building, which is in use all the way up at the point, where plane hit the building? Furthermore, those covers are made to withstand explosions, so where are those after collapse? Why there isn't tons of blasting covers found in the ruins? Just because there isn't any, so all explosions would be visible, there should be windows flying all over manhattan etc. and how about the sound? Where is the sound of explosions? There isn't any. Your main problem is that you are teen twat, incapable to use your brains at all, so you have to use arguments made by foil hat idiots.
LOL A teen twat - I'm 40 years old. And I'm not the one throwing hissy fits all over this thread because someone doesn't agree with me.
Personally, I don't care - to me it's suspicious, simple as that, many highly educated people take this stance also, a lot of people think there is a conspiracy of some sort. I didn't even want to bother arguing 9/11 as I have done it too many times before, plus I initially sensed you were one of those unhinged whackjobs who just wanted to tell everyone how fucked up they were and how right you are because your an expert in everything. I should have paid attention to my intuition.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
^^^^^^ROPO
-
Visit any video compilation of demolished buildings and see for yourself. And as for being silent, I can't believe that someone could just discount hundreds of witnesses saying they heard loud explosions and the video footage with audible explosions.
Luke, serious question. Have you ever been around (witnessed) a real building fire? A building that is actively burning.
-
Luke, serious question. Have you ever been around (witnessed) a real building fire? A building that is actively burning.
No. but I no longer care for this thread, I think I am finally over 9/11. I don't care for debating it much any more. My final stance is that I think it is suspicious, I am not saying there is or isn't a conspiracy, just that something doesn't quite add up. I am happy for people to believe the official story and can see why they would, it's a pretty good story, and they may be right, I just don't buy it.
-
Jet fuel burns much hotter than conventional combustibles.
-
No. but I no longer care for this thread, I think I am finally over 9/11. I don't care for debating it much any more. My final stance is that I think it is suspicious, I am not saying there is or isn't a conspiracy, just that something doesn't quite add up. I am happy for people to believe the official story and can see why they would, it's a pretty good story, and they may be right, I just don't buy it.
Since you haven't witnessed a building fire in person, I will fill you in. There are many loud booms and explosions that have nothing to do with demolition. They are normal sounds on any building fire. HTH. ;)
-
David Petraeus the former director of the CIA was caught having an affair in his office at CIA headquarters. But this guy organized hundreds of people to pull off 911? LOL
-
Since you haven't witnessed a building fire in person, I will fill you in. There are many loud booms and explosions that have nothing to do with demolition. They are normal sounds on any building fire. HTH. ;)
yeah i can appreciate that, but it is pretty hard to deny that the building fell in a similar way to controlled demolitions. When other buildings have collapsed, they haven't collapsed like that, and the fact that no other building has ever pancaked into it's own footprint as a result of fire is a pretty important precedent, especially considering the WTC was overdeveloped, this was a strong structure.
Here I go again, discussing 9.11, I just finished reading the statement the Pilot instructor made about Hani Hanjour, the accused pilot who flew the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. Hani was a complete retard, the Instructor to this day cannot believe such an idiot could have performed the manoeuvres that he supposedly did.
-
the conspiracy falls on its arse because it would have needed tens of thousands of people at least to be willingly complicit in it and to never mention it to anyone around them ever. nor leave a letter in a will.
and it all went off without a single hitch.
lets face it the US couldn't even land two helicopters in bin ladens abottabad compound without fucking it up- yet were able to pull off 9/11 without much bother.
just nonsense.
-
One thing I think is bullshit is the list of supposed terrorists. I'll explain what I mean.
Apparently 7-8 of them were seen at a strip club on the 9th or 10th drinking and partying with whores.
This right there is the bullshit. If these guys were devout muslims ready to blow themselves up with the belief they would be martyrs going to heaven with virgins and all, there is no way they would be drinking and such.
It's like the pope knowing he is going to die tomorrow and see God so he goes out on a killing rampage. That is the problem. If you believe so much in heaven and God and willing to kill yourself for it, would you be doing things counter to your religions belief?
I really think those guys knew they were going to hijack a plane but had no intention to die or commit suicide. It would be a classic hijacking looking for money or some political thing. No intent to die.
The gov didn't set this up, but they were aware of it happening.
-
One thing I think is bullshit is the list of supposed terrorists. I'll explain what I mean.
Apparently 7-8 of them were seen at a strip club on the 9th or 10th drinking and partying with whores.
This right there is the bullshit. If these guys were devout muslims ready to blow themselves up with the belief they would be martyrs going to heaven with virgins and all, there is no way they would be drinking and such.
It's like the pope knowing he is going to die tomorrow and see God so he goes out on a killing rampage. That is the problem. If you believe so much in heaven and God and willing to kill yourself for it, would you be doing things counter to your religions belief?
I really think those guys knew they were going to hijack a plane but had no intention to die or commit suicide. It would be a classic hijacking looking for money or some political thing. No intent to die.
The gov didn't set this up, but they were aware of it happening.
They found Osama Bin Laden's stash of porn in his house after they killed him.
Or, is that all bullshit too?
-
.
I always thought NOVA did a good job putting together a theory.
-
the conspiracy falls on its arse because it would have needed tens of thousands of people at least to be willingly complicit in it and to never mention it to anyone around them ever. nor leave a letter in a will.
Why Tens of thousands of people? A few powerful people to come up with a plan and a trusted team to carry it out, hardly tens of thousands of people. That's crazy talk.
-
One thing I think is bullshit is the list of supposed terrorists. I'll explain what I mean.
Apparently 7-8 of them were seen at a strip club on the 9th or 10th drinking and partying with whores.
This right there is the bullshit. If these guys were devout muslims ready to blow themselves up with the belief they would be martyrs going to heaven with virgins and all, there is no way they would be drinking and such.
It's like the pope knowing he is going to die tomorrow and see God so he goes out on a killing rampage. That is the problem. If you believe so much in heaven and God and willing to kill yourself for it, would you be doing things counter to your religions belief?
I really think those guys knew they were going to hijack a plane but had no intention to die or commit suicide. It would be a classic hijacking looking for money or some political thing. No intent to die.
The gov didn't set this up, but they were aware of it happening.
I also discovered that While in Maryland, some of the hijackers trained at Gold's Gym in Greenbelt. More than likely they were getbiggers. I wonder if a-ahmed and his followers are plotting something, they have a lot of rage towards the infidels.
-
yeah i can appreciate that, but it is pretty hard to deny that the building fell in a similar way to controlled demolitions. When other buildings have collapsed, they haven't collapsed like that, and the fact that no other building has ever pancaked into it's own footprint as a result of fire is a pretty important precedent, especially considering the WTC was overdeveloped, this was a strong structure.
Here I go again, discussing 9.11, I just finished reading the statement the Pilot instructor made about Hani Hanjour, the accused pilot who flew the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. Hani was a complete retard, the Instructor to this day cannot believe such an idiot could have performed the manoeuvres that he supposedly did.
Many buildings have progressively (pancake) collapsed due to fire damage. WTC is not the first by any means, and won't be the last. It's not uncommon.
-
Many buildings have progressively (pancake) collapsed due to fire damage. WTC is not the first by any means, and won't be the last. It's not uncommon.
That's not true, please provide evidence. As far as I am aware No high Rise in the history of the world has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone pancake collapsed into it's own footprint. The only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire
The Windsor Building Fire
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
All these high rises were ravaged by fire for far longer than WTC and they never collapsed. The total collapse of steel-framed buildings appears to be an extremely rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved. In the Kobe and Mexico City earthquakes, many such buildings were severely damaged, and some experienced partial collapse. A 21-story office building in Mexico City appears to be the only such structure that has suffered a collapse described as total as a result of a stress other than controlled demolition.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six_s.jpg)
This is what building look like when they collapse due to earthquake.
-
man, show some respect for the dead, if it wasnt that hot, she wouldve taken a freaking seat on some chair in there and browsed the internet.
you know why shes standing there?because it was very hot in there, shes standing there deciding whether to jump to certain death or to get cooked alive.
no comeon.please."chilling" ::)
She's obviously enjoying the view. ::)
-
That's not true, please provide evidence. As far as I am aware No high Rise in the history of the world has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone pancake collapsed into it's own footprint. The only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire
The Windsor Building Fire
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
All these high rises were ravaged by fire for far longer than WTC and they never collapsed. The total collapse of steel-framed buildings appears to be an extremely rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved. In the Kobe and Mexico City earthquakes, many such buildings were severely damaged, and some experienced partial collapse. A 21-story office building in Mexico City appears to be the only such structure that has suffered a collapse described as total as a result of a stress other than controlled demolition.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six_s.jpg)
This is what building look like when they collapse due to earthquake.
You said no other building has pancaked. They have. You're correct though that no other skyscraper has ever pancaked. However, there has never been any other fires the same as WTC. No other buildings as large with the same fire load, fuel, and damage have ever existed. Many steel structures left alone to burn will eventually collapse.
Earthquakes shake the buildings from the bottom. Fires from within a building weaken the support columns. You're comparing apples to oranges. :-\
-
I'm a Structural Engineer.
Throughout history, no steel building constructed after 1900 has ever collapsed due to a fire, ever; not even shitty ones built in 3rd world countries. Not even when they tried to do it intentionally back in the early 1900's to test theories. The twin towers were designed to take multiple plane impacts without the structural integrity being compromised. In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure.
8)
Actually it was one 707, they designed it to take a low speed crash like the Empire State Building crash of 1945. Also Lesie Robertson, who was the designer and engineer on the project agreed with the NIST reports and the theory outlined here, although he isn't the best source of information, as he seems to waffle and protect his image a lot in interviews -
.
(Seriously, give it a watch when you've got time, the theory is very sound).
You can hear him here in a debate -
.
-
(http://libertyforlife.com/images/911/wtc7an.gif)
-
You said no other building has pancaked. They have. You're correct though that no other skyscraper has ever pancaked. However, there has never been any other fires the same as WTC. No other buildings as large with the same fire load, fuel, and damage have ever existed. Many steel structures left alone to burn will eventually collapse.
Earthquakes shake the buildings from the bottom. Fires from within a building weaken the support columns. You're comparing apples to oranges. :-\
Please cite buildings that pancake collapsed, and many other buildings have suffered far worse fires than WTC 7 and survived. You need to forget about the planes, because WTC 7 was never hit by any planes and supposedly collapsed as a result of fire.
Caracas Tower Fire, the tallest skyscraper in Caracas, a 50 story building experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors. Guess what, still standing
(http://www.skyscraperdefense.com/html_images/disasters/13--oct182004.jpg)
-
If they would have just toppled these buildings over like should have happened, millions of people wouldn't be second guessing them. But they brought them down demolition style for the shock and Awe effect. And, to get many millions of people to come out of the wood work and voice their opinions on who's likely to be against them. The end game is a One World Government. 9/11 helped spark deep emotions in people. The Hierarchy got to see and hear the reactions of seemingly hard working, law abiding citizens. And for the millions of people who are "against" them, they all get herded into a part of their super computer and are now much easier to be dealt with when the time comes. Facebook is also a great resource for them to put "labels" on us. As are forums like this one ;)...Many of them owned and run by Hierarchy bloodline.
-
Bin Laden never committed suicide for his religion. he was a rich spoiled brat coward that used religion to further his agenda. But the muslims who are willing to kill themselves for their religion are serious muslims. They don't stray from anything. They pray 5 times a day. They are hard core. They believe that they are fulfilling god's will killing themselves as a martyr. So going out drinking and fucking whores is not in their belief. This is the issue with this story of who supposedly flew the planes.
They found Osama Bin Laden's stash of porn in his house after they killed him.
Or, is that all bullshit too?
-
Please cite buildings that pancake collapsed, and many other buildings have suffered far worse fires than WTC 7 and survived. You need to forget about the planes, because WTC 7 was never hit by any planes and supposedly collapsed as a result of fire.
Caracas Tower Fire, the tallest skyscraper in Caracas, a 50 story building experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors. Guess what, still standing
(http://www.skyscraperdefense.com/html_images/disasters/13--oct182004.jpg)
Buildings that have progressively collapsed (pancake). Progressive collapse happens due to fire and earthquake. Like I said, it's not uncommon, and is actually very common in smaller structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
WTC 7 did not collapse all at once. It came down in sections at different times. Here's a good pictorial for simple people:
(http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h3.jpg)
WTC 7 also has 6000 gallons of stored oil in it, that was burning. This was a contributing factor to it's collapse. That and the structural damage from the other towers collapsing into it.
-
Caracas Tower Fire, the tallest skyscraper in Caracas, a 50 story building experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors. Guess what, still standing
(http://www.skyscraperdefense.com/html_images/disasters/13--oct182004.jpg)
Guess what, this was a normal content fire, and the Caracas Tower responded exactly like it was supposed to. Guess what, had a passenger jet been flown into the Caracas Tower, and jet fuel was burning inside, it might not be standing. Apples and oranges. HTH. :D
-
The conspiracy is that a state of emergency was manufacturered to justify a US invasion and occupation of the ME, as well as universal surveillance and other cancellations of civil rights.
Up for debate is the extent to which the US was involved. It's seems probable that intelligence was intentionally throttled to allow the incident to take place, and I don't reject the possibility that some from 'our side' may have been involved with the Saudis at the conception and planning stage.
The whole fixation about whether or not government ninjas planted demolition charges is silly. The question isn't how shit happened. It's why.
-
The conspiracy is that a state of emergency was manufacturered to justify a US invasion and occupation of the ME, as well as universal surveillance and other cancellations of civil rights.
Up for debate is the extent to which the US was involved. It's seems probable that intelligence was intentionally throttled to allow the incident to take place, and I don't reject the possibility that some from 'our side' may have been involved with the Saudis at the conception and planning stage.
The whole fixation about whether or not government ninjas planted demolition charges is silly. The question isn't how shit happened. It's why.
I'll buy that idea. The question I have to all the conspiracy theororists is this. If the govt was really responsible, why would they go to all the trouble of planes, demolition, etc? Why wouldn't they just bomb the ever living shit out of the twin towers, blame it on terrorists, and call it a day?
-
The conspiracy is that a state of emergency was manufacturered to justify a US invasion and occupation of the ME, as well as universal surveillance and other cancellations of civil rights.
Up for debate is the extent to which the US was involved. It's seems probable that intelligence was intentionally throttled to allow the incident to take place, and I don't reject the possibility that some from 'our side' may have been involved with the Saudis at the conception and planning stage.
The whole fixation about whether or not government ninjas planted demolition charges is silly. The question isn't how shit happened. It's why.
This x 10!
-
The gov didn't do it. But they allowed it to happen. Big difference. They could have stopped it before hand but the plan was too sweet for them to fulfill the agenda brought up by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
I'll buy that idea. The question I have to all the conspiracy theororists is this. If the govt was really responsible, why would they go to all the trouble of planes, demolition, etc? Why wouldn't they just bomb the ever living shit out of the twin towers, blame it on terrorists, and call it a day?
-
This is newer footage of the WTC 7 collapse. Can anyone on here honestly say this fell on it's own and if so how after seeing this?
-
LOL A teen twat - I'm 40 years old. And I'm not the one throwing hissy fits all over this thread because someone doesn't agree with me.
Personally, I don't care - to me it's suspicious, simple as that, many highly educated people take this stance also, a lot of people think there is a conspiracy of some sort. I didn't even want to bother arguing 9/11 as I have done it too many times before, plus I initially sensed you were one of those unhinged whackjobs who just wanted to tell everyone how fucked up they were and how right you are because your an expert in everything. I should have paid attention to my intuition.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
^^^^^^ROPO
So, what you say is that you are a moron and you are proud of it? It is impossible to comprehend that 40 years old would be so childish at his opinions, so you must be lying what comes about your age. You are blind about the facts and you ignore laws of physics, and that is what the teen twats do, so you are no better than them.
-
This is newer footage of the WTC 7 collapse. Can anyone on here honestly say this fell on it's own and if so how after seeing this?
And this is original footage about the situation:
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
First of all, your video has turned 180° from the original, and some idiot has add some poor and fake explosions in it. Is there anything beside your stupidity which you try to point out?
-
I still don't think a building should collapse demolition style from damage from other buildings collapsing or fire alone. Doesn't matter if you can't hear the explosions.
-
yeah and generaly the ct videos dont show the damaged side of wtc7.
Have you ever wonder why? That would be a side where WTC 1 & 2 just collapsed, and there is fire, dust and crap like that, so cameras has no use, because you don't have any visibility. There is some photos and videos about that side, but you don't find them from the foil hat idiots web site.
-
I still don't think a building should collapse demolition style from damage from other buildings collapsing or fire alone. Doesn't matter if you can't hear the explosions.
You have seen it with your own eyes, and you compare it towards what? What would be the example which you do your comparison? In fact, there isn't one, because these two towers are first two hit by the plane, burn etc. So you see this thing like everybody, first time in this world, and you think it is fake? Fake, compared to what? There is a legend about russian ass buzzer, but no one has seen one of those. Legend tells that it has two major faults: it doesnt buzz and it doesn't fit any ass. What that cadget look like? You can't know, because you have not seen anything like it. How you can know how the collapsing WTC tower should look like, while you haven't seen any which has hit by the aeroplane? You can't, it is simple as that.
-
I'll pose a different question. What if it didnt work?
The US govt actually signed off on doing TWO controlled demolitions that have never been attempted on buildings a fraction of the size, live without a net in front of the entire world and they had to do it on the fly with no testing, .dry runs, staging.
They somehow managed to load two of the biggest structures in the world with sufficient demolition to collapse them, managed to make it transparent, and flying two jets into the side of the buildings for dramatic effect. And this had no effect what would be the largest controlled demolition in history, by far. And it had to work flawlessy, Twice....or it would be the biggest scandal in the history of the world.
I think cooler heads would have prevailed in that cabinet meeting
-
You have seen it with your own eyes, and you compare it towards what? What would be the example which you do your comparison? In fact, there isn't one, because these two towers are first two hit by the plane, burn etc. So you see this thing like everybody, first time in this world, and you think it is fake? Fake, compared to what? There is a legend about russian ass buzzer, but no one has seen one of those. Legend tells that it has two major faults: it doesnt buzz and it doesn't fit any ass. What that cadget look like? You can't know, because you have not seen anything like it. How you can know how the collapsing WTC tower should look like, while you haven't seen any which has hit by the aeroplane? You can't, it is simple as that.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, improve your spelling bro.
-
I still don't think a building should collapse demolition style from damage from other buildings collapsing or fire alone. Doesn't matter if you can't hear the explosions.
You are not and architect or an engineer. You're not supposed to. Fact is, anyone who thinks that the towers collapsed because of anything other than planes hitting them, is ill informed.
-
I'll pose a different question. What if it didnt work?
The US govt actually signed off on doing TWO controlled demolitions that have never been attempted on buildings a fraction of the size, live without a net in front of the entire world and they had to do it on the fly with no testing, .dry runs, staging.
They somehow managed to load two of the biggest structures in the world with sufficient demolition to collapse them, managed to make it transparent, and flying two jets into the side of the buildings for dramatic effect. And this had no effect what would be the largest controlled demolition in history, by far. And it had to work flawlessy, Twice....or it would be the biggest scandal in the history of the world.
I think cooler heads would have prevailed in that cabinet meeting
There is more than that, because for demolition you should have at least three impossible things:
1. You should know where the plane hits, because you are installing explosives and detonation cords all over the place, and you don't want plane to hit them.
2. You shoud have explosives, which all are based chemicals, which all react to fire, and you should manage to make fireproof bomb from them
3. You should have the means to stop laws of physics
-
You are not and architect or an engineer. You're not supposed to. Fact is, anyone who thinks that the towers collapsed because of anything other than planes hitting them, is ill informed.
An engineer came here and posted his opinion about how the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to planes hitting them and you dismissed his opinion and now you tell me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not one? It seems you disagree anything that doesn't go along with your bias.
I also don't think it is only the fact that the towers collapsed because of planes hitting them that some people doubt, it is also how they collapsed.
-
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, improve your spelling bro.
Well, the point is this: when you see something first time in your life, how do you know if it is fake or not? Answer is simple, you can't know that, before you have something to compare it. What comes to this case, you can't compare it to anything, so how do you know if it is fake or not?
What comes to spelling, blame google translator..
-
lol you do know that russians like to take the piss on the usa.
the kgb used to spread ridiculous rumours about the usa back in the day.
besides, if it was taken down nuclear, then where is the radiation fallout?
how comes theres still ppl living in nyc
Well...no. There is quite big disharmony between that claim and the claims which foil hat morons has make about the matter of the moon landing. They say that russian did know that USA moon flights were fake, but they choose to say nothing about the matter. You are right of course, and we all know that russian would be quite happy to shot down false claims about the moon landings, but that doesn't stop the foil hat morons make the fool out from themselves ::)
-
An engineer came here and posted his opinion about how the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to planes hitting them and you dismissed his opinion and now you tell me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not one? It seems you disagree anything that doesn't go along with your bias.
I also don't think it is only the fact that the towers collapsed because of planes hitting them that some people doubt, it is also how they collapsed.
One engineer that wasn't in the thick of things, and probably wasn't following it as closely as others.
Now you've got a team of independent engineers here* that actually spent tons of man hours actually there, saying this is what all of us figure, and I'll be damned if doesn't make sense to even a neophyte.
* .
Give it the first 20 - 25 minutes, even in that short time, you get a picture of how everything probably happened.
-
this brings me to another often mised point.
ppl say they heard of a steel column building which has collapsed due to fire.
no shit,haha, but how about building where a freaking jumbo jet with quite some keroene(quite explosive)crashed into beforehand? ;D
i mean how can one disregard the fact that a jubo jet flew into it, this wasnt just a fire bc some oven in the pizzeria overheated
Add that people say they THINK they heard an.explosion or two in the building. Yup, not like it was almost cut in half by a jumbo jet, and things might be going wrong inside, stuff breaking, compressors overloading, beams failing..
-
respect,man, youve just owned that argument.
they cant have it both ways.
i think i remember it was said that was molten aluminium,not sure.
and lol at the thermite stuff
Well, you should see what I am capable with my native language..
-
this brings me to another often mised point.
how about building where a freaking jumbo jet with quite some keroene(quite explosive)crashed into beforehand? ;D
i mean how can one disregard the fact that a jubo jet flew into it, this wasnt just a fire bc some oven in the pizzeria overheated
WTC 7 ?
-
top work from ropo on this thread
-
Well, the point is this: when you see something first time in your life, how do you know if it is fake or not? Answer is simple, you can't know that, before you have something to compare it. What comes to this case, you can't compare it to anything, so how do you know if it is fake or not?
What comes to spelling, blame google translator..
Well in this case we do have examples to compare them with:
1. There a re examples of buildings that have been on fire for longer periods of time that did not collapse, structurally weaker buildings mind you.
2. There are tons of examples or videos of controlled demolitions and the twin towers and building 7 both collapsed in the exact same way.
-
One engineer that wasn't in the thick of things, and probably wasn't following it as closely as others.
Now you've got a team of independent engineers here* that actually spent tons of man hours actually there, saying this is what all of us figure, and I'll be damned if doesn't make sense to even a neophyte.
* .
Give it the first 20 - 25 minutes, even in that short time, you get a picture of how everything probably happened.
Are you a structural engineer yourself? How do you know these guys weren't paid off to say such things? You know like the report that commission that was supposed to investigate the events put out. But even if it is true, there are quite as many experts on the other side of the fence that support the theory of a controlled demolition.
-
Well in this case we do have examples to compare them with:
1. There a re examples of buildings that have been on fire for longer periods of time that did not collapse, structurally weaker buildings mind you.
2. There are tons of examples or videos of controlled demolitions and the twin towers and building 7 both collapsed in the exact same way.
Were they hit by fully fueled jumbo jets at 350mph ?
Do you have any idea the sheer size of the twin towers ? So the govt managed to wire up these MASSIVE skyscrapers with enough explosives that they knew it would work, and they did it with a few CIA guys posing as janitors... ::)
-
A jet full of fuel hits a structure moving as fast as a .38 special bullet and everyone wonders how it caused a building to fall down?
-
A jet full of fuel hits a structure moving as fast as a .38 special bullet and everyone wonders how it caused a building to fall down?
What it tells me is people are stupider than i originally thought. The premise alone is ludicrous
-
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Architects
(Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Lic: C19220
B. Arch.
Berkeley, CA Daniel B. Barnum, FAIA
Lic: TX3741
BArch, Rice University
Houston, TX
David Paul Helpern, FAIA
Lic: NY 03 010070
Ny, NY Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA
Lic: TX7724
Austin, TX
Paul Stevenson Oles, FAIA
Lic: MASSACHUSETTS 2754
MArch, Architecture, Yale
Santa Fe, NM Eason Cross, FAIA
Lic: Virginia and Maryland
BA Harvard, MArch. HGSD
Alexandria, VA
Harry G. Robinson III, FAIA
Lic: Architect 2667, Washington, DC
B Arch and MCP Harvard U. / MCPUD Harvar
Washington, DC Abby Goodman, VP
Lic: ARC4744
BS Psychology
Washington, DC
Alan Anderson Jr, Architect
Lic: C10835 CA
BS Architecture, Cal Poly SLO
Fair Oaks, CA Alan Haymond, Architect
Lic: 025143
B Arch., Rensselaer Polytechnic
Greenwich, NY
Alan D. Kato, Architect
Lic: 001-010128
Bachelor of Science
Morton Grove, IL Alan Shulman, Architect
Lic: 1165 NH
B. of Architecture
New London, NH
Alan Tyson Zorthian, Architect
Lic: C22838
B.A.
Altadena, CA Alexander Davidson Dority, Architect
Lic: Arizona license No. 8380
B.A. Architecture, Stanford 1962
Santa Fe, NM
Alice F. Dodson, AIA
Lic: NC 6304
Asheville, NC Allen Kitselman, Architect
Lic: 6642
BA Arch
Berryville, VA
Andrew Wolff, Architect, AIA,LEED
Lic: 30395 CA
M Arch, Yale University
Los Angeles, CA Andus H. Brandt, Architect
Lic: Cal. Architect's license C27998
B.A. Architecture
Berkeley, CA
Anne Lee, AIA
Lic: AR-10177 MA
M.Arch
Boston, MA April Wethe Palencia, Aia, Architect
Lic: C31675
Bach of Architecture, Univ. of Miami
Santa Barbara, CA
Arlene Hopkins, Architect & Educator
Lic: California (28239) & Nevada (2267)
M.Arch & M.A. Education
Santa Monica, CA Arpad A. Chabafy, Architect
Lic: California Licensed Architect C-9141
Architecture, Masters / Post Earthquake
Newport Beach, CA
Barry Koren, Architect
Lic: 3281-005 WI
B.Arch, City College of NY.
Oak Park, IL Barry NewDelman, Architect, ALA, NCARB
Lic: 01-006448 Ill, 3113-5 WI
B. Arch., University of Illinois
Portland, OR
Bassam Altwal, V.P. Architecture
Lic: 1576A2 (overseas)
Masters in Architecture
Concord, CA Bertie McKinney Bonner, AIA
Lic: RA009013X
M. Arch
Media, PA
Brad Will, AIA, LEED AP
Lic: 028572-1 NY
B. Arch.
Woodstock, NY Bradley J. Marczuk, Architect
Lic: AR-1814
B.Arch - UofO, M.Arch- UofW
Boise, ID
Brandon M. Chouinard, Architect
Lic: A5550 OK
B. Arch, U. of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City, OK Brian Van Hromadka, AIA
Lic: 50076 MA
M. Architecture, Boston Architectural Co
Newburyport, MA
Bruce B. Maxwell, Architect
Lic: C27715
M.Arch.
Oakland, CA Bryan Evan Westgate, Architect
Lic: arc.0914988
Master Of Architecture
Cleveland, OH
C Matthew Taylor, Architect
Lic: South Carolina Architect's License #AR .4827 I, ex
B.A. Architecture, U. of Cincinnati
Hilton Head Island, SC C. Michael Henry, Sr., President
B. Arch.
Newport News, VA
C.J. Richards, R.A., B. Arch
Lic: 7505-5 WI
B.A., Architecture, U-Minnesota
Milwaukee, WI Cary J. Spiegel, AIA
Lic: NY 03022495, NJ 21AI01239900
B. Arch, City College, NY
Plainfield, NJ
Charles W. Ekstedt Sr., B. Arch.
Lic: MN #: 19398
B. Arch., U of Minnesota
Saint Paul, MN Charles Ralph Traylor, Architect
Lic: Texas 4179 also NCARB certificate 21435
B Arch Texas Tech
Dallas, TX
Christian Mungenast, AIA, Architect
Lic: Massachusetts Architect's License #8856, exp. 8/08
Arlington, MA Christine R. Balint, Architect
Lic: Architect in NY, NJ, PA & MI
B. Arch.
Aberdeen, NJ
Christopher C. Allen, AIA
Lic: 1301037464
Ann Arbor, MI Christopher Free, Architect
Lic: 56914 MI
M. Arch., Architecture, U.of Illinois
Brighton, MI
Crystal Danielle Nanney, AIA
Lic: FL AR93662
B. Arch, University of Detroit Mercy
Savannah, GA Cynthia Howard, AIA
Lic: MArch MIT, 1243 ME, 4486 MA
Biddeford Pool, ME
Dale R. Port, Architect
Lic: Lic. # 1760 State of Iowa
Waterloo, IA Dale Williams, Landscape Architect
Lic: 2384 CA
MS in Land Arch, Univ of Arizona
Cameron Park, CA
Damon C. Smith, AIA
Lic: AR94915
B.A, Carnegie Mellon University
Orlando, FL Dan Bartlett, AIA
Lic: New Hampshire Architect's license 2919
B. Arch
Keene, NH
Daniel R. Hirtler, architect
Lic: 023012-NY
B.Arch.
Ithaca, NY Daniel La Pan, Executive Director, Facility Services
Lic: Michigan License #1301034243
BS, M Arch
Saginaw, MI
Daniel Roach, B.Arch, AIA
Lic: OR 3978
B.Arch Drury University
Salem, OR Daniel Shea, Architect
Lic: ARI.11647
Architecture -University of Pennsylvania
New Haven, CT
Dante Amato, AIA+NCARB+LEED AP - Architect
Lic: CA: C28394; NV: 6224; CO: ARC 203438; NM: 00479
BA Environmental Des./Arch. UC Berkeley
Las Vegas, NV Dartmond Cherk, Architect
Lic: C3743
B.A., Architecture, UC Berkeley
Mill Valley, CA
Dave E. Arnoth, NCARB
Lic: 201812 CO (Colorado)
M. Arch, University of New Mexico
Los Angeles, CA David Joiner, AIA
Lic: KS 3700
Bachelor of architecture
Shawnee Mission, KS
David Ray Solomon, Architect
Lic: State of Colo. 202351
BA Architecture
Denver, CO David A. Techau, AIA
Lic: 12496
BArch-Az. State, MSc, Cornell
Kula, HI
Deane Rykerson, AIA NCARB LEED AP
Lic: MA 8400
BArch Boston AC MDes Harvard
Cambridge, MA Dennis R. Holloway, Architect
Lic: New Mexico Architect License #002569
B.Arch., Univ. of Mich., MAUD, Harvard G
Rio Rancho, NM
Dennis L. Lippert, Architect
Lic: Montana #1829 & Colorado #400695
Montana State University
Missoula, MT Dennis E. Teske, Architect
Lic: C-7351 CA
Foster City, CA
Dohn C. Swedberg, Architect
Lic: 2272
B.A. Architecture
Tacoma, WA Don Gibbons, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C18058, 1987, exp. 6/0
Pleasant Hill, CA
Donald Ketner, Architect, CCS
Lic: 4688 Alaska
5 year Architecture Penn State
Anchorage, AK Douglas Baker, Architect
Lic: ARI.0005716 CT.
M. Arch.
Hamden, CT
Douglas Claude Rhodes, Architect
Lic: Montana Architect's License #1400 exp. 6/11
B.S. Architecture
Whitefish, MT Douglas S. Snider, AIA
Lic: 1751 OR, C 20276 CA
B.Arch, University of Notre Dame
Medford, OR
Earl H. Booth, Architect
Lic: 113124-0301
B.A. of Architecture
Salt Lake City, UT Edward L. McMillen
Lic: #2152 NM & C4691 CO
B.A. Architecture Ohio State University
Santa Fe, NM
Elaine M. Dabrowski, AIA
Lic: 3345 OR
B. Arch.
Portland, OR Eric Douglas, Architect
Lic: NY Architect's License #031273, exp. 4/09
Howard Beach, NY
Ernest Terry Jakel, Architect
Lic: C 17633
Bachelor of Architecture
Orange, CA Eve C. Reynolds, Architect
Lic: C-25225
M.Arch, SCIArc
North Hollywood, CA
Fariba Khalvati Beighlie, Architect, NCARB, MS in Architecture, LEED AP BD+C
Lic: CA - C26813
Masters in Architecture
Seal Beach, CA Fred Edward Betz, Architect
Lic: Retired, Lic. ARC5201992, OH, issued Jan 10, 1952
B.S Science in Arch. Univ. of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Fred A. De Santo, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's license #C14076
B.A. U of KY 1967
Ukiah, CA Fred Robert Klein, Architect
Lic: WA State, #2215, Retired
B. Arch, Cornell University
Eastsound, WA
Frederic M. Newcomer, Architect (retired)
Lic: C6400 CA (expired 1997)
Architecture Penn State University
Columbia Falls, ME Frederick James Johnson, Architect
Lic: CT8267
West Haven, CT
Frederick Jon Wepfer, Licensed Landscape Architect, Building Designer, C
Lic: Registered Landscape Architect
environmental design
Lacey, WA Gary Jay Kuhstoss, Architect
Lic: AZ 27493
Phoenix, AZ
George E. Clower, AIA, Architect
Lic: 3187 TX; C27943 CA
BA & BS in Architecture
Corpus Christi, TX George Owen, AIA
Lic: IL 1018627,
B.Architecture, MIT
Wallingford (Philadelphia), PA
George K. Somers, Architect
Lic: ARC3418 DC, 12677 VA, and others
B. Arch., Catholic University of America
Stafford, VA Grazyna Samborska, Architect
Lic: Pennsylvania, RA011873X; AIA, 30081786 (Phil.)
Masters Arch, Polytechnic Univ, Gdansk,
Cherry Hill, NJ
Gregory Holah, ARCHITECT
Lic: OR #4773
B. Arch. U of OR, M. Arch. Wash.U, St. L
Portland, OR Helen C. Wilkes, Aia, Architect
Lic: 8240 MD
M. Arch.
Kensington, MD
Hondo Layes, Architect
Lic: License # 5673
Bachelor of Science
Olympia, WA Howard S. Berglund, Architect
Lic: 1931 WA
M. Arch
Seattle, WA
Irwin Luckman, Architect (retired)
Lic: Retired
B. Arch.
Oakland, CA J. Michael DeRIENZO, ARCHITECT
Lic: 3081 SC, OHIO, MO
BS (ARCHITECTURE),WASHINGTON U., STL
Florence, SC
Jacques Fauteux, AIA
Lic: 1839 Masachusetts
Bachelor of Arch., Oklahoma University
Hubbardston, MA James M. Beglinger, Architect
Lic: C20073 CA
B.S., Architecture, Heald Engr College
San Francisco, CA
James H. Bell, Architect
Lic: A-3234, WI; NCARB 24,488
B.S., Architecture, Univ. Cincinnati
Madison, WI James E. Carruthers, Architect
Lic: 09854 TX
Bachelors of Architecture
Richardson, TX
James S. Cyr, Architect
Lic: MA 8610
BARCH and Bachelor of Arts, Urban Studie
Boston, MA James Jorgensen, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C28802, exp. 6/09
B. Arch
Healdsburg, CA
James Peter Leritz, Architect
Lic: C20166 CA
B.Arch., U. Illinois; M.Arch., GSD
San Francisco, CA James D. Nordlie, architect
Lic: Colorado
MA Architecture, U of Colorado, 1978
Denver, CO
James I. Pelsor, Architect
Lic: Me #1362
MArch Uwisconsin-Milwaukee
Augusta, ME James Edward Rasmussen, Architect
Lic: C15541 CA
Architecture & Geography degrees
Rohnert Park, CA
James A. Rymsza, Architect
Lic: WA5595
Master of Architecture
Seattle, WA James C. Smith, AIA
Lic: 203654
MA
Denver, CO
James Edgar Stafford, AIA
Lic: NC 11477, TN 102184
B/ARCH Mississippi State U. S/ARC
Hendersonville, NC James Robert Stutzman, AIA
Lic: AR 00033126
BArch, CAP/Ball State University
Carmel, IN
James Martin Tomlin, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C29398, exp. 6/09
B.Arch., 1988, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Fresno, CA James M. Vignola, AIA
Lic: AR0014893
M ARCH ..University Fla.
Gainesville, FL
Jamsheed Sobhani, ARCHITECT, NCARB
Lic: C29736
M.ARCH.
Northridge, CA Jan A. Gorlach, Architect
Lic: NYS 15621
M.A. Krakow, Poland
Brooklyn, NY
Jeff Arnold, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C17214 1986, exp. 5/09
Orinda, CA Jeff S. Laur, Architect
Lic: Arkansas #1106
B.A., Architecture, Oklahoma State Univ.
Harrison, AR
Jeffrey Way, R.A.
Lic: 4535
Bachelor of Architecture
Washington, DC Jeffry H. Shelden, AIA
Lic: Lic. No. 1279
B. Arch
Lewistown, MT
Jerome J. Diepenbrock, Architect
Lic: 4040
Bachelor of Architecture
Seattle, WA Jerome Taylor, Architect
Lic: RA006871X
B of Arch., Penn State, Univ.
Yardley, PA
Jerry Bischoff, Retired Architect
Lic: C18333 CA,
Bachelor of Architecture, Univ. of Ill.
San Diego, CA Jerry Erbach, Architect AIA
Lic: ARC2607
B.Arts, B.Arch, University of Notre Dame
Chevy Chase, MD
Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
Lic: Florida Architect's License #AR0010707, exp. 2/09
Master, Architecture
St. Petersburg, FL Jody Gibbs, Architect
Lic: Arizona 08515
Master of Architecture
Tucson, AZ
Joe D Bellows, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C7575
Martinez, CA John F. Acosta, ARA, Licensed Architect
Lic: C24055
Big Bear Lake, CA
John Cole, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C19195 1988, exp. 9/09
Walnut Creek, CA John Eisenhart, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C25743 1995, exp. 4/09
San Diego, CA
John K. Gillies, Architect
Lic: Cal Architect's license C 10299
B. of Arch, UC Berkeley
Del Mar, CA John Howland, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C14886 1984, exp. 4/09
Walnut Creek, CA
John P. Klingman, Architect
Lic: 3265 LA
M.Arch. U. Oregon, BSCE Tufts U.
New Orleans, LA John C. Link, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C18873, exp. 7/09
M.Arch.
Berkeley, CA
John E. McKeen, Architect
Lic: MN#15844
Bachelor of Architecture; Univ. of MN
Saint Paul, MN John D. McKittrick, Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Lic: Montana No. 1005
Bachelor & Master of Architecture
Helena, MT
John Raposo, Architect
Lic: 8396
Bachelor of Architecture
Worcester, MA John S. Rogers, Architect
Lic: ARI 7449 CT
Master of Architecture, Pratt Institute
Hartford, CT
John Robert Russell, Professor Emeritus Landscape Architecture
Lic: Indiana Landscape Architect's License # LA80050004
Grad. Dipl. Urban & Reg. Plng. AA London
Bloomington, IN John C. Swanson, Architect
Lic: 797 ND
BA, St. Olaf College
Bismarck, ND
John Vivier, Architect, AIA - Architect-Engineer EES- Engineer
Lic: Reg. 2241 NV.
Dipl. Paris University
Las Vegas, NV Jon Jenson, Project Manager
Lic: A4508
Master's in Architecture
Madison, WI
Jon Christopher Keiser, Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Lic: 400733 CO, 9959 WI, 45287 AZ, 019892 IL, 21152 TX
B.S. Environmental Design,Ball State Uni
Edwards, CO Jon A. Kinsella
Lic: ARC-400327
Architect
Castle Rock, CO
Jon Brees Thogmartin, architect ncarb
Lic: c9546-california
bach science in architecture univ of kan
Colton, CA Joseph Peter Bridy, AIA
Lic: RA011095X PA
Bachelor of Architecture, Temple U
Philadelphia, PA
Joseph Charles Duda, Architect, NCARB, M. Arch.
Lic: C25103 CA
M. Arch I, UCLA
Santa Fe, NM Joseph Peavey, Architect
Lic: ARC-401493
M. Arch, University of Idaho
Boise, ID
Josh Chesnik, Architect
Lic: NV-6242
M.A. Architecture, UNLV
Las Vegas, NV Juan F. Perez, Architectural Consultant
Bachelor, Architect, UNPHU
Staten Island, NY
Karen Renick, NY State License in 1983, though license is now la
M. Arch
Austin, TX Kathi C. Gregory, CSI, AIA Intern Architect
Lic: 17133 (TN)
Architecture, U Tennessee
Nashville, TN
Kathy Elizabeth Sweeton, architect
Lic: KY 3843 Arch
M Science, U of Louisville
Louisville, KY Ken Blevins, Architect
Lic: TX10826
M. Architecture, Texas A&M University
Austin, TX
Kenneth R. Hattan, Architect
Lic: OR#1715
B. Arch., U of Oregon
Vancouver, WA Kenneth McLean Loretto, Architect
Lic: C-26713
Master of Architecture
Berkeley, CA
Kenneth L. Smith, Architect (licensed)
Lic: C9652 CA
B.Architecture
Forestville, CA Kerry Lewis McCarthy, Architect
Lic: 2496
B. Arch, U of Oregon
Grand Ronde, OR
Kevin V. Connors, PE, AIA, Principal
Lic: AR 021858-NY, PE-NY: 59813, AIA #3003960
BS Civil Engineering, MArch
Buffalo, NY Kevin M. McDonough, AIA, Architect
Lic: 4117 CT
Bachelor of Science in Architecture
Fort Mill, SC
Kurt Mueller, Architect
Lic: C 19225
AA, Liberal Arts, Orange Coast College
Costa Mesa, CA Lafaye Frédéric, Architecte DPLG
Bordeaux, 33 – France
Lamont L. Langworthy, Architect
Lic: C3080, CA
BA Architecture, U. of Washington
Graton, CA Larry Dodge, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C6373 1970, exp. 5/09
B.Arch., Univ. of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Larry Kleinkemper, AIA
Lic: TX 18010
B.Arch
Austin, TX Larz Hitchcock, Architect
Lic: WI 10593-005
Anchorage, AK
Laurie Jo Erickson, Architect
Lic: C24082
Independent B.A (Arch & Engineering)
Petaluma, CA Leslie K. Allen, M. Arch.
Lic: C21742
M. Arch., University of New Mexico
Mill Valley, CA
Leslie Simons
Lic: 3092
San Rafael, CA Leslie E. Young, Architect
Lic: Cal Architect's license C 27288
B. Arch
San Francisco, CA
Lionel J. Recio, AIA
Lic: C24692 CA
M.A.
San Francisco, CA Madeline McDowell, Architect
Lic: AR0011452 Florida (Retired)
B-ARCH
Cambridge, MA
Marc Beique, Architect
Lic: C18663 CA
BFA, Rice University; BArch, Rice
Monterey, CA Marc Maurer, Architect
Lic: Colorado - ARC.00203013
M. Archt., Arizona State University
Grand Junction, CO
Marc Nightwine, Senior Associate
Lic: Texas 17125
Austin, TX Mark Baker, AIA
Lic: ARC-203016
MA Arch
Denver, CO
Mark Chavez, Architect
Lic: A1932 NE (10/25/1985)
B.S.A.S, Architecture, U of NE, Lincoln
Omaha, NE Mark C. Davis, Architect
Lic: 4774 NV
Carson City, NV
Mark Lee Fitzgerald, Architect
Lic: 11510 - Texas
Master of Environmental Design
Grand Prairie, Tx, TX Mark Thomas Gannon, Architect
Lic: 1301052278
Masters
Canton, MI
Mark Ryan Rudolf, Registered Architect (Colorado, Virginia), BArch
Lic: Colorado Architect 401541, Virginia Architect
BArch, Architecture, Virginia Tech
Basalt, CO Martin Ulrich Michaelis, AIA
Lic: AIA 30035181
Amherst, NH
Matthias Troitzsch, Architect, AIA
Lic: c30973
MArch
San Francisco, CA Maureen P. Westrick, RIBA, architect
B Arch, Ball State University
Intervale, NH
Michael E. Balay, Architect
Lic: Indiana Architect's License #AR00880149
Fishers, IN Michael Burke, AIA
Lic: c30878, ny 030232
Masters of Architecture, University of T
Redlands, CA
Michael C. Coffey, AIA, Architect
Lic: NY Architect's License #031038, exp. 12/08
New York, NY Michael B. Coleman, AIA
Lic: Calif: C 5485
B Arch UC Berkeley
Oakland, CA
Michael Fiebig, Architect
Lic: 402306 CO
M.Arch, University of Colorado
Littleton, CO Michael Gaddis, Architect
Lic: C 13534
San Rafael, CA
Michael Goldfinger
B. Arch.
Rockville, MD Michael Hudson, Architect
Lic: 50019
M. Arch, Clemson
Mesa, AZ
Michael G. Hull, Architect
Lic: ARC.0112832
PHD Architecture
Chambersburg, PA Michael David Johnson, AIA,LEED AP BD&C
Lic: 5122A
BArch
Baltimore, MD
Michael W. Mangino, Architect
Lic: 07272 AZ
B.S. Arizona State University
Phoenix, AZ Michael Mullin, Architect
Lic: C25447 CA
B. Arch. Carnegie Mellon
San Francisco, CA
Michael Quiana, Architect
Lic: 025237 NY
Bach of Architecture
Beacon, NY Michael Ryan, AIA
Lic: C-30179
B Arch
San Francisco, CA
Michael J. Stoker, AIA
Lic: 132706 UT
Master of Architecture, University of Ut
Park City, UT Mickey Propadovich, Architect
Lic: IL Architect's License #001009280 exp 11/08
B. Arch, IIT, Chicago, Illinois
Evanston, IL
Mike L. BeDell, Licensed Architect
Lic: 37609 AZ
Barch Cal Poly Pomona Ca.
Tucson, AZ Mike Roy Fairchild, Architect
Lic: AR-1229 Idaho
Bach. of Architecture, University of Ida
Middleton, ID
Mike Kwon, AIA
Lic: 012373 GA
B.S. Arch., B.S. Building Construction,
Atlanta, GA Neil J. Pinney, AIA, Architect
Lic: AZ 33961
M.A.U.D
Prescott, AZ
Nelson L. Johnson, Architect & Civil Engineer
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C9585; Calif. Civil En
M. Arch. Columbia
San Francisco, CA Nina Le Baron, Architect AIA
M.S. Historic Preservation-Columbia Univ
Friday Harbor, WA
Olga Kahn, Architect
Lic: #7382 MA
M. Arch., M.I.T.
Wellfleet, MA Oliver William Purcell, AIA, Emeritus
Lic: Retired
B., Arch. 1961
Edmond, OK
Patrick Lee, AIA
Lic: 401489
B. Arch, Virginia Tech
Denver, CO Patrick Joseph McFadden, AIA, NCARB, CBI, BCO
Lic: RA008691X PA
BS in Architecture
Chester Heights, PA
Paul Adams, AIA, LEED AP
Lic: B-3398
Master of Architecture, CU-Denver
Denver, CO Paul Asaro, Architect
Lic: c22769
B.A. Architecture
Fair Oaks, CA
Paul Murray Barnard, Architect
Lic: C12102---California
B. Arch., M. Arch.. (UD)
Laguna Beach, CA Peter Foxley, Architect
Lic: 14929 TX
B.Arch, University of Houston
Pearland, TX
Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Lic: Calif. Architect's License #C10010 1978, exp. 8/09
Santa Rosa, CA Peter M. Scaglione, Architect
BA in Architect, B Arch
New York, NY
Peter D. Stone, Architect
Lic: CT #ARI0002929, FL #AR94181
M. Arch., B. Civil Engineering
Tallahassee, FL Peter Van Erp, Architect
Lic: RI 1519
B Arch
Providence, RI
Ralph Bennett, Architect
Lic: 3697R (MD)
B. Arch., MFA in Architecture
Silver Spring, MD Ralph Mursinna, Architect
Lic: C 17,645 CA
B. Arch SCI-Arc
San Diego, CA
Ray Strang, AIA
B. Arch.
, MD Raymond H. Conley, Architect, Emeritus
Lic: Texas, Registration No. 1812
Bachelor of Architecture
Houston, TX
Reginald H. Cude, Architect
Lic: DC, ARC 1700
Arlington, VA Rex W. Ingram, Architect
Lic: 20220
M. Arch., UPENN
Salem, MA
Richard Bouchard, Registered Architect
Lic: NJ 07680
B. Arch, Kent State, Kent Ohio
Franklin Lakes, NJ Richard L. Caragol, Architect
March, Univ of Oregon
Walnut Creek, CA
Richard C. Fort, AIA
Lic: 8453
Asheville, NC Richard G. Salman, Architect
Lic: 020622
BA
New York, NY
Richard Wayne Speer, Architect
B.Arch
Boerne, TX Rob C. Belles, Architect
Lic: 001-013146 IL
M. Arch & MS Civil - UIUC
Rockford, IL
Rob A. Smith, AIA
Lic: Iowa 2190
Masters of Architecture, Iowa State Univ
Des Moines, IA Robert E. Calhoun, Architect
Lic: 8031
BS Architecture, AZ State
Scottsdale, AZ
Robert J. Ferenc, Architect
Lic: B-1294, Colorado
B.Arch.('72),M.Arch.('76);U.of Colo.
Longmont, CO Robert P. Hart, Architect
Lic: 001013689
B.S. Architectural Studies, U of I
Naperville, IL
Robert E. McCoy, Architect
Lic: California, C-4673
B. Architecture, UC Berkeley, 1963
La Canada, CA Robert Plichta, AIA, NCARB
Lic: 001-018822
Bachelor of Architecture
Aurora, IL
Robert M. Saladoff, AIA
Lic: Oregon 4116
M.Arch, U of Maryland College Park
Ashland, OR Robert Winovitch, Architect, AIA
Lic: 21471 TX
BS Arch, Texas A&M University
Austin, TX
Roger VanFrank, Architect
Lic: Utah Architect's License #106818-0301 exp 5/08
Salt Lake City, UT Ron V. Ronconi, AIA
Lic: ARC-304580
Mountain View, CA
Ronald F. Avery, Architect
Lic: Texas Architectural License #9285
Seguin, TX Ronald Plakus, Architect
Lic: 027282
B.A. of Architecture from K.S.U.
Beltsville, MD
Ronaldo Bassini, B.S.Mech Eng & M.Arch
BS Yale College M Arch Columbia Univ.
Santa Rosa, CA Ross G. Maxwell, Architect
Lic: C-12238
B.S. Architecture - Cal Poly SLO 1977
Costa Mesa, CA
Russel Donohue
Portland, OR S. Kay Kuhne, Architect
Lic: FL AR #12498
M.Arch AS, Architecture, M.I.T.
Tallahassee, FL
Saeed Khorshid, Architect
Lic: 0401-010167
Prof. BA of Architecture
Vienna, VA Sami Basuhail, Architect
Lic: MD Reg. # 14517
BS Architecture, MSIS
Fairfax, VA
Scott A. Hatfield, AIA, Chairman of the Board
Lic: 2177
-
The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
-
The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe the official investigation even touched WTC 7.
-
Are you a structural engineer yourself? How do you know these guys weren't paid off to say such things? You know like the report that commission that was supposed to investigate the events put out. But even if it is true, there are quite as many experts on the other side of the fence that support the theory of a controlled demolition.
No, but it makes perfect sense, when you look at the actual construction of the building as they outline it in that video, and from actual accounts of people that worked on those buildings -
a) They built to it resist wind and a minor 707 sized plane accident. The majority of the stability was around the perimeter and at the very center to remove the need for extra columns needed in older construction. This was done to increase rental space. The center coulmns were somewhat free floating, only attached to the outside frame by series of truss, etc..... that were bolted or welded together. The walls and such were simply a lite shell of sheetrock, nothing more. The construction methods are long time public fact. You can't change that. You'd have to get thousands of people aboard your little conspiracy train.
The plane compromises some exterior frame work, wipes out the light interior walling, and some of the lightly bonded interior columns, etc.... which causes a lot of the remaining load above to be transfered to the compromised exterior columns.
b) Meanwhile, the original WTC engineering plans never took into account the fuel dump from the crash, all the original designers mention it. They were concentrating on impact damage. The waterworks were cut off to the building, so the intense fire has time to work on the now exposed interior truss system that anchored the exterior support skeleton to the interior skeleton.
The metal weakens and sags due to the heat (you don't need to be a structural engineer to understand the damage caused by heat to metals, anyone who's ever done any metal work has seen it). Here's a chart showing the weakening effect of heat on steel at less than 2/3 of the temperatures of that were reached on that day - http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html .
The bolts shear and the welds crack, and that's all she wrote.
This theory makes perfect sense.
Futhermore more, you can't compare a fire in building a, b, c, etc.... to what happened to the WTC unless 1) They are of similar, near exact construction, 2) subject to the same impact forces, 3) subject to the same temperatures, and 4) all other unknowables.
Till then, I'll go with the theory that makes the most sense, which is the one laid out above.
-
(http://motherhaus.com/hausblog/files/2009/08/i-see-stupid-people-590x395.jpg)
-
Perhaps an unseen force was at work that day -
(http://pigroll.com/img/hulk_hogan_vs_wtc.jpg).
-
What it tells me is people are stupider than i originally thought. The premise alone is ludicrous
I can assure you I'm not stupid. What do you find wrong with what I said. A .38 special 158 grain lead round nose fired at 675 feet per second is moving approximately at the same speed as a jet.Do the math genius. Imagine the foot pounds of energy being released into the structure then add the jet fuel.
I was at ground zero on the second day. I observed the fire and smoke that went on for many days.
Any one with a government conspiracy theory can't be taken seriously as a rational healthy mind. In regards to poor engineering design of the WTC no one could have imagined pouring the fuel of a jet into it and igniting it. Then add to the weight of the destroyed floors debris falling on the other floors.
-
I have to get my head examined for even commenting on this board.
-
David Petraeus the former director of the CIA was caught having an affair in his office at CIA headquarters. But this guy organized hundreds of people to pull off 911? LOL
Exactly. I'm curious as to what the government has done to make people think that they could orchestrate something like this. The government fucks up everything they touch. Heads up their asses. Even if they were able to do it I don't buy that everyone involved kept their mouth shut about it. 911 conspiracy theories are total bullshit with virtually no hard evidence to support their theories.
-
I wanna know what buildings that tall have ever been brought down by controlled demo so we can draw a valid comparison.
Oops, the tallest was only 26 stories versus the towers which were 110 stories high!
-
I have to get my head examined for even commenting on this board.
I was agreeing with you asshat
-
this brings me to another often mised point.
ppl say they heard of a steel column building which has collapsed due to fire.
no shit,haha, but how about building where a freaking jumbo jet with quite some keroene(quite explosive)crashed into beforehand? ;D
i mean how can one disregard the fact that a jubo jet flew into it, this wasnt just a fire bc some oven in the pizzeria overheated
I don't know why everyone keeps mentioning planes hitting a building, WTC7 fell into it's own footprint due to fire. the whole plane issue is irrelevant when WTC 7 is taken into consideration.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps mentioning planes hitting a building, WTC7 fell into it's own footprint due to fire. the whole plane issue is irrelevant when WTC 7 is taken into consideration.
WTC caught fire, and was damaged, when one of the towers fell into it.
-
Exactly. I'm curious as to what the government has done to make people think that they could orchestrate something like this. The government fucks up everything they touch. Heads up their asses. Even if they were able to do it I don't buy that everyone involved kept their mouth shut about it. 911 conspiracy theories are total bullshit with virtually no hard evidence to support their theories.
You don't understand how a hierarchy works. Have you ever worked on a large project with many teams and participants? The small guy at the bottom has a small task and doesn't know the big picture. It is very easy to pull off a conspiracy with unknowing accomplices.
The government managed to get the USA involved in a war with Vietnam, killing thousands of soldiers and millions of Vietnamese because of a fabricated incident that did not happen as they claimed and they now admit it.
Governments have killed millions of people in the past. Don't use that weak excuse that they are too incompetent to kill or harm anyone. That is simply not true and history proves you totally wrong.
The government was able to develop the Atomic Bomb under secrecy - a huge undertaking.
The government is encroaching on your rights every year. Very incompetent of them but they are achieving their goal.
Because the government works for a small, powerful elite. A few people are masterminding the big, broad strokes that the government minions will execute.
-
I don't know why everyone keeps mentioning planes hitting a building, WTC7 fell into it's own footprint due to fire. the whole plane issue is irrelevant when WTC 7 is taken into consideration.
WTC 7 was damaged by WTC 1 falling into it, causing structural damage. Furthermore, it stored 6000 gallons of oil, which was burning. The structural damage, plus the fact that it burned all day led to it's falling. HTH. :)
-
Cats, give it rest. If 911 conspiracy nutjobs believe in things that never happened, you won't be able to convince them otherwise.
Here's something we can actually see, touch and believe in.
-
may i add soemthing.
to the ones who say the towers fell at freefall speed.
if you look at the objets and ppl who jumped, they fell faster than the towers came down.
just saying.
and yes, jet fuel will weaken a steel structure by a huge amount.
10 years later and noone brought this to court succesfuly?
are the courts in on it too?
look, the cia cant be trusted, and govt cant be trusted each one loves themselves the most, but wheres court proof evidence?
OJ Simpson has it
-
I wanna know what buildings that tall have ever been brought down by controlled demo so we can draw a valid comparison.
Oops, the tallest was only 26 stories versus the towers which were 110 stories high!
Well, the 110 stories came down in text book demo fashion. What are the chances that a controlled demolition would be less perfect than a natural collapse?
-
Well, the 110 stories came down in text book demo fashion. What are the chances that a controlled demolition would be less perfect than a natural collapse?
Your government conspirators had no idea what would happen when those jets crashed into those building. What if the buildings fell over like trees in a hurricane and the debris was just laying there with all the demolition charges in place? They would all, ALL be executed for treason and mass murder. Do you think your brilliant goverment would try that?
This thread makes me stupid and I don't need any help being stupid.
-
Your government conspirators had no idea what would happen when those jets crashed into those building. What if the buildings fell over like trees in a hurricane and the debris was just laying there with all the demolition charges in place? They would all, ALL be executed for treason and mass murder. Do you think your brilliant goverment would try that?
This thread makes me stupid and I don't need any help being stupid.
Yup i said pretty much the same thing, its beyond stupid.
-
WTC 7 was damaged by WTC 1 falling into it, causing structural damage. Furthermore, it stored 6000 gallons of oil, which was burning. The structural damage, plus the fact that it burned all day led to it's falling. HTH. :)
I guess that explains why it was the first skyscraper in history that due to fire collapsed pancake fashion into it's own footprint resembling a well executed controlled demolition. WTC 1 never 'FELL' onto WTC 7, it was hit by debris from the building, but it hardly fell on WTC7
-
Well, the 110 stories came down in text book demo fashion. What are the chances that a controlled demolition would be less perfect than a natural collapse?
No they didn't. They collapsed progressively, which is far from text book demolition. The towers collapsed from the top down. Progressive. That would be the worst way to demo a building. ::)
-
Your government conspirators had no idea what would happen when those jets crashed into those building. What if the buildings fell over like trees in a hurricane and the debris was just laying there with all the demolition charges in place? They would all, ALL be executed for treason and mass murder. Do you think your brilliant goverment would try that?
This thread makes me stupid and I don't need any help being stupid.
I am not an expert on implosion however I would think that taking out the lower columns would be sufficient in tall structures over 50 stories to bring down the whole building pancake style.
"Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm)
So what makes you think they would have explosives rigged all over the building?
Also it was public knowledge that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes flying into them which they did. You are not making a solid argument by trying to guess what the conspirators knew or didn't know.
-
I guess that explains why it was the first skyscraper in history that due to fire collapsed pancake fashion into it's own footprint resembling a well executed controlled demolition. WTC 1 never 'FELL' onto WTC 7, it was hit by debris from the building, but it hardly fell on WTC7
I didn't say fell WTC 1 fell onto WTC 7. I said it fell into it. The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to WTC 7. No it was not the first skyscraper to multi layer collapse due to fire and structural damage from WTC 1. It did not progressively collapse (pancake), it multi layer collapsed. HTH.
-
I guess that explains why it was the first skyscraper in history that due to fire collapsed pancake fashion into it's own footprint resembling a well executed controlled demolition. WTC 1 never 'FELL' onto WTC 7, it was hit by debris from the building, but it hardly fell on WTC7
Yes sir! You've solved the mystery. Get one of those TV lawyers, prove what you're saying, and sue those guys for trillions. First round of drinks are on you. Party!
-
No they didn't. They collapsed progressively, which is far from text book demolition. The towers collapsed from the top down. Progressive. That would be the worst way to demo a building. ::)
They collapsed completely with minimal parts of the building left standing and no severe damage to structures outside of the WTC complex. Yes, the little structures below were destroyed but no other buildings - except for WTC 7 of course which Silverstein had an insurance policy for lol!
For 110 stories tall buildings that's impressive.
But the real text book implosion occurred with WTC 7.
-
-
They collapsed completely with minimal parts of the building left standing and not severe damage to structures outside of the WTC complex. yes, the little structures below were destroyed but no other buildings - except for WTC 7 of course which Silverstein had an insurance policy for lol!
For 110 stories tall buildings that impressive.
But the real text book implosion occurred with WTC 7.
(http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/Javan64/are-you-trolling-or-just-stupid.jpg)
-
They collapsed completely with minimal parts of the building left standing and not severe damage to structures outside of the WTC complex. yes, the little structures below were destroyed but no other buildings - except for WTC 7 of course which Silverstein had an insurance policy for lol!
For 110 stories tall buildings that impressive.
But the real text book implosion occurred with WTC 7.
That's it!! The golden bullet! Take that video, get a lawyer and sue everybody. You'll be rich by Arbor Day.
-
How hard would it have been for the Muslim world to call bullshit, if it was a conspiracy. You would have heard something to the effect of: "We didn't do that".
-
What direction do you want it to collapse...sideways?....up ? Perhaps in a circle ?
-
What direction do you want it to collapse...sideways?....up ? Perhaps in a circle ?
:D
-
How hard would it have been for the Muslim world to call bullshit, if it was a conspiracy. You would have heard something to the effect of: "We didn't do that".
Lol, they are!
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/27/usat-poll.htm)
-
What direction do you want it to collapse...sideways?....up ? Perhaps in a circle ?
Down on your mom ;D
-
That's it!! The golden bullet! Take that video, get a lawyer and sue everybody. You'll be rich by Arbor Day.
Great!!
-
(http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/Javan64/are-you-trolling-or-just-stupid.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JxiR__64V_E/Ty_LtCfRnHI/AAAAAAAAA9g/OAri7KarSrY/s1600/911truthdenier.jpg)
-
There are still millions of people who are laboring under the delusion that "suicidal Arab hijackers" carried out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This dwindling band of laggards are the 21st century equivalent of Second Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda who, until 9 March 1974, did not realise WWII had ended.
A Google search for the phrase "for 9/11 truth" demonstrates just how many groups are working to counter the deceptions and injustices: scientists, architects, engineers, scholars, pilots, fire-fighters, medical professionals, etc. More than 1,500 verified architectural and engineering professionals have called for a new investigation and cited evidence of controlled demolitions at all three collapsed WTC steel-framed high-rises: the Twin Towers and WTC7. Dozens of experts, from structural engineers to architects, physicists, mechanical engineers, metallurgical engineering graduates, PhD scientists, fire protection engineers, fire-fighters, electrical design engineers, explosives technicians, etc, may be seen on the ae911truth channel on YouTube, explaining why they know the 9/11 official conspiracy theory is a pack of lies.
A plethora of "smoking gun" evidence refuting the bogus claims of fire-induced collapses has been apparent for years. This includes numerous reports of molten steel and molten metal found in the debris pile - some of which was analyzed and found to be abundant in iron.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/911realitydeniers.htm (http://www.takeourworldback.com/911realitydeniers.htm)
-
do you mean at freefall speed?
the jumpers surely fell faster than the towers, how comes?
How do you know that? Did you see any jumpers fall while the towers collapsed?
Also, when you look at implosions you will notice the buildings start out falling slow as their structural columns give in and then gradually free fall at the speed of gravity. This is because it takes time for the columns and beams to give out and provide zero resistance.
A person jumping out of a building does not have to go through this structural collapse phase. They just fall from the get go. You really can't compare the two. It is physics 101.
-
Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11
What Else Did He Lie About?
In a documentary soon to appear on Showtime, “The World According to Dick Cheney,” [Cheney said] “I got on the telephone with the president, who was in Florida, and told him not to be at one location where we could both be taken out.” Mr. Cheney kept W. flying aimlessly in the air on 9/11 while he and Lynn left on a helicopter for a secure undisclosed location, leaving Washington in a bleak, scared silence, with no one reassuring the nation in those first terrifying hours.
“I gave the instructions that we’d authorize our pilots to take it out,” he says, referring to the jet headed to Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. He adds: “After I’d given the order, it was pretty quiet. Everybody had heard it, and it was obviously a significant moment.”
When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”
In other words, Cheney pretended that Bush had authorized a shoot-down order, but Cheney now admits that he never did. In fact, Cheney acted as if he was the president on 9/11. *
Cheney lied about numerous other facts related to 9/11 as well. For example, Cheney:
Falsely linked Iraq with 9/11 (indeed, the entire torture program was aimed at establishing such a false linkage; and Cheney is the guy who pushed for torture, pressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. the former director of the CIA said Cheney of overseeing American torture policies)
Falsely claimed that spying on Americans, torture, the Patriot Act, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war and the “war on terror” were all necessitated by 9/11 … when all of them started or were planned before 9/11
Falsely stated that an attack such as 9/11 was unforeseeable, when Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was something which American military and intelligence services – and our allies – knew could happen
Falsely pretended that he was out of the loop during the 9/11 attacks
Falsely blamed others for 9/11, when Cheney was in charge of all of America’s counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement and this CNN article …
… And when Cheney was apparently responsible for letting the Pentagon get hit by an airplane (confirmed here and here)
And was instrumental in squashing a real investigation into 9/11
(http://www.nealo.com/cartoons/cheney.jpg)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34219.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34219.htm)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/9-11_Truth_1.jpg/800px-9-11_Truth_1.jpg)
-
the debris also fell faster.
also look this, how did they manage the top to break away like this?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/SjMcVJx74sI/AAAAAAAAANc/0diRXQqdvSU/s400/WTC+Collapse.jpg)
the explosives started going off at the floor where the remote controled plane hit i guess
demo guys did a poor job the top of that building was supposed to fall straight down wasn't it?
-
the debris also fell faster.
also look this, how did they manage the top to break away like this?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/SjMcVJx74sI/AAAAAAAAANc/0diRXQqdvSU/s400/WTC+Collapse.jpg)
the explosives started going off at the floor where the remote controled plane hit i guess
I could guess that if the bottom columns were taken out and the building gradually started to collapse because of structural resistance going to zero that this upper part of the building was weakened from the airplane impact and fires. So it started toppling as the building started to come down. Even the Hudson tower demolition had parts of the building topple a little as it imploded
But for me the Twin Towers are not the real red flag. It is WTC 7
Anyway, the towers collapsed in less than 10 seconds and in this video below the debris actually lags behind - the opposite of what you claimed.
-
fuck that video is so stupid,my head is hurting.
What part of it is stupid? We know you are stupid but why is the video stupid? lol!
-
demo guys did a poor job the top of that building was supposed to fall straight down wasn't it?
Hey they are gubment guys they are incompetent right?? HAHA
-
do you mean at freefall speed?
the jumpers surely fell faster than the towers, how comes?
I don't know that the jumpers fall much faster than the building, I am unsure if anyone ever counted the time it took. But so they should, they didn't have 400,00 tonnes of steel and concrete support structure resisting their fall.
-
What part of it is stupid? We know you are stupid but why is the video stupid? lol!
The people who jumped fell way faster than the towers collapsed.
-
so it was a silverstein plot.he duped the insurance companies quite well,eh.
therefore,not free fall speed.that was my point and thus,the free fall speed theory flies out of the window.
and there was some debris falling down much faster than the towers.
sorry but if every ct out there was true there wouldve been 10 911s
They always say "Near free fall" - free fall would mean nearly zero resistance. When they say near free fall, they mean with 400,000 tonnes of steel & concrete beneath it, that this should offer more resistance and a lot slower collapse time, but instead, the building imploded and fell as if their was little to no resistance.
-
The people who jumped fell way faster than the towers collapsed.
Show me how you figured that out? The buildings collapsed in 10 seconds. A person jumping out of a building immediately starts falling. A building being demolished or imploded have structural columns and beams that have to fail first before free fall of the structure can occur.
Damn, you are fucking stupid!
Here is an implosion for you. Someone jumping out of the building would have been on the ground long before all the columns gave up their resistance.
Did I already say you are a moron?
-
so it was a silverstein plot.he duped the insurance companies quite well,eh.
therefore,not free fall speed.that was my point and thus,the free fall speed theory flies out of the window.
and there was some debris falling down much faster than the towers.
sorry but if every ct out there was true there wouldve been 10 911s
Wow, lots of morons in this thread.
Do you understand the concept of columns and beams? With stupidity like this maybe it is a good thing that the Hierarchy gets away with their crime. Morons like you really should not be using up anymore oxygen.
Why is this collapse taking so long - even when it is free falling at the end?
-
this is an interesting video.
could you hear the many,many explosives going off?
where were those on 911,did they use silencers on the explosives?
hahahhaha
But they did hear explosions. And then this witness committed suicide! This is just too perfect!!
-
Show me how you figured that out? The buildings collapsed in 10 seconds. A person jumping out of a building immediately starts falling. A building being demolished or imploded have structural columns and beams that have to fail first before free fall of the structure can occur.
Damn, you are fucking stupid!
Here is an implosion for you. Someone jumping out of the building would have been on the ground long before all the columns gave up their resistance.
Did I already say you are a moron?
Just because...that implosion looks nothing like wtc..it's the complete opposite. And a building one / one hundreth the size of the towers has visible explosions and dozens of audible explosions.
-
Just because...that implosion looks nothing like wtc..it's the complete opposite. And a building one / one hundreth the size of the towers has visible explosions and dozens of audible explosions.
Blah blah blah excuses excuses.
Tell me something, do you like keeping your head in the sand?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltpakjtlgh1qerxcoo1_500.jpg)
-
But they did hear explosions. And then this witness committed suicide! This is just too perfect!!
Yeah, people say they "thought" they heard something. But the six hundred cameras on the Towers didn't pick up the sound of what would be a hundred times more explosives than in that video. You would have heard it across the Hudson
-
Blah blah blah excuses excuses.
Tell me something, do you like keeping your head in the sand?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltpakjtlgh1qerxcoo1_500.jpg)
You need to get your eyes and ears checked chief
-
Quad you are right on with what you are saying, it is blatantly obvious that the twin towers and building 7 were all controlled demolitions. Most people that think otherwise haven't taken the time to look into the topic or actually read one of the many books out about it, or simply don't want to believe our government is capable of such a thing. The New Pearl Harbor, and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited are both outstanding books if interested. I don't see how anyone with a rational mind can believe the bullshit story that was fabricated by the 9/11 Commission.
-
Yeah, people say they "thought" they heard something. But the six hundred cameras on the Towers didn't pick up the sound of what would be a hundred times more explosives than in that video. You would have heard it across the Hudson
Well, I am not an expert - who knows what kind of technology they could have access to?! All I am saying is there's a lot of unanswered questions.
There are so many areas to go into its amazing.
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/ (http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/)
-
yeah and generaly the ct videos dont show the damaged side of wtc7.
And because if there was really "the damaged side", it would topple over like Tbombs being buttfucked sideways by a dozen negroids. lol...Who cares though. Anyone with a brain against building 7 is for sure COINTELPRO or at the very least Hierarachy bloodline.
-
Quad you are right on with what you are saying, it is blatantly obvious that the twin towers and building 7 were all controlled demolitions. Most people that think otherwise haven't taken the time to look into the topic or actually read one of the many books out about it, or simply don't want to believe our government is capable of such a thing. The New Pearl Harbor, and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited are both outstanding books if interested. I don't see how anyone with a rational mind can believe the bullshit story that was fabricated by the 9/11 Commission.
if you buy a book about 9/11 you are the ultimate sucker.
-
one thing i want to add, the bin ladens and bushes been business buddies for very long.
the us govt helped raise these guys, they fell out,and bush should have known there always possibility of something like 911 happening.
but staging 911 everyone wouldva had to be in on it, the various secret services, police, firworkers, fuck,everyone remotely something to do with it.
What your saying is COINTELPRO...What your also saying is that when Rodney King got his ass handed to him by a dozen LAPD, that everyone in the LAPD HAD to be in on it. Which is fucking silly. Dude, 9/11 could have been pulled off by no less than 25men/ or women. COINTELPRO wants us to believe we would need an army an everyone would talk about it. lol Fucking silly.
-
I have noticed an interesting shift regarding 9/11 on Getbig. Years ago there were lots of emotional conspiracy people ridiculing the mainstream for buying into the official line. Here at getbig now there is lots of emotional people defending the Government. The average getbigger used to be all for anti government conspiracy rhetoric, now they get really angry if someone dares accuse their government of wrongdoing. Even if the Government didn't conspire in this event, the people at the very least should be pissed that they did nothing to prevent it, considering the amount of intelligence they had and a supposedly advanced airspace defence. You can guarantee the people saying 9/11 wasn't an inside job have no problem thinking that the Sandyhook and Colorado massacre was a government pysop to get their guns.
-
lol id never defend a government, but comeon this 911 stuff has become ridiculous.
govts are bad and selfish but please..
Do you believe in any government conspiracies?
-
lol id never defend a government, but comeon this 911 stuff has become ridiculous.
govts are bad and selfish but please..
X2 the govt completely took advsntage of 9/11 and pushed some very shady shit through congress that affects this country to this day. I'm not naive, but i dont latch onto every conspiracy theory out there
-
It was a despicable thing the government did with the Twin Towers, but it just shows how ruthless you can be to reach your goal.
-
top work from ropo on this thread
I thank you for those kind words. Point is that we here in the Finland doesn't be so easily fooled to believe this kind of crap, because we have basicly good education, and therefore we can see what is the hoax and what not. What comes to 9/11, it is quite simple. Where is the explosions? If you have seen some real explosions, you are able to understand, that there is none in 9/11. There isn't anything going on with the speed of explosion, which at its slowest 1000 meters per second(m/s). C4 = 7000 m/s, ANFO=10 000 m/s, which means that blast is very fucking fast, which means there would be visible shockwaves. And with the digi cams you can capture them easily. There is none, so what it means? Laws of physics has failed, or there isn't any explosions. And if there isn't any explosions, why towers collapsed?
Because there was the plane hitting the tower with massive force, and there was a fire, started by 40 tons of kerosene. And down they go, because fire that large can easily heat steel over 1000°C, and red hot steel can't carry that load which is enormous. All this is explained in the web over and over again trough the years, but foil hat idiots are still feeding that bullshit and make up evidence in these forums. Why? Because this is where teen twat's hangs out, and that bunch of idiots beleve anything ;D
-
I don't know why everyone keeps mentioning planes hitting a building, WTC7 fell into it's own footprint due to fire. the whole plane issue is irrelevant when WTC 7 is taken into consideration.
So you say, but where is the evidense? Do this look like they has come down in their own footprint?
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) = larger version
Look at the building between WTC 1 and WTC 7, and try to undestand that WTC 1 debris fell on the WTC 7. There is no buildings which is build to take that kind of beating, and it still stand and burn for hours. Here is that little fire in WTC 7:
(http://www.oocities.org/factsnotfantasy/WTC7Fire.jpg)
That, regarding of the foil hat idiots truth, is practically nothing.
-
Another question that comes to mind, is what happened to the near 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC that just happened to go missing. $230 million of nearly a billion dollars was recovered. So what are the peoples theories on this. (It is not plausible, of course, that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are dense, inert metals that are extremely unlikely to participate in chemical reactions with other materials.)
Some suggest the motivation for the collapse of the towers was the biggest heist in history. 3/4 billion dollars is a lot of cash.
Former mob boss Tony Gambino, who declared in a 2007 radio interview: “I know for a fact that Bush [and other] U.S. government leaders had prior knowledge and helped organize 9-11. They did it for many obvious reasons, one being to instigate a war in Iraq. But they also did it to get their hands on all the gold that was hidden below the [WTC].”
Gambino claims that his grandfather’s construction company built the WTC and installed underground vaults to warehouse vast quantities of gold, where it was later stolen on 9-11.
-
Well, the 110 stories came down in text book demo fashion. What are the chances that a controlled demolition would be less perfect than a natural collapse?
Try to figure this out: there is 110 floors and total weight of 500 000 metric tons. Plane practically cut it in two pieces, so there is 1/5 of the weight hanging above 4/5 of that weight. Fire takes out at least two floors hight, so 1/5 of the tower has about 12 meters to gain speed when it falls. What is the speed of impact while upper part accelerates 0 to 12m in two seconds, and what that acceleration do to that weight in impact? There will be 100 000 000 kilos traveling 6 meters per second in the point of impact, so what could happen? If you ask it from foil hat idiots, nothing.
-
Try to figure this out: there is 110 floors and total weight of 500 000 metric tons. Plane practically cut it in two pieces, so there is 1/5 of the weight hanging above 4/5 of that weight. Fire takes out at least two floors hight, so 1/5 of the tower has about 12 meters to gain speed when it falls. What is the speed of impact while upper part accelerates 0 to 12m in two seconds, and what that acceleration do to that weight in impact? There will be 100 000 000 kilos traveling 6 meters per second in the point of impact, so what could happen? If you ask it from foil hat idiots, nothing.
Also, at that height even if the first few floors fell unevenly it wouldn't take long for the floors to start failing together and go down instead of out. Plenty of stuff still fell away from the building though.
-
They collapsed completely with minimal parts of the building left standing and no severe damage to structures outside of the WTC complex. Yes, the little structures below were destroyed but no other buildings - except for WTC 7 of course which Silverstein had an insurance policy for lol!
For 110 stories tall buildings that's impressive.
But the real text book implosion occurred with WTC 7.
Only if you are looking that fake video. There is earlier this one compared to real one. Why don't you look it up and compare yourself?
-
Quad you are right on with what you are saying, it is blatantly obvious that the twin towers and building 7 were all controlled demolitions. Most people that think otherwise haven't taken the time to look into the topic or actually read one of the many books out about it, or simply don't want to believe our government is capable of such a thing. The New Pearl Harbor, and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited are both outstanding books if interested. I don't see how anyone with a rational mind can believe the bullshit story that was fabricated by the 9/11 Commission.
Very obvious indeed. But where is the evidence? There isn't even one little explosion for one good reason. There isn't such thing like explosives which you can leave to hang out in inferno like that, and after hour of burning they go off just like planned. All explosives are basicly chemical compounds, and all chemicals react heat, so controlled demolition with some kind of fireproof explosives, detonation cords and caps is 100% impossible task. So how exactly they do it, while there isn't any way to do it? Point out even one explosive which doesn't react fire. Just one? Pretty please??
-
So are the non tin foil hats not going to answer what happened to the 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC, not to mention the 1000 missing bodies that they suspect was pulverised to dust much like everything else in the building. Once again, their is no precedent of a collapsing building doing this to human remains.
-
But they did hear explosions. And then this witness committed suicide! This is just too perfect!!
How they hear explosions, while there isn't any? Because they hear loud noise, and they, like everybody, think that it is explosion. You simply can't be sure if you don't see it. Try to understand this. There was loads of things falling down from hight of 78th floor, which means hundred of meters. When I drop something like 2000lb safe from 300 meters behind your back, what it will sound like? In your ears it sound like an explosion, while it is not.
-
Another question that comes to mind, is what happened to the near 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC that just happened to go missing. $230 million of nearly a billion dollars was recovered. So what are the peoples theories on this. (It is not plausible, of course, that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are dense, inert metals that are extremely unlikely to participate in chemical reactions with other materials.)
Some suggest the motivation for the collapse of the towers was the biggest heist in history. 3/4 billion dollars is a lot of cash.
Former mob boss Tony Gambino, who declared in a 2007 radio interview: “I know for a fact that Bush [and other] U.S. government leaders had prior knowledge and helped organize 9-11. They did it for many obvious reasons, one being to instigate a war in Iraq. But they also did it to get their hands on all the gold that was hidden below the [WTC].”
Gambino claims that his grandfather’s construction company built the WTC and installed underground vaults to warehouse vast quantities of gold, where it was later stolen on 9-11.
So, now we start to beat bushes with hope, that something springs out? While it is proven fact that 9/11 isn't conspiracy at all, who cares about this shit you are trying to feed to people? Where is the evidence? You should understand that if there isn't any means to pull out this demolition job, there isn't any conspiracy, because that controlled demolition is the key to whole conspiracy. And while the key is missing, where is the conspiracy?
-
So, now we start to beat bushes with hope, that something springs out? While it is proven fact that 9/11 isn't conspiracy at all, who cares about this shit you are trying to feed to people? Where is the evidence? You should understand that if there isn't any means to pull out this demolition job, there isn't any conspiracy, because that controlled demolition is the key to whole conspiracy. And while the key is missing, where is the conspiracy?
Is this question to hard to answer for you?, 3/4 billion dollars goes missing and you have no idea how to answer it. I'm not trying to feed anybody anything, merely asking relevant questions. The WTC stored more gold than Fort Knox, the majority of it went missing and has never been accounted for, asking what happened to it is a legitimate question. 3/4 billion dollars is plenty of motivation for a conspiracy. You anti tin hats have to realise that you don't have all the answers and that their are flaws in your arguments, this is what has led to suspicion in the first place.
And controlled demolition is irrelevant, I don't think people really care either way, it's just that the building fell in an eerily similar way to a controlled demolition. The argument is that the Government or some other powerful group orchestrated or knew about 9/11 and used it to profit their agenda.
-
So are the non tin foil hats not going to answer what happened to the 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC, not to mention the 1000 missing bodies that they suspect was pulverised to dust much like everything else in the building. Once again, their is no precedent of a collapsing building doing this to human remains.
it is quite clear that you don't have enough intelligence to comprehend those circumstances which take plase at the ground zero. Try to undesrtand, that both of those buildings weight more than 500 000 metric tons, so when they collapsed, there were something like 250 000 kilos of human flesh against 1000 000 0000 kilos of flying steel, concrete and stuff. What will be outcome from that? Loads of minced meat under the pile of rubble..so what happens to that minced meat during the weeks of the salvage operation? It just sit there and wait, and when they find pieces of it, it will be fresh and pretty? Come on, no one can be so stupid for real ;D ::) ;D
-
it is quite clear that you don't have enough intelligence to comprehend those circumstances which take plase at the ground zero. Try to undesrtand, that both of those buildings weight more than 500 000 metric tons, so when they collapsed, there were something like 250 000 kilos of human flesh against 1000 000 0000 kilos of flying steel, concrete and stuff. What will be outcome from that? Loads of minced meat under the pile of rubble..so what happens to that minced meat during the weeks of the salvage operation? It just sit there and wait, and when they find pieces of it, it will be fresh and pretty? Come on, no one can be so stupid for real ;D ::) ;D
You keep avoiding answering the question about the 3/4 billion dollars, and the bodies weren't even mince meat, like you said, as one would expect, the bodies were pulverised into sub-100-micron powder, something that has never occurred in a building collapse or fire.
-
Is this question to hard to answer for you?, 3/4 billion dollars goes missing and you have no idea how to answer it. I'm not trying to feed anybody anything, merely asking relevant questions. The WTC stored more gold than Fort Knox, the majority of it went missing and has never been accounted for, asking what happened to it is a legitimate question. 3/4 billion dollars is plenty of motivation for a conspiracy. You anti tin hats have to realise that you don't have all the answers and that their are flaws in your arguments, this is what has led to suspicion in the first place.
And controlled demolition is irrelevant, I don't think people really care either way, it's just that the building fell in an eerily similar way to a controlled demolition. The argument is that the Government or some other powerful group orchestrated or knew about 9/11 and used it to profit their agenda.
You are on wrong track. There is a claim that there is xxx billions missing, but where is the evidence to prove that the claim is true? Don't you know what is the difference between claim and the fact? Let me show it by example: I claim that you are a moron, who is drooling on his shoes while typing this shit in the net. You prove that my claim is a fact by answering my comment like a dork.
-
You keep avoiding answering the question about the 3/4 billion dollars, and the bodies weren't even mince meat, like you said, as one would expect, the bodies were pulverised into sub-100-micron powder, something that has never occurred in a building collapse or fire.
Bodies? They're still working on it. It's hard to identify bits and pieces.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031414/The-ongoing-effort-identify-remains-1-121-tragic-victims-9-11.html
Gold? Who knows. Nobody can seem to agree how much was under WTC 4, and how much was on trucks already. My guess is somebodies probably sitting a shit load of gold right now. Maybe some bums ran off with it, or maybe terrorists. Maybe it was like Die Hard 3, all a diversion for the terrorists to snatch the gold. Who cares really? :D
-
lol you do know that russians like to take the piss on the usa.
the kgb used to spread ridiculous rumours about the usa back in the day.
besides, if it was taken down nuclear, then where is the radiation fallout?
how comes theres still ppl living in nyc
If you watch all of the videos it is all addressed.
-
Quad you are right on with what you are saying, it is blatantly obvious that the twin towers and building 7 were all controlled demolitions. Most people that think otherwise haven't taken the time to look into the topic or actually read one of the many books out about it, or simply don't want to believe our government is capable of such a thing. The New Pearl Harbor, and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited are both outstanding books if interested. I don't see how anyone with a rational mind can believe the bullshit story that was fabricated by the 9/11 Commission.
Many people have a "god complex"...They believe the world revolves around them. They can never believe that there are groups of people controlling almost every move we all make. They believe that hard work and luck are what make up the business world. However everything in their history points to the fact that we all have been gathering in "tribes"or "cliques" since we can were young.
-
I'll buy that idea. The question I have to all the conspiracy theororists is this. If the govt was really responsible, why would they go to all the trouble of planes, demolition, etc? Why wouldn't they just bomb the ever living shit out of the twin towers, blame it on terrorists, and call it a day?
Why doesn't a murderer use a gun every time they murder? How come after 9/11 the supposed "Terrorist" haven't set off pipe bombs in shopping malls? Hell 15 year old boys know how to make them. The fact that there weren't multiple events happening after 9/11 in the States is very telling to me.
-
Do you guys even lift or what? :D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
this thread is now concluded.
-
If a 200,000 lbs jet landed in your apartment, how would your floor boards hold up though?
I think it fell because the floor bords brakes then all the weigh falls down on next floor and so on.
Why is this surprising? ::)
-
From doing some more reading....
The engineers factored in a boeing 707 hitting the towers at normal speed, not a boeing 767 (which is much larger) and at full speed.
Air fuel was not factored in at all especially a near full tank since any plane thought to hit the tower would be one coming into land at nearby airports and low on fuel.
The big problem was the force of the impact dislodging so much fire resistant foam from the trusses.
-
From doing some more reading....
The engineers factored in a boeing 707 hitting the towers at normal speed, not a boeing 767 (which is much larger) and at full speed.
Air fuel was not factored in at all especially a near full tank since any plane thought to hit the tower would be one coming into land at nearby airports and low on fuel.
The big problem was the force of the impact dislodging so much fire resistant foam from the trusses.
Finally, somebody actually did some fire science research. The removal of the insulation was a big factor. That and the 767 delivered about 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy into the building. That's gonna fuck shit up structurally. :D
-
Finally, somebody actually did some fire science research. The removal of the insulation was a big factor. That and the 767 delivered about 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy into the building. That's gonna fuck shit up structurally. :D
This. I love the foil hats that say it was able to withstand that. Maybe, a much smaller plane and.....THEORETICALLY. Nobody ever thought it would happen, and certaiy not a jumbo jet loaded with fuel being used as a missile.
-
This. I love the foil hats that say it was able to withstand that. Maybe, a much smaller plane and.....THEORETICALLY. Nobody ever thought it would happen, and certaiy not a jumbo jet loaded with fuel being used as a missile.
To put 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy into perspective, let's look at the Navy's new electromagnetic rail gun. It launches a 7 lb projectile at 5400 mph. That's roughly 6.8 million ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. Not on impact, but at the muzzle.
The 767 delivered around 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy spread out over the area of impact zone, and decreased in energy as it went through the building. The Navy's railgun delivers about 2 one thousanths the energy of the 767, or about 0.19% the energy. You would need about 515 of the Navy's 7 lb projectiles launched at the same time, at 5400 mph to equal the energy delivered by the 767 that impacted the building.
Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe the structural beams inside the building were completely fucked? Just maybe? ;)
-
To put 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy into perspective, let's look at the Navy's new electromagnetic rail gun. It launches a 7 lb projectile at 5400 mph. That's roughly 6.8 million ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. Not on impact, but at the muzzle.
The 767 delivered around 3.5 billion ft/lbs of energy spread out over the area of impact zone, and decreased in energy as it went through the building. The Navy's railgun delivers about 2 one thousanths the energy of the 767, or about 0.19% the energy. You would need about 515 of the Navy's 7 lb projectiles launched at the same time, at 5400 mph to equal the energy delivered by the 767 that impacted the building.
Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe the structural beams inside the building were completely fucked? Just maybe? ;)
The kinetic energy is equivalent to about 200 kg of explosives. That indeed is alot of energy. But we need to think how all that energy will affect the building. The relatively fragile and hollow plane has to exert enough force to deform the core structures that are 1-2" thick. If there is not enough force the kinetic energy will turn into heat and deformation of the plane.
-
Can we just take a poll?
I think that the USA did it.
-
Can we just take a poll?
I think that the USA did it.
USA did it under influence from the Zionists.
-
Here is another gem - the pristine Pentagon Lawn after a airliner supposedly ripped through it and crashed into the ground level. Eye witnesses have been interviewed and contradicted the supposed flight path. They had a decoy plane fly over the Pentagon and then bombed it with a missile.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/lawn1.jpg)
-
Here is another gem - the pristine Pentagon Lawn after a airliner supposedly ripped through it and crashed into the ground level. Eye witnesses have been interviewed and contradicted the supposed flight path. They had a decoy plane fly over the Pentagon and then bombed it with a missile.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/lawn1.jpg)
So, what about the hundreds of eye witnesses that saw a plane fly into the pentagon? :D
-
-
So, what about the hundreds of eye witnesses that saw a plane fly into the pentagon? :D
List the names of the 100s that physically saw it fly into the Pentagon.
Here are some witnesses on video ;)
-
I'll buy that idea. The question I have to all the conspiracy theororists is this. If the govt was really responsible, why would they go to all the trouble of planes, demolition, etc? Why wouldn't they just bomb the ever living shit out of the twin towers, blame it on terrorists, and call it a day?
Right. And it they want to provocate war with Saddam, do you really need to kill bunch of people? No. You take an ugly arab, and put him to piss on USA flag front of the white house and cnn cameras, and next you will know is they are bombing Bagdad ;D
-
What they let us see (not much)
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
OCT - Officially released frames
What we would expect to see
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
Artist's conception
-
Right. And it they want to provocate war with Saddam, do you really need to kill bunch of people? No. You take an ugly arab, and put him to piss on USA flag front of the white house and cnn cameras, and next you will know is they are bombing Bagdad ;D
You are so full of shit. Here Muslims stone Christians in Dearborn, USA and the police follow the Christians and arrest them!
People in the USA don't go nuts when their flag is pissed on. That's what Muslims do. So much for that little theory of yours.
They needed something dramatic like 911 to implement their plans. 911 was not the first false flag and it won't be the last. I guarantee it.
-
List the names of the 100s that physically saw it fly into the Pentagon.
Here are some witnesses on video ;)
List the names? Are you fucking retarded? How would anyone know their names? :D
-
Here is another gem - the pristine Pentagon Lawn after a airliner supposedly ripped through it and crashed into the ground level. Eye witnesses have been interviewed and contradicted the supposed flight path. They had a decoy plane fly over the Pentagon and then bombed it with a missile.
(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/lawn1.jpg)
Ooo, what a genius. And that decoy plane turns invisible, because thousands of people see it flying toward the pentagon, but no one after that. And how it fly after hitting those steel lamp post and cutting them down and furthermore, how that tiny cruise missile, which is only 5 meters long, could carry 30 tons of jet fuel which we see in that fireball? That will be a quite large wing tank needed to do that..
And where is the explosion? If you look photos taken during fire-extinguishing, you see that all the debris of the house itself has been flying inwards in the point of impact, and only debris of the plane is outside of the house. This proves that the fuselage make the hole in the building, and the wings break into smithereens outside the buiding, bursting out the jet fuel which ignated and make that fireball.
There is even parts of 757 visible in the pictures taken just after collision. http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/ (http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/)
-
List the names of the 100s that physically saw it fly into the Pentagon.
Here are some witnesses on video ;)
In fact, there is the list and what they see in the internet. Is nice to see that in the crisis, foil hat idiots build their defence on the shoulders of the bunch of ignorant neeguls ;D
Well that wasn't nice thing to say, and I apologize to them, because that bunch seem to be smarter that bunch of foil hats. There was hundreds of witnesses making their statement, and those four ends up in the foil hat video. Never wonder why? Hey, lets go and interview those, who has been making silliest statements in this case. Do they find truth this way?
There were enormous pile of the hard evidence at the pentagon, but some how they doesn't end up to foil hat idiots web sites. There were plane full of people in that fire, and even that we have photos. Then there is conflict between claims and reality, because there isn't missile big enough to look like aeroplane, or big enough to carry that kerosene load. Not big enough to do those damages, so what hit the pentagon? First one 757 and then storm of foil hat idiots.
-
What they let us see (not much)
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-official-video.gif)
OCT - Officially released frames
What we would expect to see
(http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/911-pentagon-simulation-of-how-the-pentagon-video-should-have-looked-like.gif)
Artist's conception
So, security cam at the gate takes picture every two second and that is miracle for you? They aren't there to take pictures of the passing planes, but them who use that gate. And what about the claims that there was 50 security cams at the area, and FBI take them all. Well, there was number of cameras, in banks, in petrol stations etc. but not around the USA top military facility. Wonder why? Show me just one military building, which has bunch of cameras pointing every direction? Those military guys like their privacy, believe it or not..
-
You are so full of shit. Here Muslims stone Christians in Dearborn, USA and the police follow the Christians and arrest them!
People in the USA don't go nuts when their flag is pissed on. That's what Muslims do. So much for that little theory of yours.
They needed something dramatic like 911 to implement their plans. 911 was not the first false flag and it won't be the last. I guarantee it.
Dramatic my ass. How about these:
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Grenada
Beirut
Libya
Panama
Persian Gulf War (1990–1991)
Somalia
Haiti
Yugoslavia
But for beating Saddam they need something dramatic? And you say that I am full of shit? Ok. Why WTC, why not terrorist hit towards any school bus? That would be dramatic enough, regarding the truth that in the previous years you haven't need provocation at all.
-
List the names? Are you fucking retarded? How would anyone know their names? :D
I know everything, including this: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html) Try to read all of them.
-
I know everything, including this: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html) Try to read all of them.
Ha checkmate!
Btw, the plane that hit the pentagon was the much smaller Boeing 757-200 compared to the 767-300's that hit the towers.
-
Dramatic my ass. How about these:
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Vietnam war started because of a false accusation - not flag burning.
The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin Ghosts"[6] (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.
The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.
-
So, security cam at the gate takes picture every two second and that is miracle for you? They aren't there to take pictures of the passing planes, but them who use that gate. And what about the claims that there was 50 security cams at the area, and FBI take them all. Well, there was number of cameras, in banks, in petrol stations etc. but not around the USA top military facility. Wonder why? Show me just one military building, which has bunch of cameras pointing every direction? Those military guys like their privacy, believe it or not..
You are a moron. There are enough frames to capture the explosion / fireball but not enough to capture the plane? The size does not add up. The plane would have been in clear view. There you have it. An actual video showing a fireball and no airplane yet you still defend it. You are hopeless and grasping at straws. I can see the desperation in you.
HAHA!
-
You are a moron. There are enough frames to capture the explosion / fireball but not enough to capture the plane? The size does not add up. The plane would have been in clear view. There you have it. An actual video showing a fireball and no airplane yet you still defend it. You are hopeless and grasping at straws. I can see the desperation in you.
HAHA!
Yep. I have seen original footage, and frame clock is visible, furthermore it is just what that type of gate camera can do at is best. If they would know what is coming, there would be hollywood film group filming that just for you. And who cares about that video, while your and other foil hat idiots claims about the missile are just insane? Please point out even one missile which is capable to fly with 30 tons of cerosene. That means tank truck full of jet fuel. For five meters long cruise missile that will be quite a load.
-
Vietnam war started because of a false accusation - not flag burning.
The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin Ghosts"[6] (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.
The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.
And which one requires killing few thousand your own citizens for starters?
-
Very obvious indeed. But where is the evidence? There isn't even one little explosion for one good reason. There isn't such thing like explosives which you can leave to hang out in inferno like that, and after hour of burning they go off just like planned. All explosives are basicly chemical compounds, and all chemicals react heat, so controlled demolition with some kind of fireproof explosives, detonation cords and caps is 100% impossible task. So how exactly they do it, while there isn't any way to do it? Point out even one explosive which doesn't react fire. Just one? Pretty please??
You can see demolition squibs all over the place on the towers as they are falling. This is evidence of explosions I would say. You do realize that the fires were confined to a small number of floors don't you? The compounds used were thermite and nano- thermite, not conventional demolition explosives. The huge dust cloud you see from the collapse is called pyroclastic flow, caused by controlled demolition, which is the only explanation for pulverized concrete. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand impact from a jet, and designed so that if something catastrophic did happen, then the entire complex wouldn't collapse, but break off. How do explain the presence of thermite in the rubble? How do you explain Larry Silverstein saying they went ahead and "pulled" building 7? He admitted it was a controlled demolition on camera. Why was that building wired for controlled demolition? You really need to research the topic a bit more.
-
if you buy a book about 9/11 you are the ultimate sucker.
So researching an important event in the history of our country means I'm a sucker? Right. Reading something to gather information on both sides of the story makes a person a sucker? I would say blindly accepting the bullshit our government and media feeds us makes a person a sucker.
-
indeed, for you can have all the info for free on alex jones broadcast ;D
Read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. I accepted the shit the government tried to feed everyone at first as well, until I opened my friggin eyes and realized it just doesn't add up. Far too many inconsistencies with everything that happened that day for our government to not have been directly involved.
-
And which one requires killing few thousand your own citizens for starters?
If you don't think our government would kill its own citizens, look up Operation Northwoods. This was planned during the Kennedy administration.
-
You can see demolition squibs all over the place on the towers as they are falling. This is evidence of explosions I would say. You do realize that the fires were confined to a small number of floors don't you? The compounds used were thermite and nano- thermite, not conventional demolition explosives. The huge dust cloud you see from the collapse is called pyroclastic flow, caused by controlled demolition, which is the only explanation for pulverized concrete. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand impact from a jet, and designed so that if something catastrophic did happen, then the entire complex wouldn't collapse, but break off. How do explain the presence of thermite in the rubble? How do you explain Larry Silverstein saying they went ahead and "pulled" building 7? He admitted it was a controlled demolition on camera. Why was that building wired for controlled demolition? You really need to research the topic a bit more.
Good post!
-
So researching an important event in the history of our country means I'm a sucker? Right. Reading something to gather information on both sides of the story makes a person a sucker? I would say blindly accepting the bullshit our government and media feeds us makes a person a sucker.
Exactly. Those that refuse to do a little research and blindly slurp up all the bs their "media and leaders" feed them are the real suckers.
-
You can see demolition squibs all over the place on the towers as they are falling. This is evidence of explosions I would say. You do realize that the fires were confined to a small number of floors don't you? The compounds used were thermite and nano- thermite, not conventional demolition explosives. The huge dust cloud you see from the collapse is called pyroclastic flow, caused by controlled demolition, which is the only explanation for pulverized concrete. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand impact from a jet, and designed so that if something catastrophic did happen, then the entire complex wouldn't collapse, but break off. How do explain the presence of thermite in the rubble? How do you explain Larry Silverstein saying they went ahead and "pulled" building 7? He admitted it was a controlled demolition on camera. Why was that building wired for controlled demolition? You really need to research the topic a bit more.
What you really can see there, is air bursting out from the easiest way, while collapse rise the pressure in the rooms. There is 4000 square meters of space in every room, room hight is at least 3 meters, so do you math. How many cubic meters of air there is in each room? When collapse presses floors toward each other, air between has to go somewhere. Furthermore, speed of those bursts is somewhere of the region 400-600 m/s, while slowest explosives are twise as fast.
And where is the sound? Where is the columns, cutted by the explosions? There is no such thing in ruins. If there would be some signs of explosion in the ruins, I bet that some foil hat would be pointing them out with pleasure. Have you seen one? No, because there isn't one. And try to explain why only few windows were broken, while there has to be tons of explosives detonated in that tower? Laws of physics demands that where is an explosion, there is a shock wave, and with that amount of explosives, it would be big. It would blow out all windows, not only few. This you don't see in demolition videos, because they usually take the windows away before detonation to prevent any flying glass.
-
So researching an important event in the history of our country means I'm a sucker? Right. Reading something to gather information on both sides of the story makes a person a sucker? I would say blindly accepting the bullshit our government and media feeds us makes a person a sucker.
If you buy a history book, you are a smart man. If you buy some foil hats book about the 9/11, you are a moron. That's the difference. 99% of the literature about the 9/11 is total bullshit, written by the foil hat idiots. That's why you should look what you buy.
-
Read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. I accepted the shit the government tried to feed everyone at first as well, until I opened my friggin eyes and realized it just doesn't add up. Far too many inconsistencies with everything that happened that day for our government to not have been directly involved.
Load of foil hat bullshit, no more than that. Claims and false evidence, and crap like that, for idiots who are dumb enough to pay the prize. Why there has to be prize when these guys are "revealing truth"? Why? Just because their truth is on sale, and people with their right mind call it bullshit.
-
People like Ropo are a perfect example of how well the system works, how it makes citizens resistant to question authority and to ridicule those who do. The reason he gets so emotional and hysterical about 9/11 is because the thought that Governments don't have citizens best interests at heart cause him great anxiety, as it should do in those that have been properly indoctrinated. To investigate 9/11 and not be suspicious is cause for concern, you don't need to believe it was a conspiracy, but at least acknowledge that all the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit together.
I asked Ropo about the missing 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC and he just said it was false. It was well documented how much money was stored there, and how much money was recovered. Anything Ropo doesn't like the sound of he just calls it a claim or bullshit. Ropo is a man who cannot stand the thought that he may be wrong, that everything isn't as black and white as he wants it to be. His constant name calling of people who ask questions about suspicious events is indication of why Governments feel no resistance when it comes to duping the public, they know there is many people like Ropo who will lap up anything they are told, like the good little boy the Government raised them to be.
-
well said.
-
-
People like Ropo are a perfect example of how well the system works, how it makes citizens resistant to question authority and to ridicule those who do. The reason he gets so emotional and hysterical about 9/11 is because the thought that Governments don't have citizens best interests at heart cause him great anxiety, as it should do in those that have been properly indoctrinated. To investigate 9/11 and not be suspicious is cause for concern, you don't need to believe it was a conspiracy, but at least acknowledge that all the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit together.
I asked Ropo about the missing 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC and he just said it was false. It was well documented how much money was stored there, and how much money was recovered. Anything Ropo doesn't like the sound of he just calls it a claim or bullshit. Ropo is a man who cannot stand the thought that he may be wrong, that everything isn't as black and white as he wants it to be. His constant name calling of people who ask questions about suspicious events is indication of why Governments feel no resistance when it comes to duping the public, they know there is many people like Ropo who will lap up anything they are told, like the good little boy the Government raised them to be.
If only he'd been fed a steady diet of the Youtube videos you have watched, he would have been a member of the Enlightened Class as well.
-
If only he'd been fed a steady diet of the Youtube videos you have watched, he would have been a member of the Enlightened Class as well.
I gather by your comment you don't find anything suspicious about 9/11. What is strange about Ropo is that he is so angry that people don't believe the official story. Why would he be so concerned if others find the event suspicious. Even if you had never heard anything at all about 9/11 conspiracies, just to watch the collapse via video footage, anybody who had ever seen video of a controlled demolition would see the uncanny similarities. For me, I just believe it is suspicious, I am not saying it is or isn't a conspiracy, but Ropo takes this extreme hard line stance like it is ridiculous to even question the Government. I would still like a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the billion dollars stored under the WTC. The non tin hats just ignore the question or outright deny their wasn't any gold or silver there.
-
For the final time morons....
The towers did NOT have to fall they only had to be hit for the mission to be successful and for Bush to do exactly what he did.
Pentagon didn't need to be hit either and the Capital building was NOT hit at all.
The fact they fell is irrelevant!
-
For the final time morons....
The towers did NOT have to fall they only had to be hit for the mission to be successful and for Bush to do exactly what he did.
Pentagon didn't need to be hit either and the Capital building was NOT hit at all.
The fact they fell is irrelevant!
There was money involved as well fuckstick. The insurance Silverstein collected on a destroyed complex??? Just patching up the towers was not going to be an option. They could have flown over the towers and dumped water on it to control the fires. They have controlled much worse fires in skyscrapers before and after 911.
Money and power. Iraq was about oil and money. Afghanistan is about minerals, naturals gas and money.
And by controlling these zones it gives the Zionists more power to pursue their agendas.
-
People like Ropo are a perfect example of how well the system works, how it makes citizens resistant to question authority and to ridicule those who do. The reason he gets so emotional and hysterical about 9/11 is because the thought that Governments don't have citizens best interests at heart cause him great anxiety, as it should do in those that have been properly indoctrinated. To investigate 9/11 and not be suspicious is cause for concern, you don't need to believe it was a conspiracy, but at least acknowledge that all the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit together.
I asked Ropo about the missing 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC and he just said it was false. It was well documented how much money was stored there, and how much money was recovered. Anything Ropo doesn't like the sound of he just calls it a claim or bullshit. Ropo is a man who cannot stand the thought that he may be wrong, that everything isn't as black and white as he wants it to be. His constant name calling of people who ask questions about suspicious events is indication of why Governments feel no resistance when it comes to duping the public, they know there is many people like Ropo who will lap up anything they are told, like the good little boy the Government raised them to be.
God help us if the NWO plans does include a smaller, 500 million population with the majority of citizens being like Ropo. This could easily become a reality because only 1/14 people would have to be brainwashed like him which I think is very plausible.
He is obviously a very weak character.
-
yeah i think highjacked planes alone with one crashing somewhere ,or even not, would have been enough.
You don't know that. Nobody could guess something like that. The government will do whatever they want.
Lanza supposedly kills 20 kids and now we hear on TV about how massive numbers of people are being killed by these evil guns. People kill people. Guns don't.
If anything it is government that have killed millions of people in history. The lone gun nut killing 20 people is a drop in the bucket.
Also, you have to ask yourself if the government did it then we are dealing with evil people.For all you know they could get an orgasm out of more destruction so blowing up is extra insurance and they like the mayhem they create because of sadistic desires.
Remember the laughing, dancing Israelis in New York? These are evil creatures - not your mom.
-
About not bring able to keep it covered.
The Manhattan project was kept secred and all in all
included more than 100.000 people at least over three different countries.
-
You can see demolition squibs all over the place on the towers as they are falling. This is evidence of explosions I would say. You do realize that the fires were confined to a small number of floors don't you? The compounds used were thermite and nano- thermite, not conventional demolition explosives. The huge dust cloud you see from the collapse is called pyroclastic flow, caused by controlled demolition, which is the only explanation for pulverized concrete. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand impact from a jet, and designed so that if something catastrophic did happen, then the entire complex wouldn't collapse, but break off. How do explain the presence of thermite in the rubble? How do you explain Larry Silverstein saying they went ahead and "pulled" building 7? He admitted it was a controlled demolition on camera. Why was that building wired for controlled demolition? You really need to research the topic a bit more.
-
I find your lack of faith (in demolition squibs) disturbing.
-
About not bring able to keep it covered.
The Manhattan project was kept secred and all in all
included more than 100.000 people at least over three different countries.
In 1940. No television, no internet...no every citizen in the country can take a video with their phone and it's on youtube in 5 minutes.
-
In 1940. No television, no internet...no every citizen in the country can take a video with their phone and it's on youtube in 5 minutes.
plus it wasn't kept a secret for very long! If at all if you believe the Russians.
-
-
I find your lack of faith (in demolition squibs) disturbing.
:D No no, I have a bus load of faith in demolition squibs, I do. I have dated many demolition squibs. My first wife was a demolition squib. I'm just not too sure any demolition squibs were used in those tall buildings that were hit by those exploding airplanes.
-
I think every american citizen should watch this documentary.
After that, if somebody choose to blindly believe the official version of the facts, it's their right.
-
You can see demolition squibs all over the place on the towers as they are falling. This is evidence of explosions I would say. You do realize that the fires were confined to a small number of floors don't you? The compounds used were thermite and nano- thermite, not conventional demolition explosives. The huge dust cloud you see from the collapse is called pyroclastic flow, caused by controlled demolition, which is the only explanation for pulverized concrete. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand impact from a jet, and designed so that if something catastrophic did happen, then the entire complex wouldn't collapse, but break off. How do explain the presence of thermite in the rubble? How do you explain Larry Silverstein saying they went ahead and "pulled" building 7? He admitted it was a controlled demolition on camera. Why was that building wired for controlled demolition? You really need to research the topic a bit more.
I'd like to better understand the way you think. Assuming your theory of...uh...demotion squibs is in fact correct, what are you going to do about it?
-
Like Tommy and Syntax, I, too, am skeptical that demolition squids had a hand or eight in bringing down the towers. For one thing, duration time and project scale has to be questioned. Demolition squids cannot live out of water for more than a few minutes. This has important ramifications on the size of the projects the demolition team accepts. A slight miscalculation in the time it takes to set the explosives and retreat to the safety tank could result in a demolition team member being plated as that evening's calamari fra diavolo special at the Pearl Oyster Bar.
So, yeah, demolition squids contribute nothing, pari passu, to epistemic warrants for the empirical belief of how the towers were brought down. Moreover, demolition squids are cheerful cephalopods and promoters of world peace. Their union motto is: i frangere ut restituere (I break only to restore).
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/fractalgr/fractalgr1212/fractalgr121200005/16814206-pink-smiling-squid-cartoon-with-wrench-and-hammer-on-white-background.jpg)
-
I gather by your comment you don't find anything suspicious about 9/11. What is strange about Ropo is that he is so angry that people don't believe the official story. Why would he be so concerned if others find the event suspicious. Even if you had never heard anything at all about 9/11 conspiracies, just to watch the collapse via video footage, anybody who had ever seen video of a controlled demolition would see the uncanny similarities. For me, I just believe it is suspicious, I am not saying it is or isn't a conspiracy, but Ropo takes this extreme hard line stance like it is ridiculous to even question the Government. I would still like a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the billion dollars stored under the WTC. The non tin hats just ignore the question or outright deny their wasn't any gold or silver there.
The only similarities are that gravity works.
-
Inside job.
-
Like Tommy and Syntax, I, too, am skeptical that demolition squids had a hand or eight in bringing down the towers. For one thing, duration time and project scale has to be questioned. Demolition squids cannot live out of water for more than a few minutes. This has important ramifications on the size of the projects the demolition team accepts. A slight miscalculation in the time it takes to set the explosives and retreat to the safety tank could result in a demolition team member being plated as that evening's calamari fra diavolo special at the Pearl Oyster Bar.
So, yeah, demolition squids contribute nothing, pari passu, to epistemic warrants for the empirical belief of how the towers were brought down. Moreover, demolition squids are cheerful cephalopods and promoters of world peace. Their union motto is: i frangere ut restituere (I break only to restore).
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/fractalgr/fractalgr1212/fractalgr121200005/16814206-pink-smiling-squid-cartoon-with-wrench-and-hammer-on-white-background.jpg)
;D ;D ;D
Proof! Solid scientific proof.
-
ok, this one always had me asking myself why didnt the govt ever release more footage, there were more than enough cameras there,its the pentagon afteral.
They confiscated all the footage from the gas stations.
I know it is hard for people to accept but the reality is there are just too many open questions on 911 and everything that followed afterwards.
If you decide to believe everything you are told that's your right and fine by me. I find it really easy to not believe all the BS we have been told. They have lied too many times and we know government officials are bought and paid for whores. Follow the money trail.
-
For the final time morons....
The towers did NOT have to fall they only had to be hit for the mission to be successful and for Bush to do exactly what he did.
Pentagon didn't need to be hit either and the Capital building was NOT hit at all.
The fact they fell is irrelevant!
During the first Iraq War in early 90's, it wasn't the media that came up with the name Shock and Awe...It was the American government. A plane flying into a building wouldn't scare millions of people around the globe like bringing down 3 massive buildings and killing thousands of people would...Nobody in the Hierarchy comes up with a plan that's one dimensional. Every plan is always multi layered.
-
There were 85 surveillance cameras on the Pentagon, and aimed at the Pentagon from neighboring Hotels, Gas Stations, etc...
All footage was confiscated or "lost" immediately following the attack. These four frames were later released.
-
There were 85 surveillance cameras on the Pentagon, and aimed at the Pentagon from neighboring Hotels, Gas Stations, etc...
All footage was confiscated or "lost" immediately following the attack. These four frames were later released.
Exactly! They thought they were sneaky by only releasing 4 frames but even those 4 frames make it clear there was no airliner crashing into the building.
-
List the names? Are you fucking retarded? How would anyone know their names? :D
Then how can you claim 100s saw the plane go into the Pentagon? Have you interviewed them? Seeing a plane fly overhead and seeing it hit the building are two separate things.
-
Ooo, what a genius. And that decoy plane turns invisible, because thousands of people see it flying toward the pentagon, but no one after that.
The plane was seen flying above the White House afterwards. It actually did not dissappear. ;D
-
Exactly! They thought they were sneaky by only releasing 4 frames but even those 4 frames make it clear there was no airliner crashing into the building.
Sneaky? Do you think they couldnt have doctored up a video and put a plane in?
I mean these are the same people who pulled off the largest controlled demolition in the history of the earth, silently and flawlessly...TWICE...and they did it with a few CIA guys posing as janitors. It would be small potatoes.
-
Sneaky? Do you think they couldnt have doctored up a video and put a plane in?
I mean these are the same people who pulled off the largest controlled demolition in the history of the earth, silently and flawlessly...TWICE...and they did it with a few CIA guys posing as janitors. It would be small potatoes.
Well they didn't and there is not a plane in the video frames. Doctoring a plane into the video makes it obvious.
They had access to WTC before 911 to plant explosives. The day before I believe. The area was shutdown.
The White House posted a very amateurish forgery of Obama's birth certificate on their web site. How can they be that stupid? HAHA = perhaps they did not have a good graphic designer available?? I could have done a much better job for them.
-
Well they didn't and there is not a plane in the video frames. Doctoring a plane into the video makes it obvious.
They had access to WTC before 911 to plant explosives. The day before I believe. The area was shutdown.
The White House posted a very amateurish forgery of Obama's birth certificate on their web site. How can they be that stupid? HAHA = perhaps they did not have a good graphic designer available?? I could have done a much better job for them.
So the CIA wired up two of the largest buildings on the planet with enough explosives that they would fall with 100% certainty in one day....hahahahaaaaaa
-
100% inside job
-
So the CIA wired up two of the largest buildings on the planet with enough explosives that they would fall with 100% certainty in one day....hahahahaaaaaa
I don't know how many days it took or what technology was used. But how about an investigation to find out??!
All I said is they shut down the area the day before and had people coming and going at WTC. Just one more of the thousand other coincidences.
-
So the CIA wired up two of the largest buildings on the planet with enough explosives that they would fall with 100% certainty in one day....hahahahaaaaaa
Three buildings!, and the theory isn't that they did it that day, it was planned weeks before. There were unprecedented planned power outages a week before the collapse that shut the security system down so that anybody could come and go as they please. During this time their were witnesses that had seen large groups of mysterious workmen with large amounts of cable all throughout the building. It also has to be noted that the director of the security company (Securacom) for the World Trade Centre, United Airlines and Dallas Airport was none other than George Bush's brother Marvin P. Bush. And the CEO of the company was George Bush's cousin.
You really need to investigate the theories before you bleat out anything that just pops into your mind. If some semi literate camel jockeys from the middle east can organise hijacking 4 planes, flying them into the World Trace Centre and the Pentagon, what makes you think the American Government, the leaders of the most powerful country in the world can't organise a simple demolition.
911 Mysteries - Full Length Documentaryhttp://vimeo.com/46940864 (http://vimeo.com/46940864)
-
Three buildings!, and the theory isn't that they did it that day, it was planned weeks before. There were unprecedented planned power outages a week before the collapse that shut the security system down so that anybody could come and go as they please. During this time their were witnesses that had seen large groups of mysterious workmen with large amounts of cable all throughout the building. It also has to be noted that the director of the security company (Securacom) for the World Trade Centre, United Airlines and Dallas Airport was none other than George Bush's brother Marvin P. Bush. And the CEO of the company was George Bush's cousin.
You really need to investigate the theories before you bleat out anything that just pops into your mind. If some semi literate camel jockeys from the middle east can organise hijacking 4 planes, flying them into the World Trace Centre and the Pentagon, what makes you think the American Government, the leaders of the most powerful country in the world can't organise a simple demolition.
911 Mysteries - Full Length Documentaryhttp://vimeo.com/46940864 (http://vimeo.com/46940864)
Please show me one documented report of "large groups of MYSTERIOUS workmen"]
Thats the whole thing with the foil chewers...it's always "supposedly"...."people say"....."there are reports"
Who are these people, where are their reports that prove what they keep insisting on....cold hard facts. Because the cold,hard facts of physics aren't opinion and can't be shaded with provocative language.
-
Please show me one documented report of "large groups of MYSTERIOUS workmen"]
Thats the whole thing with the foil chewers...it's always "supposedly"...."people say"....."there are reports"
Who are these people, where are their reports that prove what they keep insisting on....cold hard facts. Because the cold,hard facts of physics aren't opinion and can't be shaded with provocative language.
You really should just simply watch some of the documentaries via the links provided, then you can make rebuttals to statements people are making in relation to 9/11. It is obvious you haven't researched the issue.
Interview with Scott Forbes
Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.
I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?
SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.
GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?
SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.
THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH
GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?
SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.
GW: When did it end?
SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.
GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?
SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...
GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?
SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.
GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?
SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...
GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?
SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.
GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?
SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.
GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?
SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.
GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?
SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the guys were of one racial group or another.
GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?
SF: NO
THE MORNING OF 9/11
GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?
SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.
THE 9/11 COMMISSION
GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)
SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.
GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?
SF: No
GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?
SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.
-
People like Ropo are a perfect example of how well the system works, how it makes citizens resistant to question authority and to ridicule those who do. The reason he gets so emotional and hysterical about 9/11 is because the thought that Governments don't have citizens best interests at heart cause him great anxiety, as it should do in those that have been properly indoctrinated. To investigate 9/11 and not be suspicious is cause for concern, you don't need to believe it was a conspiracy, but at least acknowledge that all the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit together.
I asked Ropo about the missing 3/4 billion dollars stored under the WTC and he just said it was false. It was well documented how much money was stored there, and how much money was recovered. Anything Ropo doesn't like the sound of he just calls it a claim or bullshit. Ropo is a man who cannot stand the thought that he may be wrong, that everything isn't as black and white as he wants it to be. His constant name calling of people who ask questions about suspicious events is indication of why Governments feel no resistance when it comes to duping the public, they know there is many people like Ropo who will lap up anything they are told, like the good little boy the Government raised them to be.
People like me are the people, who doesn't buy any bullshit as truth, and that is all there is. We are intelligent enough to realize, that if it look impossible, it is. For example, if that missing 3/4 billions are so well documented, where is the documents? And I don't mean foil hat idiots and their web sites full of bullshit, but real concrete evidence. Anyone can throw bunch of numbers and claim they are absolute truth, but it really doesn't mean they are. Furthermore, only reason you take this and point it out is simple. You simply run out from the answers regarding the non existent explosions or that fucking stupid pentagon cruise missile scenario, so you start to beat the bushes.
-
Foil hat idiots playing with fire. Only imbecile can fell in that crap, and do you know why? What they are cutting there is something like 2% of the thickness of the real core column, and even that is too much to burn in one take, so they have done several takes to make the cut. In real life core colums were 18" x 35", and wall thickness was 4". Why they doesn't cut the real thing, but this tinfoil beam? Because they can't, because it is impossible. Because they will need few hundred kilos of thermite, ceramic bathtub etc. to make it happen.
-
I gather by your comment you don't find anything suspicious about 9/11. What is strange about Ropo is that he is so angry that people don't believe the official story. Why would he be so concerned if others find the event suspicious. Even if you had never heard anything at all about 9/11 conspiracies, just to watch the collapse via video footage, anybody who had ever seen video of a controlled demolition would see the uncanny similarities. For me, I just believe it is suspicious, I am not saying it is or isn't a conspiracy, but Ropo takes this extreme hard line stance like it is ridiculous to even question the Government. I would still like a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the billion dollars stored under the WTC. The non tin hats just ignore the question or outright deny their wasn't any gold or silver there.
I am not angry because people don't believe the "official story". I am angry about the imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat idiots theory without any thinking, because that my friend, is sign of the stupidity larger than life. I hate stupid and stupidity, not the people. For example, you are willing to believe that there were explosions in the WTC towers, but you are not willing to prove there was. I see with my own eyes that there isn't anything even tiny bit reminiscent of the explosions, so it is your task to prove there was. First of all, name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour, and they go off like planned. You can't so you rather write how ropo do this and that and how stupid he is. In the international language of the internet conversations, you seem to have use all your arguments and there fore you cant do anything but try to bully non believers.
-
There was money involved as well fuckstick. The insurance Silverstein collected on a destroyed complex??? Just patching up the towers was not going to be an option. They could have flown over the towers and dumped water on it to control the fires. They have controlled much worse fires in skyscrapers before and after 911.
Money and power. Iraq was about oil and money. Afghanistan is about minerals, naturals gas and money.
And by controlling these zones it gives the Zionists more power to pursue their agendas.
Well, no. That is just plain nazi propaganda without any bit of truth. And what comes to zionist, if there wasn't that group, you run out or bread at no time. They feed you, they own the shops and malls not because they are jews, but because they are more clever than you. They own so much, because they know, that it is a crime to let morons keep their money.
-
God help us if the NWO plans does include a smaller, 500 million population with the majority of citizens being like Ropo. This could easily become a reality because only 1/14 people would have to be brainwashed like him which I think is very plausible.
He is obviously a very weak character.
Only little percent of americans believe this 9/11 bullshit to be conspiracy. What that means? It means that those true believers are the diarrhea crap at the bottom of the geen pool, and majority of the people are smarter that those drooling imbeciles.
Just think about it? They see explosions where isn't any, they believe that tiny cruise missile can carry 30 tons of jet fuel etc. They believe all this crap without asking any evidence at all, so how stupid is that? And they say that they think it with their own brains? How much you would pay for brains like that? If you try to sell them, all you can get in exchange is a pair of ape brains, little used.
-
There were 85 surveillance cameras on the Pentagon, and aimed at the Pentagon from neighboring Hotels, Gas Stations, etc...
All footage was confiscated or "lost" immediately following the attack. These four frames were later released.
No, there was not. There is bunch of foil hat morons which say there is, but it simple isn't true. All those cameras were pointed where the owner wants them to point, which is their business. Not pentagon. Why some gas station would point it's cameras toward the pentagon, instead of the gas pumps where bunch dorks try to to fill up their cars while smoking, talking in their Nokia etc shit like that? Please explain that?
-
Sneaky? Do you think they couldnt have doctored up a video and put a plane in?
I mean these are the same people who pulled off the largest controlled demolition in the history of the earth, silently and flawlessly...TWICE...and they did it with a few CIA guys posing as janitors. It would be small potatoes.
So true. World finest and largest conspiracy, but the fake video? "Sorry, no can do. 4 frames is all we can do. Sorry". Same bunch were counterfeiting the entire Apollo program material, hundred of thousand photos, hours of films, tons of crap from moon, but here: "four frames, that is all you get. Sorry" ;D ::) ;D
-
The plane was seen flying above the White House afterwards. It actually did not dissappear. ;D
Yes, and the narrator says there that it is confirmed that the plane was there for the security, not for the attac, so it has to be military plane, not the passenger jet. There is of course always the chance to beat all previous records of stupidity but what are the benefits of it?
-
I don't know how many days it took or what technology was used. But how about an investigation to find out??!
All I said is they shut down the area the day before and had people coming and going at WTC. Just one more of the thousand other coincidences.
For most of the people of the world case is simple and closed. For those who are too dumb to understand it, there is different kind of institutions with the padded rooms and the jackets, which has very long sleeves. They don't start to investigate brainless rumors of the foil hat imbeciles.
-
Please show me one documented report of "large groups of MYSTERIOUS workmen"]
Thats the whole thing with the foil chewers...it's always "supposedly"...."people say"....."there are reports"
Who are these people, where are their reports that prove what they keep insisting on....cold hard facts. Because the cold,hard facts of physics aren't opinion and can't be shaded with provocative language.
There was a bunch of mysterious workmen's, because buildings that big needs maintenance. There was loads of mysterious trucks and traffic, because buildings which has many restaurants, post offices, customs office, shops fo all kind etc. including 50 000 workers and daily 200 000 visitors in the towers. That is lots of people to feed, so there has to be plenty of food trucks, mail trucks etc. running in and out. So what about the mystic about this? It comes from the fools who don't understand there is that kind of logistic running all the time.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8IzYvkMndtQ/UC5owjRxl8I/AAAAAAAAMNI/NKeanYZDlx0/s1600/tanline-whooty.jpeg)
-
There was a bunch of mysterious workmen's, because buildings that big needs maintenance. There was loads of mysterious trucks and traffic, because buildings which has many restaurants, post offices, customs office, shops fo all kind etc. including 50 000 workers and daily 200 000 visitors in the towers. That is lots of people to feed, so there has to be plenty of food trucks, mail trucks etc. running in and out. So what about the mystic about this? It comes from the fools who don't understand there is that kind of logistic running all the time.
It would be nice if you read what others posted, the power outage was unprecedented, as confirmed by analyst who had Massive servers that needed to be powered 24/7. Nobodies talking about the normal working of the building, everyone understands that buildings need servicing. But their was an unusual outage that surprised some tenants and during that time their were workers coming and going that experienced staff had never seen before (including the janitor who had worked at the towers for over 20 years). It was expressed later by one witness why it was barely mentioned after 9/11 and some Government officials even denied it. For him, it was too much of a coincidence that their was this unusual power outage, lots of workmen and then shortly after the collapse of the towers.
It is people like you who give the confidence for Governments to do whatever they like. When they see an event like 9/11 and the lemmings that buy up what they sell to them as a story, it is any wonder that they do as they please. Regardless of if it was a conspiracy, your utter conviction about the issue, your ready convenient excuse for anything remotely out of the ordinary, is rather frightening. If I was in Government, it is people like you that realise we can do and say anything and get away with it. It doesn't make you Intelligent to agree with the Governments Official story on the matter, it just means you don't question their authority. And anybody can do that. I am not suggesting to always question authority, but it is important to do so when things seem shady, or events that will have a huge impact on everyone's life are being wrapped up onto a nice little bundle.
-
People like me are the people, who doesn't buy any bullshit as truth, and that is all there is. We are intelligent enough to realize, that if it look impossible, it is.
LOL, so far no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (making one think it is highly unlikely), and then 3 buildings collapse on the same day from fire. Even all these years after, many buildings have burnt for way longer and still haven't collapsed. I'm beginning to think that skyscrapers collapsing due to fire looks impossible, surely your intelligent enough to realise that.
-
For most of the people of the world case is simple and closed. For those who are too dumb to understand it, there is different kind of institutions with the padded rooms and the jackets, which has very long sleeves. They don't start to investigate brainless rumors of the foil hat imbeciles.
Once again you provide lots of mis-information. If you are talking people of the world then less than 50% of people buy the official story. The rest of the people think that either the USA, Israel or some other group are responsible and 25% simply don't know. And their is a group called 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has the support of over 1,600 architectural and engineering professionals, hardly people wearing tin hats. When you suggest that only fringe dwellers living in their Mums basement support a conspiracy theory, it makes you look silly, as we all know their are highly educated people, people far more educated than you could ever dream of, who don't buy into the Governments official version of what happened that day.
Hani Hanjour, the Pilot who we are told flew the plain into the Pentagon, his Instructor had this to say about him '"His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." and yet he supposedly pulled of maneourveres that many experienced pilots have come out and said they themselves could not perform. Those crazy tin hats.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8IzYvkMndtQ/UC5owjRxl8I/AAAAAAAAMNI/NKeanYZDlx0/s1600/tanline-whooty.jpeg)
Would suckle the corn out of the shit out of her ass and make it into homemade nutella, spreading it across fresh, homemade bread from the villages.
-
It would be nice if you read what others posted, the power outage was unprecedented, as confirmed by analyst who had Massive servers that needed to be powered 24/7. Nobodies talking about the normal working of the building, everyone understands that buildings need servicing. But their was an unusual outage that surprised some tenants and during that time their were workers coming and going that experienced staff had never seen before (including the janitor who had worked at the towers for over 20 years). It was expressed later by one witness why it was barely mentioned after 9/11 and some Government officials even denied it. For him, it was too much of a coincidence that their was this unusual power outage, lots of workmen and then shortly after the collapse of the towers.
It is people like you who give the confidence for Governments to do whatever they like. When they see an event like 9/11 and the lemmings that buy up what they sell to them as a story, it is any wonder that they do as they please. Regardless of if it was a conspiracy, your utter conviction about the issue, your ready convenient excuse for anything remotely out of the ordinary, is rather frightening. If I was in Government, it is people like you that realise we can do and say anything and get away with it. It doesn't make you Intelligent to agree with the Governments Official story on the matter, it just means you don't question their authority. And anybody can do that. I am not suggesting to always question authority, but it is important to do so when things seem shady, or events that will have a huge impact on everyone's life are being wrapped up onto a nice little bundle.
Evidence? There is none, so it is bullshit.
-
LOL, so far no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (making one think it is highly unlikely), and then 3 buildings collapse on the same day from fire. Even all these years after, many buildings have burnt for way longer and still haven't collapsed. I'm beginning to think that skyscrapers collapsing due to fire looks impossible, surely your intelligent enough to realise that.
And there we see your stupidity once again. You are saying that what we hasn't see yet, is impossible and can't be happen. How about the first wheel, first train, first gun, first flight before they happen. Nobody knows about them, before they see it in their own eyes. So what is first terrorist act with the passanger jets nothing more than another thing what we see first time. And those buildings didn't collapse by the fire, or by the aeroplanes hitting them, or any other single reason. They collapsed because of the chain of happenings, which create circumstances where collapsion was inevitable.
-
Evidence? There is none, so it is bullshit.
I provided the Interview with Scott Forbes who tells the story of the Power Down. And why would someone lie about their experience, educated people, smart people 'Why would they make up things', is it to annoy the no tin hats. His testimony is evidence and there are hundreds of witnesses whose testimony goes against the official report, it' an insult to call so many people tin hats, these are people that were there, escaped the building, know what they seen and heard. The fact is, you are someone who sees things in extremes, in black and white, that even if the Government came out and said they did it but they had good cause too, you still wouldn't believe it. Some people are like this, they are so convinced of being RIGHT even when shown otherwise you still wouldn't believe it.
Tell me, do you believe in Creationism, the virgin birth, miracles and that woman was created from the rib of man?
-
Once again you provide lots of mis-information. If you are talking people of the world then less than 50% of people buy the official story. The rest of the people think that either the USA, Israel or some other group are responsible and 25% simply don't know. And their is a group called 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has the support of over 1,600 architectural and engineering professionals, hardly people wearing tin hats. When you suggest that only fringe dwellers living in their Mums basement support a conspiracy theory, it makes you look silly, as we all know their are highly educated people, people far more educated than you could ever dream of, who don't buy into the Governments official version of what happened that day.
Hani Hanjour, the Pilot who we are told flew the plain into the Pentagon, his Instructor had this to say about him '"His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." and yet he supposedly pulled of maneourveres that many experienced pilots have come out and said they themselves could not perform. Those crazy tin hats.
Have you explain to us what explosives they used in the WTC inferno? Didin't think so, because you can't, but you should realize that this piece of information is needed to prove if foil hats theory about the conspiracy is true or false. You see, everything is based on that controlled demolition, which is completely impossible task, and which hasen't any evidense what so ever. And if the base of your stupid claims is missing, they hasn't any value at all.
-
I am not angry because people don't believe the "official story". I am angry about the imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat idiots theory without any thinking, because that my friend, is sign of the stupidity larger than life. I hate stupid and stupidity, not the people. For example, you are willing to believe that there were explosions in the WTC towers, but you are not willing to prove there was. I see with my own eyes that there isn't anything even tiny bit reminiscent of the explosions, so it is your task to prove there was. First of all, name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour, and they go off like planned. You can't so you rather write how ropo do this and that and how stupid he is. In the international language of the internet conversations, you seem to have use all your arguments and there fore you cant do anything but try to bully non believers.
'imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat idiots theory without any thinking', who are you talking about, friends and family, please explain. People are simply questioning suspicious events and want a more thorough investigation into what happened. This is to be expected, thousands of people were murdered, people want an intellectually satisfying explanation. I am not willing to believe anything, I have said all along I find the whole event suspicious, it seems the only one who has come to some type of conviction is you, which, in an event like this, I don't believe is a sign of intelligence. As for evidence, the official report provided very little of it, that's the whole reason people question their story, when challenged it simply crumbles to pieces, just like the powerful core of the WTC.
You ask questions like " name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour", for starters their was no furnace and the fire burned for a very short time, perhaps those explosives didn't survive, perhaps they didn't need to, and I don't pretend to know all the answers, I am not a demolition expert, but I know when something is fishy. And yet you can't explain "How the WTC buildings is the first high-rise before and since to have collapsed from fire" other than to say "Their is a first for everything". You answer important questions with retard clichés and expect to be taken seriously.
-
What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?
Hi Jack, I hate to tell you that the whole beanstalk theory has been debunked
-
I provided the Interview with Scott Forbes who tells the story of the Power Down. And why would someone lie about their experience, educated people, smart people 'Why would they make up things', is it to annoy the no tin hats. His testimony is evidence and there are hundreds of witnesses whose testimony goes against the official report, it' an insult to call so many people tin hats, these are people that were there, escaped the building, know what they seen and heard. The fact is, you are someone who sees things in extremes, in black and white, that even if the Government came out and said they did it but they had good cause too, you still wouldn't believe it. Some people are like this, they are so convinced of being RIGHT even when shown otherwise you still wouldn't believe it.
Tell me, do you believe in Creationism, the virgin birth, miracles and that woman was created from the rib of man?
You mean this pile of bullshit what they are taking about in this site? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html) Instead of that bullshit, why don't you tell us how they were able to cut 56 massive core columns in complete silence, without any shock wave, without breaking any windows, without any marks of the explosions what so ever, and how the hell they calculated where the plane hits, how it is going to break down without hitting the explosives, detonation cords etc. and how those explosives survive up to full hour in that fire? And by the way, what kind of detonation cord they could use, because the cord used in controlled demolitions is plastic tube filled with explosive mass. In real life, when they make these controlled demolitions, they use hundred of miles of that cord. That is quite a mass highly explosive material in the place which is going to have plane crashing in it.
-
'imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat idiots theory without any thinking', who are you talking about, friends and family, please explain. People are simply questioning suspicious events and want a more thorough investigation into what happened. This is to be expected, thousands of people were murdered, people want an intellectually satisfying explanation. I am not willing to believe anything, I have said all along I find the whole event suspicious, it seems the only one who has come to some type of conviction is you, which, in an event like this, I don't believe is a sign of intelligence. As for evidence, the official report provided very little of it, that's the whole reason people question their story, when challenged it simply crumbles to pieces, just like the powerful core of the WTC.
You ask questions like " name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour", for starters their was no furnace and the fire burned for a very short time, perhaps those explosives didn't survive, perhaps they didn't need to, and I don't pretend to know all the answers, I am not a demolition expert, but I know when something is fishy. And yet you can't explain "How the WTC buildings is the first high-rise before and since to have collapsed from fire" other than to say "Their is a first for everything". You answer important questions with retard clichés and expect to be taken seriously.
I mean you and your kind, those drooling idiots from the bottom mud of the gene pool. Now you are saying that there wasn't fire at all? So what make all that smoke, flames and shit what we see in the videos? In fact there was a fire, very big one, bigger than your imagination can comprehend. There was at least seven floors at fire, each floor has 4000 square meters, so that adds up to 28 000 square meters on fire. While we know as an fact that each office square meter includes 420MJ of fire load (eu fire standard), that will be 117 600 000 MJ (Mega Joules) and that is a lot of energy. So instead arguing millions of eyewitnesses, all the videos and material, why don't you go and find some evidence about the explosions?
-
You mean this pile of bullshit what they are taking about in this site? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html) Instead of that bullshit, why don't you tell us how they were able to cut 56 massive core columns in complete silence, without any shock wave, without breaking any windows, without any marks of the explosions what so ever, and how the hell they calculated where the plane hits, how it is going to break down without hitting the explosives, detonation cords etc. and how those explosives survive up to full hour in that fire? And by the way, what kind of detonation cord they could use, because the cord used in controlled demolitions is plastic tube filled with explosive mass. In real life, when they make these controlled demolitions, they use hundred of miles of that cord. That is quite a mass highly explosive material in the place which is going to have plane crashing in it.
The large amount of witness accounts of explosions is well documented, their are also witnesses who said their were explosions that created such shockwaves it smashed them into the ground, their are also reports of windows breaking. It seems you don't believe any of the witnesses, in your angry mind they are just tin hats.
As for the demolition, you and I are hardly experts so neither of us can answer the logistics involved in such a task, nor to the technology they may have to perform such a feat. The fact remains, that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever totally collapsed of its own weight due to any cause or combination of causes -- be they bombings, severe fires, earthquakes, or hurricanes -- other than by controlled demolition. To this day, the WTC is the only building to collapse the way buildings do when done by controlled demolition but is said to have been caused by fire. This is an amazing coincidence.
-
Then how can you claim 100s saw the plane go into the Pentagon? Have you interviewed them? Seeing a plane fly overhead and seeing it hit the building are two separate things.
I didn't interview them, others did. What is so hard to understand about this? Hundred's of people saw a jumbo jet fly into the Pentagon that day. I'm really confused on how people find this hard to believe? These people have been interviewed, and gone on record stating this. HTH. :P
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8IzYvkMndtQ/UC5owjRxl8I/AAAAAAAAMNI/NKeanYZDlx0/s1600/tanline-whooty.jpeg)
I reckon my hijacked penis would collapse her twin tower.
-
I mean you and your kind, those drooling idiots from the bottom mud of the gene pool. Now you are saying that there wasn't fire at all? So what make all that smoke, flames and shit what we see in the videos? In fact there was a fire, very big one, bigger than your imagination can comprehend. There was at least seven floors at fire, each floor has 4000 square meters, so that adds up to 28 000 square meters on fire. While we know as an fact that each office square meter includes 420MJ of fire load (eu fire standard), that will be 117 600 000 MJ (Mega Joules) and that is a lot of energy. So instead arguing millions of eyewitnesses, all the videos and material, why don't you go and find some evidence about the explosions?
Absurdity at it's finest ^^^ just claims, no evidence
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone.
- Fires in the North Tower covered extensive regions, at least near the perimeter walls, of about three floors.
- Fires in the South Tower also extended over about three floors, but were more localized to one side of the building.
- The fires did not spread significantly beyond the impact region. With the exception of a region of fire about 10 floors above the crash zone in the North Tower, the fires remained around the impact zones.
- The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.
- Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
- At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone.
- An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.
-
I didn't interview them, others did. What is so hard to understand about this? Hundred's of people saw a jumbo jet fly into the Pentagon that day. I'm really confused on how people find this hard to believe? These people have been interviewed, and gone on record stating this. HTH. :P
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
I am a sceptic, but their are many who witnessed a plane hit the pentagon.
-
Foil hat idiots playing with fire. Only imbecile can fell in that crap, and do you know why? What they are cutting there is something like 2% of the thickness of the real core column, and even that is too much to burn in one take, so they have done several takes to make the cut. In real life core colums were 18" x 35", and wall thickness was 4". Why they doesn't cut the real thing, but this tinfoil beam? Because they can't, because it is impossible. Because they will need few hundred kilos of thermite, ceramic bathtub etc. to make it happen.
You are desperate. Just relax, take an antidepressant and a deep breath. You are out of control.
-
Yes, and the narrator says there that it is confirmed that the plane was there for the security, not for the attac, so it has to be military plane, not the passenger jet. There is of course always the chance to beat all previous records of stupidity but what are the benefits of it?
Well, we know the media are lying whores don't we?
-
That's not true, please provide evidence. As far as I am aware No high Rise in the history of the world has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone pancake collapsed into it's own footprint. The only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire
The Windsor Building Fire
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
All these high rises were ravaged by fire for far longer than WTC and they never collapsed. The total collapse of steel-framed buildings appears to be an extremely rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved. In the Kobe and Mexico City earthquakes, many such buildings were severely damaged, and some experienced partial collapse. A 21-story office building in Mexico City appears to be the only such structure that has suffered a collapse described as total as a result of a stress other than controlled demolition.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six_s.jpg)
This is what building look like when they collapse due to earthquake.
OK - to turn that around....
If it was the conspiracy you say it was - where thousands of people were to be killed and billions lost....
Why have the buildings fall on their own their own footprints? Why not have them topple over & fuck up lots of other places?
-
LOL, so far no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (making one think it is highly unlikely), and then 3 buildings collapse on the same day from fire. Even all these years after, many buildings have burnt for way longer and still haven't collapsed. I'm beginning to think that skyscrapers collapsing due to fire looks impossible, surely your intelligent enough to realise that.
Besides the WTC, can you link us to other skyscrapers that were hit with a fully fueled jumbo jet and did not collapse? Thanks.
-
Besides the WTC, can you link us to other skyscrapers that were hit with a fully fueled jumbo jet and did not collapse? Thanks.
For one, the planes were far from fully fuelled, The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity. Their are many incidents of small planes hitting buildings and the buildings not collapsing, the Empire State building was hit by a ten-ton, B-25 bomber, and oddly enough it still stands. In 2005 Iranian Air Force C-130 crash occurred when an Iranian Air Force C-130E Hercules military transport aircraft, crashed into an apartment building in a residential area of Tehran, and oddly enough it still stands.
And any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.
-
Ropo, E-Kul, you can argue until you turn blue, but the truth lies in the sworn testimony of Bush and Cheney that Bush used his Presidential power to mark as never to be seen again classified.
-
For one, the planes were far from fully fuelled, The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity. Their are many incidents of small planes hitting buildings and the buildings not collapsing, the Empire State building was hit by a ten-ton, B-25 bomber, and oddly enough it still stands. And any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.
Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.
Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?
If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.
Then Bush could've said ... LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!
What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?
-
Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.
Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?
If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.
Then Bush could've said ... LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!
What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?
Hi Obama! Everything was a lie.
-
Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.
Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?
If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.
Then Bush could've said ... LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!
What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?
Ah, because whoever did it doesn't want to be caught. Proving how Al Qaeda got access to one of the most secure building in the Country would be a fair task, especially considering that the security company was ran by George Bush's brother. I am not even sure who the conspirators may be, but the owner of the building made billions from it, not to mention ridded himself of some white elephants with some ongoing serious issues (like asbestos). Also, someone got away with nearly 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC. If they had of just used some crude bomb in the basement like previous attempts, it wouldn't have brought the building down. Whoever planned this, wanted those buildings gone, that's why it was done the way it was.
-
Ah, because whoever did it doesn't want to be caught. Proving how Al Qaeda got access to one of the most secure building in the Country would be a fair task, especially considering that the security company was ran by George Bush's brother. I am not even sure who the conspirators may be, but the owner of the building made billions from it, not to mention ridded himself of some white elephants with some ongoing serious issues (like asbestos). Also, someone got away with nearly 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC. If they had of just used some crude bomb in the basement like previous attempts, it wouldn't have brought the building down. Whoever planned this, wanted those buildings gone, that's why it was done the way it was.
If they didn't want to be caught, doesn't a controlled demolition (as opposed to an uncontrolled, obvious demolition) scream "conspiracy"? If they didn't want to be caught, I would think they would simply have just blown the building up at it's base. Much simpler, much less risky -- and much more likely to be regarded as the work of amateurs and leave a cold trail. A controlled demolition screams -- "Hey! Look at me! I wired the building!".
Why would the conspirators do that?
So the question is: Why have an obvious controlled demolition, when a flashier, UNCONTROLLED demolition would suit your purposes better?
It would
- Frame Al Qaeda
- Cause more destruction
- Be easier
- Cause more fear.
And yes, you can argue that a controlled demolition GUARANTEES that the building will fall, but give the right explosives at the base of ANY building...one can guarantee the building will fall.
The only way controlled demolitions are used anyway, is to minimize the footprint of the destruction. Why would they want to do that?
-
If they didn't want to be caught, doesn't a controlled demolition (as opposed to an uncontrolled, obvious demolition) scream "conspiracy"? If they didn't want to be caught, I would think they would simply have just blown the building up at it's base. Much simpler, much less risky -- and much more likely to be regarded as the work of amateurs and leave a cold trail. A controlled demolition screams -- "Hey! Look at me! I wired the building!".
Why would the conspirators do that?
So the question is: Why have an obvious controlled demolition, when a flashier, UNCONTROLLED demolition would suit your purposes better?
It would
- Frame Al Qaeda
- Cause more destruction
- Be easier
- Cause more fear.
And yes, you can argue that a controlled demolition GUARANTEES that the building will fall, but give the right explosives at the base of ANY building...one can guarantee the building will fall.
The only way controlled demolitions are used anyway, is to minimize the footprint of the destruction. Why would they want to do that?
It is neither here nor there, whatever way they went about it, they can spin it any way they want, the people will simply believe want the Government tells them, they know this. Even though 9/11 conspiracy is not a fringe group, it is a popular belief, it still doesn't matter, because they are the Government, they tell you what to believe. And if you don't believe it, they will use propaganda until you do or they have marginalised and ridiculed those that don't believe them. Even if everyone knows they are full of shit, what are the people going to do, nothing. Western Governments know how powerless the people are, how apathetic they are and likely to do nothing, even in the face of overt corruption and on top of that they are easily manipulated by authority and propaganda.
People don't realise how modern Governments have mastered modern Propaganda, they took Germany's NAZI propaganda model and beautifully refined it, they have found much more effective ways of controlling the population without having to gas masses of minorities.
-
It is neither here nor there
Actually, it is here and it is there.
I just laid out a good case for an uncontrolled demolition. No matter who carried out the attack, there are advantages to BOTH sides using an uncontrolled demolition.
Bush - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion clearly frames Al Qaeda, causes more fear, and furthers whatever agenda he has.
Al Qaeda - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion causes more fear, more death, more destruction and sends a message it can access any American structure.
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition? Can you answer this question? Please don't address money, your propaganda theories, nazis, etc. Just answer this question:
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition?
-
Actually, it is here and it is there.
I just laid out a good case for an uncontrolled demolition. No matter who carried out the attack, there are advantages to BOTH sides using an uncontrolled demolition.
Bush - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion clearly frames Al Qaeda, causes more fear, and furthers whatever agenda he has.
Al Qaeda - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion causes more fear, more death, more destruction and sends a message it can access any American structure.
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition? Can you answer this question? Please don't address money, your propaganda theories, nazis, etc. Just answer this question:
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition?
Your argument is non-sensical, why didn't they do a thousand different things?, why didn't they just Nuke Mainland America and blame the crazy Muslims. Who knows why they chose to do it the way they did, maybe they like spectacle, maybe the just like demolishing things? It doesn't matter, they did what they did. Why did al-queda do what they did? Why did the target the WTC? Why not the school that George Bush was visiting, the school lies only slightly to the southwest of the final approach path to Sarasota-Bradenton Airport. A jetliner targeting the school and its occupants would need to divert from a normal flight path just a few seconds before impact, affording no opportunity for countermeasures.
In answer to your question: Who the fuck knows and Who the fuck cares.
-
Your argument is non-sensical, why didn't they do a thousand different things?, why didn't they just Nuke Mainland America and blame the crazy Muslims. Who knows why they chose to do it the way they did, maybe they like spectacle, maybe the just like demolishing things? It doesn't matter, they did what they did. Why did al-queda do what they did? Why did the target the WTC? Why not the school that George Bush was visiting, the school lies only slightly to the southwest of the final approach path to Sarasota-Bradenton Airport. A jetliner targeting the school and its occupants would need to divert from a normal flight path just a few seconds before impact, affording no opportunity for countermeasures.
In answer to your question: Who the fuck knows and Who the fuck cares.
It's not nonsensical. Post analysis of combat/terrorists operations is a core component of training for warfare/counter intelligence. Walk into any library or bookstore and count the number of military history books. Are all of those nonsensical? Why did Hitler attack Russia opening a 2 front war? What lessons can be learned there?
You postulate that 9-11 was a conspiracy. Fair enough. Who did it, and why? What was the motivation? Money? OK. If money was the motivation, are there easier ways than wiring multiple skyscrapers in NYC and concurrently hijacking 4 jumbo jets? Probably. What was the motivation?
I am asking you, since you are so convinced it was a conspiracy.
-
It's not nonsensical. Post analysis of combat/terrorists operations is a core component of training for warfare/counter intelligence. Walk into any library or bookstore and count the number of military history books. Are all of those nonsensical? Why did Hitler attack Russia opening a 2 front war? What lessons can be learned there?
You postulate that 9-11 was a conspiracy. Fair enough. Who did it, and why? What was the motivation? Money? OK. If money was the motivation, are there easier ways than wiring multiple skyscrapers in NYC and concurrently hijacking 4 jumbo jets? Probably. What was the motivation?
I am asking you, since you are so convinced it was a conspiracy.
I have not said I am convinced it is a conspiracy, only that the official story is suspicious. And as for why Hitler did things, it will always be speculation, Hitler probably wasn't 100% sure why the fuck he did things, he was an angry anti-semite riddled with syphillis, and rage coupled with mental illness from his STD made it hard to think clearly. I don't know what the motivation for 9/11 was, but the Government started a war based off the back of it, it implemented laws that strengthened the Governments power, it has now entered perhaps a never ending war on terror, ensuring huge military budgets and continuing arms sales. One thing I know about human beings, is they are not rational creatures, and the more humans play in finance & politics, the less rational they become.
-
It would be nice if you read what others posted, the power outage was unprecedented, as confirmed by analyst who had Massive servers that needed to be powered 24/7. Nobodies talking about the normal working of the building, everyone understands that buildings need servicing. But their was an unusual outage that surprised some tenants and during that time their were workers coming and going that experienced staff had never seen before (including the janitor who had worked at the towers for over 20 years). It was expressed later by one witness why it was barely mentioned after 9/11 and some Government officials even denied it. For him, it was too much of a coincidence that their was this unusual power outage, lots of workmen and then shortly after the collapse of the towers.
It is people like you who give the confidence for Governments to do whatever they like. When they see an event like 9/11 and the lemmings that buy up what they sell to them as a story, it is any wonder that they do as they please. Regardless of if it was a conspiracy, your utter conviction about the issue, your ready convenient excuse for anything remotely out of the ordinary, is rather frightening. If I was in Government, it is people like you that realise we can do and say anything and get away with it. It doesn't make you Intelligent to agree with the Governments Official story on the matter, it just means you don't question their authority. And anybody can do that. I am not suggesting to always question authority, but it is important to do so when things seem shady, or events that will have a huge impact on everyone's life are being wrapped up onto a nice little bundle.
Your posts are just bullshit maybes and jumping to conclusions. I read the interview you posted. The guy couldn't even say for sure that there wasn't power to those floors, he couldnt say anything for sure even, when the obviously slanted rwlrter ptessed him. The fact that a bullshit interview like that is an "A-HA!" Moment to you shows how ridiculous your argument is.
-
(http://www.remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/911%20Attack%20on%20America/coup.jpg) This album released on the day of the attacks. What a bizarre irony from whomever designed the cover :-\
-
I have not said I am convinced it is a conspiracy, only that the official story is suspicious. And as for why Hitler did things, it will always be speculation, Hitler probably wasn't 100% sure why the fuck he did things, he was an angry anti-semite riddled with syphillis, and rage coupled with mental illness from his STD made it hard to think clearly. I don't know what the motivation for 9/11 was, but the Government started a war based off the back of it, it implemented laws that strengthened the Governments power, it has now entered perhaps a never ending war on terror, ensuring huge military budgets and continuing arms sales. One thing I know about human beings, is they are not rational creatures, and the more humans play in finance & politics, the less rational they become.
You are not convinced it's a conspiracy, but yet you are arguing for 15 pages it's a conspiracy.....ok then.
-
(http://www.remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/911%20Attack%20on%20America/coup.jpg) This album released on the day of the attacks. What a bizarre irony from whomever designed the cover :-\
Maybe they did 9-11 in a misguided effort to increase album sales.
-
OK - to turn that around....
If it was the conspiracy you say it was - where thousands of people were to be killed and billions lost....
Why have the buildings fall on their own their own footprints? Why not have them topple over & fuck up lots of other places?
Ask the Hierarchy that question - they know the answer.
-
Would suckle the corn out of the shit out of her ass and make it into homemade nutella, spreading it across fresh, homemade bread from the villages.
There's just no stopping the giant snowball of stupid this thread has become.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=453921.0;attach=498868;image)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=453921.0;attach=498868;image)
That guy is straight up gangster.
-
The COINTELPRO in this thread is almost out of control...
-
This was done by the USA. USA also let Japan destroy Pearl Harbor.
-
Just imagine if that gold watch was digital.
-
Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.
Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?
If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.
Then Bush could've said ... LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!
What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?
Because no one would believe that Al Qaeda actually had the know how to get access to these building and use explosives to bring them down...Planes into the buildings was a genius move.
-
That guy is straight up gangster.
And that's just his chinning rig.
-
Because no one would believe that Al Qaeda actually had the know how to get access to these building and use explosives to bring them down...Planes into the buildings was a genius move.
So, we're supposed to believe one genius move with the planes, but not the other genius move with access to the buildings?
Gotcha.
-
Red Army said that they told the USA that Japan was going to attack Hawaii. USA told China that they were going to let it happen. This was to justify using the Atomic Bomb on Japan and also entering World War Two.
-
Actually, it is here and it is there.
I just laid out a good case for an uncontrolled demolition. No matter who carried out the attack, there are advantages to BOTH sides using an uncontrolled demolition.
Bush - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion clearly frames Al Qaeda, causes more fear, and furthers whatever agenda he has.
Al Qaeda - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion causes more fear, more death, more destruction and sends a message it can access any American structure.
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition? Can you answer this question? Please don't address money, your propaganda theories, nazis, etc. Just answer this question:
What is the advantage of a controlled demolition?
The advantage of a controlled demolition guarantees that the buildings will be brought down to the ground and basically reduced in dust all on live TV for the biggest "SHOCK AND AWE" moment the world has ever witnessed. Blowing the buildings up at the base would most likely just make them topple over in an anticlimactic type of an event.
-
The advantage of a controlled demolition guarantees that the buildings will be brought down to the ground and basically reduced in dust all on live TV for the biggest "SHOCK AND AWE" moment the world has ever witnessed. Blowing the buildings up at the base would most likely just make them topple over in an anticlimactic type of an event.
Yeah, because the Towers falling down like Tiiiimmmber...and leveling entire city blocks would've been "ho hum". Gotcha.
-
Red Army said that they told the USA that Japan was going to attack Hawaii. USA told China that they were going to let it happen. This was to justify using the Atomic Bomb on Japan and also entering World War Two.
There's a couple of COINTELPRO posters in this thread that won't allow themselves to believe in what you just wrote no matter what the evidence is.
-
So, we're supposed to believe one genius move with the planes, but not the other genius move with access to the buildings?
Gotcha.
The genius move with the planes was done by the Hierarchy who brought the buildings down. Not the silly box cutter theory.
-
The genius move with the planes was done by the Hierarchy who brought the buildings down. Not the silly box cutter theory.
What about all the phone calls from hijacked passengers on the doomed planes to loved ones describing the box cutters. Were these faked by the Hierarchy?
-
What about all the phone calls from hijacked passengers on the doomed planes to loved ones describing the box cutters. Were these faked by the Hierarchy?
Do you believe HAARP has been weaponized?
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
-
Do you believe HAARP has been weaponized?
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
I'm not talking about HAARP. I'm talking about the outgoing phone calls by the passengers of hijacked planes describing arab hijackers with box cutters.
-
The advantage of a controlled demolition guarantees that the buildings will be brought down to the ground and basically reduced in dust all on live TV for the biggest "SHOCK AND AWE" moment the world has ever witnessed. Blowing the buildings up at the base would most likely just make them topple over in an anticlimactic type of an event.
Ha ha....are you really saying this...come on guy...please tell me you are trolling. ;D
-
What about all the phone calls from hijacked passengers on the doomed planes to loved ones describing the box cutters. Were these faked by the Hierarchy?
Because the hierarchy can wipe out entire Towns at will, control the media, etc.
I like the nice little "out" the foil people use though, the hierarchy "allows" heated discussions and conspiracy theorists to exist so as not to make it obvious how powerful they are....LOL.
-
Because the hierarchy can wipe out entire Towns at will, control the media, etc.
I like the nice little "out" the foil people use though, the hierarchy "allows" heated discussions and conspiracy theorists to exist so as not to make it obvious how powerful they are....LOL.
The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.
What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.
-
The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.
What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.
There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.
-
There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.
Old Indian proverb: You cannot wake a man who is pretending to sleep.
-
There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.
I agree, the Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster just make so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense, but I still don't think it is pointless to argue.
-
The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.
What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.
Why would they bother, they simply had to tell the people there were weapons of mass destruction and the people believed it. Modern Governments only need to create the illusion of something, the reality doesn't matter.
-
The large amount of witness accounts of explosions is well documented, their are also witnesses who said their were explosions that created such shockwaves it smashed them into the ground, their are also reports of windows breaking. It seems you don't believe any of the witnesses, in your angry mind they are just tin hats.
As for the demolition, you and I are hardly experts so neither of us can answer the logistics involved in such a task, nor to the technology they may have to perform such a feat. The fact remains, that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever totally collapsed of its own weight due to any cause or combination of causes -- be they bombings, severe fires, earthquakes, or hurricanes -- other than by controlled demolition. To this day, the WTC is the only building to collapse the way buildings do when done by controlled demolition but is said to have been caused by fire. This is an amazing coincidence.
Show me explosion, don't just talk about them. Tell me which explosive they use, because none of them works in fire. How hard this is to understand? No one in this world and it's forums has been able to do those two things, so why don't you want to be first? Instead of that crap what you are feeding to us, why don't you do so? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, IT IS SO SIMPLE. You can't show any explosions, because there isn't any. There is only that bullshit and eye witnesses who see this and that and hear anything they want. Where is all physical evidence about the explosions? There has been 15 pages of this conversation, and you have been able to name 0 explosive, 0 evidence, and do you know what that means? You are full of shit.
Why don't you pull your head out from your ass and try to understand this: These conversations has been around from the 9/11, and during these years, there is no one who has been able to prove not one thing about the conspiracy. All there is, is empty claims which these bastards try to prove with counterfeited evidence. Stupid narrated videos, where some moron tells you what you have to see in it, and they make sure that you see only what they want you to see, like collapse of the WTC7. There is more than 5 seconds missing in that foil hat version, just because they want to show you that "free fall". If we add that 5 seconds in that "free fall", what happens? We see slowest "free fall" of the history of the mankind, and more than that, we see how the front side of the building goes down long before the "free fall" starts. Just as it has been written down in that scary "official truth". So why they show you this video, which has been manipulated to show only what they try to lie to you? Why? And how dork you have to be to not understand that they lie to YOU?
-
Yeah, because the Towers falling down like Tiiiimmmber...and leveling entire city blocks would've been "ho hum". Gotcha.
;D ;D ;D Ya, 10 million ton, 1,000 foot tall buildings fall over all the time. Zero impact on viewers and local folk. I would rather watch a cat parade filled with really average cats.
-
Absurdity at it's finest ^^^ just claims, no evidence
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone.
- Fires in the North Tower covered extensive regions, at least near the perimeter walls, of about three floors.
- Fires in the South Tower also extended over about three floors, but were more localized to one side of the building.
- The fires did not spread significantly beyond the impact region. With the exception of a region of fire about 10 floors above the crash zone in the North Tower, the fires remained around the impact zones.
- The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.
- Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
- At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone.
- An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.
Dear child, do you even know what the fact is? Look it out from the dictionary. Now you are saying that dimensions, which are common knowledge, is falce, and calculation about the energy of the fire isn't the fact. Well, that is based to the EU building standard, which is just about the same that it is in USA, and with it these buildings are build. There is average fire load of the office building, and that has been base of the calculations everywhere where they want to know details of the fire. There is lots and lots of video and photo evidence about the fire, but nothing to prove you claims. Therefore you are full of shit, and I know this game. Where is the evidence about he explosions? Try to focus to that? That is more than enough for your capasity.
-
one simple question in relation to 9/11.
have you seen a a video of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon?
have you?
if you have then id say yes, the official story is all good to go. no more need for questions
-
-
one simple question in relation to 9/11.
have you seen a a video of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon?
have you?
if you have then id say yes, the official story is all good to go. no more need for questions
I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?
-
You are desperate. Just relax, take an antidepressant and a deep breath. You are out of control.
If I am desperate, why I am not he one who link these ridiculous videos and shit? Because I know what I am talking about. So you claim that there were 56 bath tubs full of thermite in that basing fire for an hour before they were detonated? You have to understand that amount of the thermite grows when size of the steel grows. I have calculated that also, and to cut one of the four side of the column so big, you need somewhat 400lb of thermite per long side, 200lb for the short one. That is a lot. Most of the column were in the elevator shaft, so how exactly those bath tub's and the elevators would be fitted in the elevator shaft which has no spare space at all. You foil hats and your theory, it works only if we ignore all facts of the matter.
And about the thermite itself, it is suitable for work like this? No, it isn't, because it is working form is liquid which can travel only to direction of gravity. They use it welding railroads, and there is very few other common use to it, because it isn't very efficient. Foil hats love it, but in the true life it is hardly used. And it ignates by fire.
So in you theory there is 56 bath tubs full of thermite in that inferno up to one hour, and that is it. So, where is the light, made by the liquid which is in temperature of 2800°C, where is the sparkles of the burning steel and any sign of temperatures so high?
You like the videos? Here is one for you. Start from 3:42: There is half a metric ton of the stuff trying to burn one little car in half.
-
I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?
well considering the amount of cameras in the areas and many angles of them. why havent you seen a video?
-
Christ that didn't even burn the pillars in the roof!
-
For one, the planes were far from fully fuelled, The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity. Their are many incidents of small planes hitting buildings and the buildings not collapsing, the Empire State building was hit by a ten-ton, B-25 bomber, and oddly enough it still stands. In 2005 Iranian Air Force C-130 crash occurred when an Iranian Air Force C-130E Hercules military transport aircraft, crashed into an apartment building in a residential area of Tehran, and oddly enough it still stands.
And any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.
So, for you tiny B-25 is just same that 767 with empty weight of 82,380 kilos ? Add the fuel, luggage and passengers and you are over 100 metric tons. B-25 weight is 9580 kilos, so it is less than 10% from 767. And how about speed? Little twin engine in fog vs. 767 with suicide pilot? All your arguments underlines only one truth, and do you know what it is? You are out of your league. You are just too ignorant fool to this conversation.
There is estimates about the amount of fuel, and with your estimate that flight could not fly at it's destination at all. I find that fun, because there is always enough fuel + reserve for waiting for landing. One of the most reasonable estimate is 40 tons of jet fuel, so the impact weight would be as high as 130 metric tons. If we add speed of 800 kilometers per hour, what is the energy in that impact? It was measured by the seismograph, and it was 0.92 magnitudes. That is a lot in situation like this. Fllying object hit the bulding at the force of 0.92 magnitude? You can't even understand how great burst of energy that is. Just think about it? 130 tons with the speed of 800kmh stops in the lenght of the 61 meters. Any one with the normal brains can see that it is more than enough to break the building.
-
Well, we know the media are lying whores don't we?
We know that the media from the foil hat idiots will lie, because that is all they do. What is amazing is that there is people who is willing to believe that crap without any thinking at all.
-
So, for you tiny B-25 is just same that 767 with empty weight of 82,380 kilos ? Add the fuel, luggage and passengers and you are over 100 metric tons. B-25 weight is 9580 kilos, so it is less than 10% from 767. And how about speed? Little twin engine in fog vs. 767 with suicide pilot? All your arguments underlines only one truth, and do you know what it is? You are out of your league. You are just too ignorant fool to this conversation.
There is estimates about the amount of fuel, and with your estimate that flight could not fly at it's destination at all. I find that fun, because there is always enough fuel + reserve for waiting for landing. One of the most reasonable estimate is 40 tons of jet fuel, so the impact weight would be as high as 130 metric tons. If we add speed of 800 kilometers per hour, what is the energy in that impact? It was measured by the seismograph, and it was 0.92 magnitudes. That is a lot in situation like this. Fllying object hit the bulding at the force of 0.92 magnitude? You can't even understand how great burst of energy that is. Just think about it? 130 tons with the speed of 800kmh stops in the lenght of the 61 meters. Any one with the normal brains can see that it is more than enough to break the building.
You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever. Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did. But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane. Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.
-
You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever. Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did. But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane. Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.
WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building and burned for 8 hours.
It also had a subway station underneath it so it sat on crossmembers instead of being columned straight into the bedrock.
-
I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?
Is this enough proof?
-
WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building and burned for 8 hours.
It also had a subway station underneath it so it sat on crossmembers instead of being columned straight into the bedrock.
HA HA HA HA HA - WTC7 was not hit by a 110 story building, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't. Talk about dramatic. It was hit with some debris from the WTC, it actually was one of the least hardest hit building as it was so far away, WTC7 was the only building with a World Trade Center address that stood on a different block from the rest of the complex. The other WTC building were damaged far worse than WTC 7.
-
well considering the amount of cameras in the areas and many angles of them. why havent you seen a video?
What cameras? Name one place on earth, where is military installation which has hundreds of outsiders cameras pointed at it? I bet you find it hard to find. And what would be the reason to point your camera that way? As a owner of the gas station you are more interest about pentagon, than you own fuel pumps and the morons operating them? This typical foil hat argument is based on simple stupidity, that everybody around the pentagon has pointed their cameras at the pentagon, not at their own business what so ever. What would be reason? Do they all know that one day there will be aeroplane hitting the building? And how ridiculous is that?
-
num nums, department of transportation has cameras on their roads, where this huge plane would have flown by before it hit, also there are many cctv cameras on the outside of the pentagon itself. are you that dumb?
-
You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever. Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did. But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane. Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.
Are you really grazy? Only an true imbecile can be stupid like you are. There is plenty of evidence that WTC 1 collapsed partly on the WTC7 and start fires in it. After burning hours, it's facade collapsed, and the back wall which is the king of the foil hat bullshit, followed. There isn't any mystic about the collapse of the WTC 7, and you see it if you look that material which is in this thread. Your believe is based on denial of the truth and facts, and that is revoltingly stupid.
-
What cameras? Name one place on earth, where is military installation which has hundreds of outsiders cameras pointed at it? I bet you find it hard to find. And what would be the reason to point your camera that way? As a owner of the gas station you are more interest about pentagon, than you own fuel pumps and the morons operating them? This typical foil hat argument is based on simple stupidity, that everybody around the pentagon has pointed their cameras at the pentagon, not at their own business what so ever. What would be reason? Do they all know that one day there will be aeroplane hitting the building? And how ridiculous is that?
I think he is talking about the hundreds of cameras installed at the pentagon. It’s one of the largest and most secure buildings in the world. It is the nerve centre for the U.S. military. It has hundreds of security cameras both inside and outside the building. But apparently you can fly an airliner into the side of it without being caught on tape.
I am still ROFL about your comment "WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building" HA HA HA HA
-
Are you really grazy? Only an true imbecile can be stupid like you are. There is plenty of evidence that WTC 1 collapsed partly on the WTC7 and start fires in it. After burning hours, it's facade collapsed, and the back wall which is the king of the foil hat bullshit, followed. There isn't any mystic about the collapse of the WTC 7, and you see it if you look that material which is in this thread. Your believe is based on denial of the truth and facts, and that is revoltingly stupid.
I can't stop laughing, you are too much, WTC7 was a block away from the WTC Twin Towers, the majority of the debris hit the other surround WTC buildings. Please provide this evidence of a 110 storey building hitting the WTC7. HA HA HA, I can't help but laugh when I type that, I visualise this huge skyscraper flying through the air at high speed smashing into the WTC7. HA HA HA HA ROFL
-
Are you really grazy? Only an true imbecile can be stupid like you are. There is plenty of evidence that WTC 1 collapsed partly on the WTC7 and start fires in it. After burning hours, it's facade collapsed, and the back wall which is the king of the foil hat bullshit, followed. There isn't any mystic about the collapse of the WTC 7, and you see it if you look that material which is in this thread. Your believe is based on denial of the truth and facts, and that is revoltingly stupid.
Doesn't it bother you that Firefighters were ordered not to fight a fire that went on to burn for 8 hours and cause the collapse of a building?
-
HA HA HA HA HA - WTC7 was not hit by a 110 story building, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't. Talk about dramatic. It was hit with some debris from the WTC, it actually was one of the least hardest hit building as it was so far away, WTC7 was the only building with a World Trade Center address that stood on a different block from the rest of the complex. The other WTC building were damaged far worse than WTC 7.
HA HA HA, YOU IGNORANT FOOL. Look at the pictures. There is loads of pictures which proves this to be a fact, BUT YOU CAN'T FIND THEM FROM THE FOIL HAT IDOTS WEB PAGES. Why? They are severely allergic to truth..
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) = larger version
Look at the building between WTC 1 and WTC 7, and try to undestand that WTC 1 debris fell on the WTC 7. There is no buildings which is build to take that kind of beating, and it still stand and burn for hours. Here is that little fire in WTC 7:
(http://www.oocities.org/factsnotfantasy/WTC7Fire.jpg)
That, regarding of the foil hat idiots truth, is practically nothing at all ;D
-
HA HA HA, YOU IGNORANT FOOL. Look at the pictures. There is loads of pictures which proves this to be a fact, BUT YOU CAN'T FIND THEM FROM THE FOIL HAT IDOTS WEB PAGES. Why? They are severely allergic to truth..
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg) = larger version
Look at the building between WTC 1 and WTC 7, and try to undestand that WTC 1 debris fell on the WTC 7. There is no buildings which is build to take that kind of beating, and it still stand and burn for hours. Here is that little fire in WTC 7:
(http://www.oocities.org/factsnotfantasy/WTC7Fire.jpg)
That, regarding of the foil hat idiots truth, is practically nothing at all ;D
These pictures only prove that you are a mentally challenged, please provide evidence of your claim that a 110 storey building hit the WTC 7. All the other WTC building were closer and damaged far worse, yet they remained standing.
And the pic you posted of WTC7 just shows smoke, it doesn't show fire at all (more than likely dust from the north tower collapse), please show photos showing wtc7 completely ablaze. Here is a photo that highlight the truth about the blaze.
(http://reinep.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wtc7-a-few-fires-going-on-inside-and-thats-all.jpg?w=712)
The public is led to believe that these small pockets of fire collapsed the building.
-
num nums, department of transportation has cameras on their roads, where this huge plane would have flown by before it hit, also there are many cctv cameras on the outside of the pentagon itself. are you that dumb?
And there must be something to prove it, so what it is? Foil hat imbeciles claims that there is? And if those department of transportation cameras are pointed to the roads, how they are filming pentagon? In which way you are incapable to understand, that it isn't common to film military installations? Try to do it in russia, and they shot you. Try to do it in any country, and they take your camera, but in the USA, there is hundred of cameras filming their military headquarters? How it is so hard to me to believe? Because I know it isn't true.
-
ROPO is melting down all over this thread. ROPO has melted more than the steel did in the Twin Towers on 9/11
-
hey ropo, have you seen a video of that plane hitting the pentagon yet?
-
I think he is talking about the hundreds of cameras installed at the pentagon. It’s one of the largest and most secure buildings in the world. It is the nerve centre for the U.S. military. It has hundreds of security cameras both inside and outside the building. But apparently you can fly an airliner into the side of it without being caught on tape.
I am still ROFL about your comment "WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building" HA HA HA HA
Well, maybe in your country they install all the cameras to pointing to the sky in case there will be an attack by passenger jet. In real world they are pointing at doors etc. not empty yards, and they are working by movement recognition, which means they film only when there is movement or something to film.
-
Doesn't it bother you that Firefighters were ordered not to fight a fire that went on to burn for 8 hours and cause the collapse of a building?
You mean those who died, or those who has just seen their friends to die, and were in the middle of that dust and shit from the collapsed towers? You seem to think that there was clean streets to drive around with the fire truck, and that tells all how much you really know about the situation, which is nothing. You are just a child who try to argue without any real knowledge at all.
-
ROPO is melting down all over this thread. ROPO has melted more than the steel did in the Twin Towers on 9/11
And while I am melting down, why don't you be a man and show us even one (1) evidence about the explosions? There has been 17 pages full of request that you really prove something, but you are not able to deliver. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand, that it is obvious that you can't do that? 17 pages rant without any real evidence? You must be fucking proud for yourself? So, where exactly is the explosions, and what is that chemical compound which will explode after on hour in the fire. What is that fireproof detonation cord, which can be in fire up to one hour, and how they plant the explosives in the place where is ging to be plane crash. Few simple questions which you are unable to answer among all the foil hats of this world. Every one can understand what that means.
-
i heard the jews did it and they were funded by the norks who have an alliance with the illuminati
true story
-
These pictures only prove that you are a mentally challenged, please provide evidence of your claim that a 110 storey building hit the WTC 7. All the other WTC building were closer and damaged far worse, yet they remained standing.
Of course, if you say so: (http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg) There is nothing hitting on WTC 7, just like you say. Pretty please, do you research BEFORE you make a fool out your self.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g115/Jazz99/WTC7/4df1760d.jpg) just some smoke..
(http://rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg) no damages what so ever..
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/13Large.jpg) The miraculous pieces of WTC 1 in the ruins of the WTC 7? There is parts of outer wall structure of WTC 1 clearly visible..
So, only thing you have proved in 17 pages, is that you are an idiot.
-
And while I am melting down
ROFL
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/042009/1240325175_roflbrothel.gif)
-
Ropo destroying the foil hats in this thread.
Ekul pulling so much shit out of his ass he probably gave himself hemorrhoids. seriously, you retorts are as weak as a70 year Olds piss stream at this point
-
hey ropo, have you seen a video of that plane hitting the pentagon yet?
Well, since the Pentagon is simply awash in CC cameras, then it should be a trivial exercise to provide CC screen caps of planes, from Pentagon cameras, over the Pentagon on routine flights. I mean, it's across the street from Reagan National.
epic_alien, can you provide us with pictures of planes taken from CC tvs of planes in the sky near the Pentagon? If you can't provide any, I will take that as proof that Reagan airport does not exist.
-
And, what's the problem with this video again?
-
jet fuel is diesel fuel. it don't won't and cannot melt steel beams.
-
jet fuel is diesel fuel. it don't won't and cannot melt steel beams.
Who said anything about melting steel beams?
NIST also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
-
Ropo destroying the foil hats in this thread.
Ekul pulling so much shit out of his ass he probably gave himself hemorrhoids. seriously, you retorts are as weak as a70 year Olds piss stream at this point
Ropo is getting his ass handed to him. He claims there would have been no cameras around the Pentagon. What utter horseshit. They have confiscated numerous footage. And a secure facility like the Pentagon would actually have numerous cameras for security purposes - duh! Never mind all the gas stations around the Pentagon. Bu not one video showing a plane crashing into the building. Oh, there is one video but it shows clearly a missile or smaller object flying in to the Pentagon.
Fools!
-
Ropo is getting his ass handed to him. He claims there would have been no cameras around the Pentagon. What utter horseshit. They have confiscated numerous footage. And a secure facility like the Pentagon would actually have numerous cameras for security purposes - duh! Never mind all the gas stations around the Pentagon. Bu not one video showing a plane crashing into the building. Oh, there is one video but it shows clearly a missile or smaller object flying in to the Pentagon.
Fools!
Show me a video that "clearly" shows a missile.
And, if it's such a conspiracy like you say..why wouldn't they just FAKE crystal clear footage of a plane hitting? Jeez, they're wiring buildings for controlled demos, one would think they could fake some plane footage.
-
Show me a video that "clearly" shows a missile.
And, if it's such a conspiracy like you say..why wouldn't they just FAKE crystal clear footage of a plane hitting? Jeez, they're wiring buildings for controlled demos, one would think they could fake some plane footage.
Show me a video that clearly shows an airliner. If it is not an airliner then what is it?
And who knows why they did not fake an airliner in the footage. Perhaps they figured enough fools would buy it anyway - which they have, including you! The 4 frames that were released clearly shows a much smaller object flying into the Pentagon. We know the dimensions of the airliner and the Pentagon. That object is not an airliner.
-
Show me a video that clearly shows an airliner. If it is not an airliner then what is it?
And who knows why they did not fake an airliner in the footage. Perhaps they figured enough fools would buy it anyway - which they have, including you! The 4 frames that were released clearly shows a much smaller object flying into the Pentagon. We know the dimensions of the airliner and the Pentagon. That object is not an airliner.
OK..if it's NOT an airliner, where is the missing airliner that supposedly crashed?
And, are all the eyewitness accounts -- that describe a plane -- wrong? In on it? What?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
-
OK..if it's NOT an airliner, where is the missing airliner that supposedly crashed?
And, are all the eyewitness accounts -- that describe a plane -- wrong? In on it? What?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
if you know anything about planes like this guy you can tell a boeing 757 really quickly. They have a very distinctive nose and they are long and thin.
-
if you know anything about planes like this guy you can tell a boeing 757 really quickly. They have a very distinctive nose and they are long and thin.
OH, Like the eyewitness says?
TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.
FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...
TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.
FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
-
Why would they bother, they simply had to tell the people there were weapons of mass destruction and the people believed it. Modern Governments only need to create the illusion of something, the reality doesn't matter.
OMG. you just might be the stupidest person on the planet. So George Bush and Dick Cheney Orchestrated the most diabolical false flag strike in history, to sway public opinion and attack Iraq. And then they DO NOTHING , and let the media report that there are no WMDs (their entire premise for invading) and let history paint them as the two biggest scumbag liars of all time.
Oh and let's not leave out that they pulled off the most eloborate controlled demo in human history...but said "fuck it" when it came to the Pentagon, and just hit it with a missile and let it get caught on camera. Hahahaaaa
-
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon
The Pentagon
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
Big Plane, Small Holes
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. (Photograph by Department of Defense)FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Intact Windows
Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris
Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn—proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/UW/911-flight77-debris.jpg)
-
Show me a video that clearly shows an airliner. If it is not an airliner then what is it?
And who knows why they did not fake an airliner in the footage. Perhaps they figured enough fools would buy it anyway - which they have, including you! The 4 frames that were released clearly shows a much smaller object flying into the Pentagon. We know the dimensions of the airliner and the Pentagon. That object is not an airliner.
have you even looked at a map of where the plane entered the pentagon?
It came in right over Arlington national cementary, not a built up area with lots of CCTV.
-
Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.
If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.
If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.
In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.
There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".
-
Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.
If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.
If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.
In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.
There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".
i just like making people look as stupid as they indeed are...
-
Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.
If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.
If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.
In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.
There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".
Everything you argue is basically what can be said about those who oppose the official story, no amount of evidence contrary to what you believe will persuade you. Thousands of highly educated professionals have come forth and disputed the official story. The video evidence that shows the towers collapsing exactly the way they do during controlled demolitions is indisputable, even a child can see the uncanny resemblance. The official story began circulating within hours of the collapse, and was reinforced by paid Government sponsored academics from then on.
No different than say when an Oil company has a serious spill, uses toxic chemicals to clean up and the moment people start getting sick and dying they use Public relations and the media, highly paid academics and propaganda to convince the Public that the sick and dying are liars and lack credibility and their shit is in fact gold. this is a well worn tactic used by Rich Powerful organisations, They have done it with tobacco, alcohol, asbestos, dangerous chemicals, dangerous drugs, you name it, if you have enough power and money you can make the people believe whatever you like.
-
If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.
So now you are admitting there is no evidence of a plane in the video of the Pentagon. That is very telling. It is more concerning that there is no plane in the video than if there was one in it. Even if doctored. Why would they remove a plane from the video when their official story is an airliner crashed into the building?? lol!!!
There is no plane in the video. 4 frames is enough to determine this because the object flying into the Pentagon can be seen in these 4 frames and it is not the correct size or shape to be an airliner as claimed. End of story!
-
So now you are admitting there is no evidence of a plane in the video of the Pentagon. That is very telling. It is more concerning that there is no plane in the video than if there was one in it. Even if doctored. Why would they remove a plane from the video when their official story is an airliner crashed into the building?? lol!!!
There is no plane in the video. 4 frames is enough to determine this because the object flying into the Pentagon can be seen in these 4 frames and it is not the correct size or shape to be an airliner as claimed. End of story!
No, that's not what I'm admitting at all. If I was going to admit it, I would say it clearly. I've seen the low frame count CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I can see how a CT would take the one frame showing an object (a plane that's already clipped poles and bounced off the ground) and twist it to any manner of objects as they see fit.
The CCTV youtube video is a plane. There is a plane missing. We have calls from people on that plane prior to it crashing We have eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash. We have workers who handled the bodies of the crew.
What is telling, here, is that you completely ignore all that. Completely.
-
"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure."
So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?
-
"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure."
So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?
The structural engineer never said anything of the sort.
-
Just leaving this here:
Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
-
OH, Like the eyewitness says?
TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.
FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...
TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.
FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
You mean this ground? Most of the energy went into this ground? I want a Pentagon Lawn - it is fucking indestructible!
This witness is probably a CIA agent. Clearly a liar.
(http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11)_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg)
-
You mean this ground? Most of the energy went into this ground? I want a Pentagon Lawn - it is fucking indestructible!
This witness is probably a CIA agent. Clearly a liar.
(http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11)_files/Pentagon_lawn.jpg)
There were many, many eyewitnesses who saw the plane. Are they all CIA agent liars?
-
Here is what you would expect if it hit the ground first:
(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/lawn/vladivostok.jpg)
(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/lawn/uadc10_iowa.jpg)
(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/lawn/fedex_flt1478.jpg)
And you know what, even if it did not hit the ground the engines at a minimum would have dragged the lawn as it crashed into the ground floor.
-
There were many, many eyewitnesses who saw the plane. Are they all CIA agent liars?
Well obviously Timmerman is. I am just responding to his interview. He said most of the energy was dissipated when hitting the ground. Obviously that is a lie. The lawn shows no signs of impact. So what is it?
Let's just take this one step at a time. Debate on this instead of calling everyone liars. You are avoiding the questions being raised. What's your explanation?
-
Well obviously Timmerman is. I am just responding to his interview. He said most of the energy was dissipated when hitting the ground. Obviously that is a lie. The lawn shows no signs of impact. So what is it?
Let's just take this one step at a time. Debate on this instead of calling everyone liars. You are avoiding the questions being raised. What's your explanation?
I think this should do nicely. Let me know if you have any questions: :-*
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
-
I was USMC and I do NOT trust the USA
-
I think this should do nicely. Let me know if you have any questions: :-*
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
That has nothing to do with my question about Tim Timmerman. What are your thoughts on Tim Timmerman's claim that it hit the ground first? is he mistaken perhaps?
-
That has nothing to do with my question about Tim Timmerman. What are your thoughts on Tim Timmerman's claim that it hit the ground first? is he mistaken perhaps?
Why would he be mistaken? Are glancing impacts unknown to you? How do you think gliders landed during the D-Day assault in WW2? The effect of a plane when it hits the ground depends upon a lot of factors -- speed and angle, for example.
Are you saying that any time a plane touches the ground, regardless of circumstance, it immediately bursts into flames and causes a crater?
Seriously?
-
Why would he be mistaken? Are glancing impacts unknown to you? How do you think gliders landed during the D-Day assault in WW2? The effect of a plane when it hits the ground depends upon a lot of factors -- speed and angle, for example.
Are you saying that any time a plane touches the ground, regardless of circumstance, it immediately bursts into flames and causes a crater?
Seriously?
LOL, it does if it is crashing. This was not a controlled landing?!
You sound so dumb in your arguments. What's your IQ?
-
LOL, it does if it is crashing. This was not a controlled landing?!
You sound so dumb in your arguments. What's your IQ?
The pilot was attempting to hit the Pentagon, not crash into the ground. Logic dictates this would be a low approach (as the CCTV footage -- and the eye witness accounts support).
Instead of questioning my IQ, and labeling my arguments as "dumb" -- why don't you provide some credible evidence that it is simply impossible for a plane to have glancing impact on the ground? Thanks.
In all, there were 189 deaths at the Pentagon site, including the 125 in the Pentagon building in addition to the 64 on board the aircraft. Passenger Barbara Olson was en route to a taping of Politically Incorrect.[45] A group of children, their chaperones, and National Geographic Society staff members were also on board, embarking on an educational trip west to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California. [46] The fatalities at the Pentagon included 55 military personnel and 70 civilians.[47] Of those 125 killed, 92 were on the first floor, 31 were on the second floor, and two were on the third.[48] The Army suffered 75 fatalities—far more than any other branch. Another 106 injured were treated at area hospitals.[48] Lieutenant General Timothy Maude, an Army Deputy Chief of Staff, was the highest-ranking military officer killed at the Pentagon; also killed was retired Rear Admiral Wilson Flagg, a passenger on the plane.[49]
On the side where the plane hit, the Pentagon is bordered by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard. Motorist Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[51] Omar Campo, another witness, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the airplane flew over his head.
"I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here".[52]
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work and stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the airplane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."[52] Daryl Donley witnessed the crash and took some of the first photographs of the site.[53]
The collapsed area and subsequent fire damage.
USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted,
"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".[54]
Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[55]Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[56] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.[51]
-
The pilot was attempting to hit the Pentagon, not crash into the ground. Logic dictates this would be a low approach (as the CCTV footage -- and the eye witness accounts support).
Instead of questioning my IQ, and labeling my arguments as "dumb" -- why don't you provide some credible evidence that it is simply impossible for a plane to have glancing impact on the ground? Thanks.
But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.
-
But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.
The part of the lawn you see in the photos directly in front of the impact site.
If it was a glancing impact (akin to a stone skipping on water), then after the glancing contact, the plane would then "skip" back into the air. The plane did this, and actually impacted between the first and second floors of the Pentagon. Therefore, before impact, the plane was airborne and not dragging on the lawn.
Hope this helps.
-
Those are plane crash pictures, jets that lost power and fell from the sky. They flew the jet under power into the side of the building...they were aiming for the building.
I love the way you people compare apples and oranges and go "A-HAaaa!!"
E-kul has said about 20 times now it's "exactly" the same as a controlled demolotion. the only thing that is similar is that gravity works and the building fell straight down. In every controlled demo vid i watch, they film it from a half mile away and you can hear dozens of sequential explosions echoing for miles, a deaf person could hear them.But the govt managed to mask the largest demo ever so that the 500 film crews there didnt pick up what would have been hundreds of detonations.
When pressed he says Well, I'm not sure of the technology the govt has...that's all they have..guessing and assuming.
-
This news just in!! The sun actually isn't hot at all. The sun is only about 75 degrees. It's just a conspiracy between the government and air conditioner salesmen, to get us to buy expensive air conditioners.
-
The part of the lawn you see in the photos directly in front of the impact site.
If it was a glancing impact (akin to a stone skipping on water), then after the glancing contact, the plane would then "skip" back into the air. The plane did this, and actually impacted between the first and second floors of the Pentagon. Therefore, before impact, the plane was airborne and not dragging on the lawn.
Hope this helps.
Haha ok. A glancing stone. Oh brother.
(http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/nov09_files/lawn24.jpg)
-
Those are plane crash pictures, jets that lost power and fell from the sky. They flew the jet under power into the side of the building...they were aiming for the building.
But a key witness said it hit the ground first. Yet the lawn looks better than most groomed lawns??
Here's the thing, even if they aimed for the building and the pilot was top notch, they would have still crashed partially into the lawn first judging by how low the supposed airliner impact zone is in the Pentagon. The size of the Airplane would have made it impossible to not drag the lawn.
And that is what Mr. Timmerman said. Yet there was no damage to the lawn.
-
This news just in!! The sun actually isn't hot at all. The sun is only about 75 degrees. It's just a conspiracy between the government and air conditioner salesmen, to get us to buy expensive air conditioners.
That has nothing to do with the questions raised.
This is classic disinformation tactics. Drag the debate down to Mickey Mouse talk in an effort to sidestep the questions. Or post porn. I am waiting for that next. A big pussy shot perhaps?
-
But a key witness said it hit the ground first. Yet the lawn looks better than most groomed lawns??
Here's the thing, even if they aimed for the building and the pilot was top notch, they would have still crashed partially into the lawn first judging by how low the supposed airliner impact zone is in the Pentagon. The size of the Airplane would have made it impossible to not drag the lawn.
And that is what Mr. Timmerman said. Yet there was no damage to the lawn.
What you see in the photos IS NOT WHERE THE PLANE CONTACTED.
I'll say it again. THE LAWN YOU SEE IN THE PHOTOS IS NOT WHERE THE PLANE CONTACTED.
Witnesses say it skipped on the helipad. Do you see a helipad in these photos?
Is this all you have? Pointing to a section of the lawn that the plane didn't even touch?
You won't address the phone calls by the passengers.
The multiple eye witnesses.
The plane debris.
This missing plane (where is it if it wasn't a plane?)
You focus on the lawn? Which wasn't even the point of impact?
-
What you see in the photos IS NOT WHERE THE PLANE CONTACTED.
I'll say it again. THE LAWN YOU SEE IN THE PHOTOS IS NOT WHERE THE PLANE CONTACTED.
Witnesses say it skipped on the helipad. Do you see a helipad in these photos?
Is this all you have? Pointing to a section of the lawn that the plane didn't even touch?
You won't address the phone calls by the passengers.
The multiple eye witnesses.
The plane debris.
This missing plane (where is it if it wasn't a plane?)
You focus on the lawn? Which wasn't even the point of impact?
Show me where it hit first and where most of the energy was absorbed by the ground (helipad?) - according to Timmerman. I am really curious now!
-
Show me where it hit first and where most of the energy was absorbed by the ground (helipad?) - according to Timmerman. I am really curious now!
Why do I have to show you? I've provided links to peer reviewed engineering journals, well-researched explanations, quotes from CNN eye witness accounts...
Nothing is good enough..and nothing ever will be. I bet you didn't read one link, or even one paper. You mind is made up. If you want to find out..read on your own. I'm done spoon feeding you.
-
Here's a good video about Quadzilla. :P
-
Here's a good video about Quadzilla. :P
No! ;)
-
This building burned far longer and was completely engulfed. Why didn't it collapse/turn to dust?
Only element missing is jet fuel.
Only element missing is a controlled demolition.
-
I have a question for those dipshits skeptics that think the CIA or the .gov were the ones that made the towers collapse. Are you contending that there were no Islamic hijackers?
Also, if you do accept that hijackers hit the WTC with planes, why would the .gov need the buildings to collapse in order to get support for their "war on terror"? Even if they didn't collapse, wouldn't the planes hitting the WTC and the pentagon be enough? I don't see the added benefit (for lack of a better word) in purposely making the buildings collapse.
I can understand people that are curious about the buildings collapsing the way they did. It was odd. What I don't get is those people that deny the mountain of evidence showing the hijacked planes hit the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Some people belive that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It's pretty obvious what happened on 9/11.
Are the .gov, the airlines, the victims, the victims families and the terrorists all in this together? All those people are keeping their mouths shut about the "truth"? Doubtfull.
Firemen and law enforcement that heard bombs and explosions going off in the morning of September 11 are keeping their mouth shut about this...
-
Firemen and law enforcement that heard bombs and explosions going off in the morning of September 11 are keeping their mouth shut about this...
Explosions and loud noises are very common and expected at building fires. HTH. ;)
-
And, what's the problem with this video again?
um yes, if you can please pic out the plane in that video id thankfull
-
I love how the CTers expect a 13ft high plane (height of 757 body with wheels up) to be front and center in that security cam footage.
Take a look at aerial pics of the pentagon taken right after the incident then let the fact each side of the pentagon is 921 feet long sink into your brains.
That 13 foot high plane was 700-800 feet away from that camera.
How big does a school bus look from 700-800 feet?
-
Where the fuck is 240 or Bust? ???
-
um yes, if you can please pic out the plane in that video id thankfull
um yes, i posted more than one link that did exactly that. um yes. if you aint gonna fucking read it it i can't help you.
um yes. hope this helps.
um yes.
-
Where the fuck is 240 or Bust? ???
LOL! I gave up arguing this topic years ago.
It's a pointless argument. Pointless. When we're 70, they'll declassify everything, and we can sit around in our nursing homes and say "I told you so" LOL...
I'm more concerned with watching breaking bad on netflix than I am about this debate anymore haha.
-
LOL! I gave up arguing this topic years ago.
It's a pointless argument. Pointless. When we're 70, they'll declassify everything, and we can sit around in our nursing homes and say "I told you so" LOL...
I'm more concerned with watching breaking bad on netflix than I am about this debate anymore haha.
lol...
I couldn't resist posting a few times in this thread, but I know exactly what you mean!!
-
9/11 was a conspiracy.
-
After 20 pages this convo went no where lol.
I think a few big names hand there hands in this. But it doesn't go up to the President. Tower 7 was too suspicious.
-
ROFL
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/042009/1240325175_roflbrothel.gif)
And this is all what you can do? How pitiful is that, because it is evident that you are unable to show any evidence. That happens every time when foil hat idiot runs out of arguments. You see yourself as an hero, and everybody else see that I beat the crap out of your arguments, and I don't even speak the fucking language. Why? Because you can't beat the facts of the matter. If there would have been explosives, there would be signs of explosions, it is simple as that. If pentagon would be hit by the missile, there would be impact hole size of the missile, not size of the 757. If there would be explosives which can hang out in fire for hours, there would be some alien chemistry involved and more than that, there would be concrete evidence about these things. There is none. There is only some foil hat arguments and fake videos, fake pictures and crap like that. And how about the type of logic they use? Let's use same logic for different situation:
In one night of the each year there is obese old guy with the red suit visiting every home in the world. This fat old guy fly with the sledge, pulled by reindeers. There isn't any real evidence about him, no one has really see him, but there is one concrete evidence that he is true. He leave gifts in every house he has been. So the gifts proves that he is real, just like the collapsing proves that the WTC buildings has been victims of the controlled demolition ;D
-
jet fuel is diesel fuel. it don't won't and cannot melt steel beams.
No one even with the IQ of the German Shepherd doesn't claim that it can. That is claim of the foil hat idiots. There has been temperatures above of the 1200°C in that fire, because it is impossible there isn't, and that doesn't melt steel. What it melts easily is aluminium, the metal which they build aeroplanes. Aluminium melts in 600°C, and it boils in 2000°C, so it has quite large scale when it is in liquid form. That's why it pours out from the crash site as an yellow hot liquid, which colour indicates temperature of 900-1000°C.
-
Ropo is getting his ass handed to him. He claims there would have been no cameras around the Pentagon. What utter horseshit. They have confiscated numerous footage. And a secure facility like the Pentagon would actually have numerous cameras for security purposes - duh! Never mind all the gas stations around the Pentagon. Bu not one video showing a plane crashing into the building. Oh, there is one video but it shows clearly a missile or smaller object flying in to the Pentagon.
Fools!
Prove there is? That is quite easy, isn't it? There has to be millions of pictures of pentagon, so please, point out the cameras from some of them? You can't, because the cameras what you see in those pictures, is aimed to doors and staircases, not all over the yard and sky. Why? They want to see who enters or leave the building, not birds which fly by.
-
And this is all what you can do? How pitiful is that, because it is evident that you are unable to show any evidence. That happens every time when foil hat idiot runs out of arguments. You see yourself as an hero, and everybody else see that I beat the crap out of your arguments, and I don't even speak the fucking language. Why? Because you can't beat the facts of the matter. If there would have been explosives, there would be signs of explosions, it is simple as that. If pentagon would be hit by the missile, there would be impact hole size of the missile, not size of the 757. If there would be explosives which can hang out in fire for hours, there would be some alien chemistry involved and more than that, there would be concrete evidence about these things. There is none. There is only some foil hat arguments and fake videos, fake pictures and crap like that. And how about the type of logic they use? Let's use same logic for different situation:
In one night of the each year there is obese old guy with the red suit visiting every home in the world. This fat old guy fly with the sledge, pulled by reindeers. There isn't any real evidence about him, no one has really see him, but there is one concrete evidence that he is true. He leave gifts in every house he has been. So the gifts proves that he is real, just like the collapsing proves that the WTC buildings has been victims of the controlled demolition ;D
Your just an angry conformist. Their are hundreds of accounts of explosions, you just refuse the evidence. it's hard to argue with someone who just denies what is shown to them, if I hold up a red card, and say this is a red card, you reply by saying if there was a red card their would be evidence of a red card. There is absolutely no way you can debate with someone who just denies everything he is presented.
And Santa Claus is the perfect conspiracy, a bunch of people who have power (the adults) over a bunch of other people (children) agree to make something look like reality when in fact it is complete fiction. The people who organised the conspiracy (the adults) know the truth about the matter, but they don't tell those they rule over because they enjoy fooling others and the sense of power this gives them, Plus, the powerless people seem to enjoy it anyway, that is, until they discover the truth, then they realise how easy it is for others to dupe those who don't know any better. Shit! For a minute there I thought I was describing 9/11.
-
No one even with the IQ of the German Shepherd doesn't claim that it can. That is claim of the foil hat idiots. There has been temperatures above of the 1200°C in that fire, because it is impossible there isn't, and that doesn't melt steel. What it melts easily is aluminium, the metal which they build aeroplanes. Aluminium melts in 600°C, and it boils in 2000°C, so it has quite large scale when it is in liquid form. That's why it pours out from the crash site as an yellow hot liquid, which colour indicates temperature of 900-1000°C.
Molten Aluminium IS Silver you Idiot. It has a dull gray appearance Better luck next time Angry Conformist.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/docs/st_spout3s.jpg)
-
Show me a video that "clearly" shows a missile.
And, if it's such a conspiracy like you say..why wouldn't they just FAKE crystal clear footage of a plane hitting? Jeez, they're wiring buildings for controlled demos, one would think they could fake some plane footage.
That I want to see. These guys doesn't comprehend the difference of the aeroplane and the missile. There is plenty of information about the missiles of the world in internet, and it is a fact that cruise missiles are small. Difference between them and the aeroplane is like difference between hot dog and the buss. How many eyewitness in this world can do that mistake? They see a hot dog and think it is a buss? Only foil hat idiots are stupid enough for that..
-
Molten Aluminium IS Silver you Idiot. It has a dull gray appearance Better luck next time Angry Conformist.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/docs/st_spout3s.jpg)
That little stream of sparks out of one window is supposed to be explosives bringing down the building?
-
But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.
Teen twat trying argument with out any real knowledge about the matter? One eyewitness would solve this case? In fact there is plenty of pictures which shows exactly where and how plane hit the ground before hitting the wall of the pentagon. There was mobile generator unit at the front of the impact zone, and there is photos showing clear marks how the engine of the 757 hit this unit, there is hole in the fence etc. which has same radius than the engine. This video shows the most accurate theory how it happen, and it is 100% synchronized with the real evidences:
And the page with the hi-res pictures about the site, taken right after hit. You can clearly see parts of 757 in these pictures, but what is amazing, you can't find these pictures from the foil hat web site. I wonder why? Too much truth in them to start the allergic reaction?
http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/ (http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/)
-
"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.
Go figure."
So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?
That is nice, because while these buildings were build, there wasn't such thing as fleets of 747 flying around. How about the facts? First flight February 9, 1969 Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan Am. Towers were opened 1972, so 747 wasn't most common passenger jet at the time, it was newest. Most common planes were 707s and DC 8s, which are less than half of the size of the 767.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)
-
Firemen and law enforcement that heard bombs and explosions going off in the morning of September 11 are keeping their mouth shut about this...
No, they did not. They hear similiar noises and made the conclusion, that they were explosions. Furthermore, while there isn't any hard evidence about the explosions, not even a bit of the material which has been exploded, so what they were hearing? Noises of debris, falling from the 300 meters hight. No one can prove otherwise, because there isn't any evidence what so ever. Your have the same problem than they had. You think that explosions sound real life like they sound in movies, but they not. Want to see and hear explosion with the same magnitude than plane hitting the tower? Well, this is only less than half from that:
-
Your just an angry conformist. Their are hundreds of accounts of explosions, you just refuse the evidence. it's hard to argue with someone who just denies what is shown to them, if I hold up a red card, and say this is a red card, you reply by saying if there was a red card their would be evidence of a red card. There is absolutely no way you can debate with someone who just denies everything he is presented.
And Santa Claus is the perfect conspiracy, a bunch of people who have power (the adults) over a bunch of other people (children) agree to make something look like reality when in fact it is complete fiction. The people who organised the conspiracy (the adults) know the truth about the matter, but they don't tell those they rule over because they enjoy fooling others and the sense of power this gives them, Plus, the powerless people seem to enjoy it anyway, that is, until they discover the truth, then they realise how easy it is for others to dupe those who don't know any better. Shit! For a minute there I thought I was describing 9/11.
So, if there is "are hundreds of accounts of explosions", how the hell you are unable to point even one out from the videos? Wan't to know why? Because there isn't one. This isn't any more complicated than that. You silly child, don't you understand that everything real has evidence about it. You shouldn't believe only what they say, but what they can prove by evidence, because facts always have evidences.
-
That is nice, because while these buildings were build, there wasn't such thing as fleets of 747 flying around. How about the facts? First flight February 9, 1969 Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan Am. Towers were opened 1972, so 747 wasn't most common passenger jet at the time, it was newest. Most common planes were 707s and DC 8s, which are less than half of the size of the 767.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)
LOL, you make some ridiculous claim and then provide a link that completely disproves what you just said.
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif)
Considering a 707 can cruise at a speed 77mph faster than the 767, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
-
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
-
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
-
Molten Aluminium IS Silver you Idiot. It has a dull gray appearance Better luck next time Angry Conformist.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/docs/st_spout3s.jpg)
Another proof that you are an idiot. Have you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and het it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C cant be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like they show in this page:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html (http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html)
-
LOL, you make some ridiculous claim and then provide a link that completely disproves what you just said.
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif)
Considering a 707 can cruise at a speed 77mph faster than the 767, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
And this will prove what? I still doesn't see any evidence about the explosions, while there is "are hundreds of accounts" about them. I admit that "less than half" was an overstatement, but these planes are smaller and lighter, and that 10 tons of fuel is still crap. That 767 wasn't landing, it was just taken off, it wasn't on it's cruise speed but highest speed possible for the suicide hit, so your claims about the kinetic energy are same childish bullshit like all foil hat arguments. If there is "are hundreds of accounts of explosions", just tell me why you can't show even one? One video where is one real explosion is all what it takes, so how about it? Can you even explain why you can't do this? There is loads of readers who want to know?
-
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.
-
20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts, and stupid foil hat bullshit. You, all the foil hat imbecile, please tell me what is the net income about that bullshit you believe? Is your life better with that shit rolling inside your head? No, it isn't. You basicly live in fear, and hate the world because of it and while doing this, you remain as imbeciles. When I look your user profiles, you seem to live trought this forum, you are here 24/7, so you haven't any real life at all. And that make you competent to argue against the real world facts? Sorry to say, but that only proves that you are brainless morons, like all foil hats in this world. In these past years no one has been able to prove anything about the explosions in the towers. No one has been able to prove anything about the missile hitting the pentagon. All the evidence clearly shows that official theory was right, but still there is you, the morons, who live in denial. How stupid is that?
-
"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.
bingo.
A 707 would have brought down those towers due to the one thing nobody thought about... The removal of the foam insulation due to the impact.
-
Do we still have the Z board operational?
-
"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.
No, he is sure it can sustain a plane hitting it, when he says I believe, he was talking about multiple planes.
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
-
20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts, and stupid foil hat bullshit. You, all the foil hat imbecile, please tell me what is the net income about that bullshit you believe? Is your life better with that shit rolling inside your head? No, it isn't. You basicly live in fear, and hate the world because of it and while doing this, you remain as imbeciles. When I look your user profiles, you seem to live trought this forum, you are here 24/7, so you haven't any real life at all. And that make you competent to argue against the real world facts? Sorry to say, but that only proves that you are brainless morons, like all foil hats in this world. In these past years no one has been able to prove anything about the explosions in the towers. No one has been able to prove anything about the missile hitting the pentagon. All the evidence clearly shows that official theory was right, but still there is you, the morons, who live in denial. How stupid is that?
Your question is absurd, you area asking for video evidence of an explosion that was tucked away in parts of the building that aren't visible to anybody. Please show me one photo of the wind, I don't believe people's witness account of it. Also I would like a photo of gravity while you are at it, only then will I know it is real. What a moron?
In your mind the hundreds of witnesses who talk about the explosions they heard are just fruitbats who like to lie for no good reason.
Please tell me, When you hear thunder, do you deny it happened because you didn't see the lightning that caused it.
-
20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts.
Don't feel bad that you can't find any evidence to support your bizarre claims, that's why their is a conspiracy theory in the first place.
-
That little stream of sparks out of one window is supposed to be explosives bringing down the building?
The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction. Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.
-
The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction. Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.
Mythbusters used a boatload of thermite and they couldn't even melt the roof pillars on an old sedan.
-
Another proof that you are an idiot. Have you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and het it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C cant be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like they show in this page:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html (http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html)
This is what aluminium looks like when melted.
(http://www.foundry101.com/Aluminumpour3.jpg)(http://www.buffalometalcasting.com/art/poural.jpg)
Showing photos of Aluminium reflecting super heated glowing tungsten doesn't change the fact melted aluminium is silver.
-
Mythbusters used a boatload of thermite and they couldn't even melt the roof pillars on an old sedan.
So sad, Mythbusters has so much resources and yet a curious engineer had no problem showing that thermate can cut steel.
-
Your question is absurd, you area asking for video evidence of an explosion that was tucked away in parts of the building that aren't visible to anybody. Please show me one photo of the wind, I don't believe people's witness account of it. Also I would like a photo of gravity while you are at it, only then will I know it is real. What a moron?
In your mind the hundreds of witnesses who talk about the explosions they heard are just fruitbats who like to lie for no good reason.
Please tell me, When you hear thunder, do you deny it happened because you didn't see the lightning that caused it.
Tucked away? How? Read the blueprints, idiot, there isn't any space to hide tons of explosives in the space where the plane hit. You seem to be more ignorant fool that most of the idiots, because now you are denying that there were fire, smoke, dust, flying paper which all would be showing some indications, if there would been some kind of shock wave. Try to understand, those core columns are something more than some bread sticks, and cutting them by any fucking explosive would been impossible to hide. There would be thousands of dead just by flying glass. There were this meteorite in Russia and shock wave made by it hundreds of kilometers from any city, and more than thousand Russian get wounds by flying glass. Tons of explosives in middle of the Manhattan, and there is no flying glass at all? How the hell this happen? You claims are so childish, that I haven't seen anything as stupid than that even in the Finnish forums, where hangs out some real full time imbeciles. Did you have some head injuries when you were a infant? Father throws you to air and mother didn't catch you? There has to be some explanation for stupidity like that.
-
Don't feel bad that you can't find any evidence to support your bizarre claims, that's why their is a conspiracy theory in the first place.
My bizarre claims? How it is bizarre to claim, that modern chemistry doesn't know any compounds capable to explosion, which could hang out 56 minutes in fire, because it is a fact the there isn't one. How it is bizarre to claim, that where is detonation of tons of explosives, there should be some physical evidence about the detonation. These claims isn't bizarre compared to that bullshit what you believe to be truth. They are based on common sense and the knowledge about the laws of physics, chemistry etc. You would have this knowledge if you would stayed in school, but now it is late, and no one can help you anymore, so you are doomed to be an idiot..
-
Ropo, if someone believes in something that does not exsist, you won't be able to convince them that it does not exsist.
It's fairly simple; nineteen hardcore gang members stole some planes and crashed them.
-
The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction. Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.
Do you have any experience about the termite? When it ignites, it form the superheated liquid which obeys a law of gravity. That's why it will not appear as red hot, but sparkling white hot, brighter than sun. There is no way in hell to get it appear in that colour, which using the colour chart means only 1000°C. When this molten metal were seen? More than half an hour before the collapse, which means that the top of the tower hangs in the air for half an hour, and then start to drop. For you it will be normal, but most of us doesn't think so.
-
This is what aluminium looks like when melted.
(http://www.foundry101.com/Aluminumpour3.jpg)(http://www.buffalometalcasting.com/art/poural.jpg)
Showing photos of Aluminium reflecting super heated glowing tungsten doesn't change the fact melted aluminium is silver.
Another proof that you are an idiot. Are you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and heat it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C can't be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like in the fire, where nothing regulates the heat. Is this really too difficut for you to understand? What are you? Three years old?
(http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/lg_molten-lg.jpg) Casting overheated aluminium, do it look silver?
-
So sad, Mythbusters has so much resources and yet a curious engineer had no problem showing that thermate can cut steel.
Like I say, that ridiculous piece of crap proves more about the stupidity of the foil hat idiots, than anything else. These fucking morons try to cut tiny piece of beam, and need at least three takes before it is done. Core columns were like 50 times bigger, so it is just stupid even try to compare that to them. There is less than kilo of the thermite, and for those real columns you will need hundred of kilos. What happen when it burns it way from the ceramic bowl to the steel? I heads to the direction of gravity, if you know what it mean. So, if there is four inches of steel, after a half an inch it is traveling downwards cutting nothing.