100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
That's how conspiracy people oppereate. Anytime someone proves them wrong they are part of the conspiracy.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg On my phone. Someone want to put the img tags? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. Not all scientists and engineers agree. not all of them are scientists and engineers, either... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's how conspiracy people oppereate. Anytime someone proves them wrong they are part of the conspiracy. 
On my phone. Someone want to put the img tags? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. Not all scientists and engineers agree. not all of them are scientists and engineers, either... There are a significant number of Engineers who disagree with the official line. So the Jury is out 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh.... the games that desperate people have to play.. How difficult is a Yes or No The idea that if one aspect of any report is incorrect it automatically nullifies the veracity of the rest is just stupid. That is like saying if Einstein was wrong about any subject in which he commented all of his entire life's work is null and void.. It's absurd.. Not comment invictus.. a Government Reporting on 3000 dead Americans. What about yourself invictus Are you au fait with your Governments report? Yes or No? I have you down as someone who doesn't do fence sitting I believe that terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them. I also believe that the damage caused by the impact of a 200,000 lb object traveling at 400 mph can certainly do enough damage to the structural integrity of a building that eventually it can no longer support the massive amount of weight above the impact zone. 1. Both buildings began collapsing at the impact points. No disputing that. 2. WTC 2 was impacted after WTC 1 but collapsed first. Due to the plane striking lower on the tower and causing the damaged area to have to support a much greater load than WTC 1. Now if you want to keep going prove either of those wrong.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. Not all scientists and engineers agree. not all of them are scientists and engineers, either... There are a significant number of Engineers who disagree with the official line. So the Jury is out
uh, whatever...your jury is out? what does that mean? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh.... the games that desperate people have to play.. How difficult is a Yes or No The idea that if one aspect of any report is incorrect it automatically nullifies the veracity of the rest is just stupid. That is like saying if Einstein was wrong about any subject in which he commented all of his entire life's work is null and void.. It's absurd.. Not comment invictus.. a Government Reporting on 3000 dead Americans. What about yourself invictus Are you au fait with your Governments report? Yes or No? I have you down as someone who doesn't do fence sitting I believe that terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them. I also believe that the damage caused by the impact of a 200,000 lb object traveling at 400 mph can certainly do enough damage to the structural integrity of a building that eventually it can no longer support the massive amount of weight above the impact zone. 1. Both buildings began collapsing at the impact points. No disputing that. 2. WTC 2 was impacted after WTC 1 but collapsed first. Due to the plane striking lower on the tower and causing the damaged area to have to support a much greater load than WTC 1. Now if you want to keep going prove either of those wrong.. I asked you for your opinion on the overall report invictus. Taking everything into consideration do you believe all your government has put out as truth/ Yes or No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's how conspiracy people oppereate. Anytime someone proves them wrong they are part of the conspiracy.
On my phone. Someone want to put the img tags? Thanks a lot. Obvious structural damage in building 7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's how conspiracy people oppereate. Anytime someone proves them wrong they are part of the conspiracy.
On my phone. Someone want to put the img tags? Thanks a lot. Obvious structural damage in building 7. wait for it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's how conspiracy people oppereate. Anytime someone proves them wrong they are part of the conspiracy.
On my phone. Someone want to put the img tags? Thanks a lot. Obvious structural damage in building 7. not to mention the burned out spots from fire.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few on here with Big Fish small Tank mentality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 04/16/12 12:27 PM
|
|
From: http://wtc7.net/pullit.html
"Pulling" Building 7 A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement: I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary: ... we're getting ready to pull the building six. Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation. An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building. WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. Silverstein Properties Inc. had already won an $861 million claim for the loss of the building in a terrorist incident. FEMA's report states that the cause of the building's collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY. Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke. An Overlooked Explanation A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex. Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous. site:controlled-demolition.com pull site:implosionworld.com pull Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish: City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except the structural damage was the biggest contributor to the collapse. Iso there was ni cascading explosions foe this building either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Mon 04/16/12 12:40 PM
|
|
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.
Silverstein's Quote: "*I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me* they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe*the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.*" -Fact which is undisputed by either side, *he was talking to the fire commander* -Fact which is undisputed by either side, *both are not in the demolition business* Fire chief called him. There were rescue missions going on. Neither of them has the license to set off a demolition. What would be the point of telling this to a fire chief? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the nano thermite theory! As the prof said (since fired from his job) 'hundreds of tons!' and then, we learn it can be mixed with regular explosive and painted onto beams but of course, CTs can't decide if it was melting steel or exploding it. Hundreds of tons, painted onto beams. Mixed with regular everyday corner store C4 and brought up in lunch buckets, five pounds at a time for ............... let's see ......... five pounds, and a hundred tons ...................... that's two hundred thousand pounds ................... five pounds for forty thousand trips with the thermite not to mention the C4. Or, Jeb Bush helping (Cheney's heart wouldn't take the strain), that's only twenty thousand trips a piece just to get the stuff there. Ok, so, is there any record of workers all over the place with buckets of slop bringing hundreds of tons into the access panels to paint this crap onto the beams and pillars? And, when working with slop, it doesn't all go where you want it to, is there any record of people over the months/weeks/years whatever getting sick from having a strange substance (which explosives do to people) getting sick from contact their skin and even their food or drink? That is probably the main evidence that there was an inside job is the sickness rate of the people who worked in the WTC. And, now we have to get the charges up there remembering that every place there was this 'special' material slopped on, it has to blow as the evidence can't remain as some shmuck worker on the ground might pull up a fragment of metal with a piece of det cord, remote det or whatever on it attached to some painted on explosive thermite which didn't go off. So, that's a lot of stuff to get done. Lot of people. Lot of construction people with passes, excuses, paychecks etc. All without being noticed by the union who took care of the buildings. How did they do it? And, without anybody getting sick, spilling one ounce of this stuff onto the carpets, clothes, into the air ducts, and without being noticed? And the unions had no problem with these non union guys just doing all this work too. And ... everything hinges on the planes hitting the buildings. If they don't hit, the explosives will be discovered and the guys that put it all there (100 - 1000 non union guys) will get lethal injections. They have no problem doing this work over weeks or months knowing that their *** is covered by dirty terrorists living in caves in Afghanistan so, are in like a dirty shirt. on the big day, they're nervous, they have to have the explosive evidence all destroyed or their *** is toast in Terra Haute so they're anxious yet, once the planes hit, they wait ............ calmly waiting ........ they need all the evidence to go up. They can't have any inspector see the explosives, wires, detonators, remote devices whatever yet they wait ....... and wait ........ long after they could logically blow the building ......... with the WT7 just sitting there with anybody who wants to find the explosives there about to expose the whole thing sending them all to the injection chamber and then ........ They blow it. Nothing far fetched going on there. Union guys risking their lives on the promise that some dudes living in a cave will come through with an elaborate plan kept secret for years and on four separate planes. And nobody has said a word, nobody has had any second thoughts of guilt, nobody has found religion or guilt in all this time. Nobody has gotten murdered, none of the people who are exposing this conspiracy are being silenced. The entire government of the USA wants them dead and here they are, just targets for a poisoning, letter bomb, faulty ground in a hot tub, a heart attack and ......... they're all still spewing the nonsense.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of dingdongs! The context of the quote above was they were talking about when to pull the firefighers and rescue personnel out of the building!
All the scientific evidence makes it crystal clear that the buildings fell for one reason - because they were hit by Islamic terrorists from Al-Qaida piloting two huge planes full of fuel and innocent victims at full speed resulting in impact damage and fire damage which so that the severely damaged buildings could not support themselves and collapsed also damaging nearby buildings which also were destroyed.
There is no disagreement any longer among the scientists and engineers who have meticulously studied 911. There is no dispute as to the cause of the disaster at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh.... the games that desperate people have to play.. How difficult is a Yes or No The idea that if one aspect of any report is incorrect it automatically nullifies the veracity of the rest is just stupid. That is like saying if Einstein was wrong about any subject in which he commented all of his entire life's work is null and void.. It's absurd.. Not comment invictus.. a Government Reporting on 3000 dead Americans. What about yourself invictus Are you au fait with your Governments report? Yes or No? I have you down as someone who doesn't do fence sitting I believe that terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them. I also believe that the damage caused by the impact of a 200,000 lb object traveling at 400 mph can certainly do enough damage to the structural integrity of a building that eventually it can no longer support the massive amount of weight above the impact zone. 1. Both buildings began collapsing at the impact points. No disputing that. 2. WTC 2 was impacted after WTC 1 but collapsed first. Due to the plane striking lower on the tower and causing the damaged area to have to support a much greater load than WTC 1. Now if you want to keep going prove either of those wrong.. I asked you for your opinion on the overall report invictus. Taking everything into consideration do you believe all your government has put out as truth/ Yes or No Im not playing this generalization.. vague opinion game.. Ask me specific questions.. What part of the 9-11 commission report do you believe is false.. Let us start there.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few on here with Big Fish small Tank mentality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. what would a brain surgeon have to do with 911 and the physics applied with it? |
|
|
|
|
