Topic: Russia's tallest building burns- a raging inferno - but does | |
---|---|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when... |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 04/11/13 03:37 PM
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when... Nevermind the the fact that Bin Laden had ties to the Bush family LONG before this happened........but never let the truth get in the way of a good story right? |
|
|
|
I learned about this in physics, pretty interesting considering it isn't followed nearly as often as it should be...Kind of like here, and of course the other planes fall in line with it too. And that is just one example, all over the place people who should be following this method simply do not follow it. We can have an abundance of theories, and theories are fantastic, just don't blur the line between it and a fact. |
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when... Nevermind the the fact that Bin Laden had ties to the Bush family LONG before this happened........but never let the truth get in the way of a good story right? yes, and I'm going let you think about why they hated bush... it seems to speak for itself, but maybe not... investigate that one for a while... |
|
|
|
I learned about this in physics, pretty interesting considering it isn't followed nearly as often as it should be...Kind of like here, and of course the other planes fall in line with it too. And that is just one example, all over the place people who should be following this method simply do not follow it. We can have an abundance of theories, and theories are fantastic, just don't blur the line between it and a fact. pictures sometimes make it easier for some people to understand... |
|
|
|
I figured the colors were an added perk at the very least.
|
|
|
|
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/30/national-geographic-tv-debunks-9-11-conspiracy-theories-monday
Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel. Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes. Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition. Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero. Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers. Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the checmical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center. |
|
|
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b71_1252616079
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls. A challenge to conspiracy theorists: 1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high 2) Which takes up a whole city block 3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design 4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7) 5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result. 6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours 7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts. And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you. Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started. It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update: Conspiracy theorists say the Deutsche Bank fire is more proof that steel buildings do not collapse by fire. But once again they fail to compare apples with apples. 1) The building was NOT a tube in a tube design. It was a web design which disperses load more evenly. 2) The fires were on the upper floors. The fire affected steel did not have anywhere near the same weight on them as the WTC7. 3) The towers had it's fireproofing removed by the impact of the airliners. Not so for the Deutsche Bank. 4) The fires were being fought which is why 2 firemen died. 6) There was no Con Ed substation to build the core columns around as with the WTC 7. 7) Those steel beams already had floors removed above them. The steel started with a lighter load before the fire. 8) The Deutsche Bank did not have 6000 gal of oil stored in the building as WTC 7 did. Those are just some reasons the events are very different. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure. The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes. The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts. "As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire." http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/ 24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____ [Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the WTC collapse theory.] "The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire" http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory. http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ] http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million. pg 6/74 The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall. The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet. The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor. pg 15/74 The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767] pg 16/74 Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings pg 17/74 Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal discoloration and buckling steel. pg. 21/74 The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire. pg. 26/74 Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work. The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters. pg. 36/74 Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse. pg. 37/74 Other Fires In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse. "All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire. http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf Thanks to Len Brazil for the other examples. |
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when... Nevermind the the fact that Bin Laden had ties to the Bush family LONG before this happened........but never let the truth get in the way of a good story right? yes, and I'm going let you think about why they hated bush... it seems to speak for itself, but maybe not... investigate that one for a while... Trying to prevent a Bush-2nd Term! Good old Soros couldn't be expected to leave the US,even though he threatened to! Now 9/11 CT is a viable goodpaying Cottage Industry! The more outrageous the Claims,the bigger the take! The Twoofers been so duped! It's pitiful! |
|
|
|
What is pathetic is how the american people were duped and how some still do not see how absurd the events of 911 really were. Those americans who are not so stressed by the economy and actually sit down and think about it know its just absurd. I have heard of teachers telling kids straight up it was an inside job in the classroom, I do not know what they teach in your country Mr Conrad but I know how thinking americans feel.
n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy. You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ |
|
|
|
It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ |
|
|
|
i guess the 30 ton steel supports falling from 85 stories high (1300 feet) slamming into the side of building 7 had nothing to do with it either... That's right according to NIST. Building 7 collapsed only from the fire damage. They report that even if no debris had hit building 7, the fire would have caused the building to collapse. However, the debris is apparently what started the fire. (Apparently, and allegedly.) So, sorry. I just find that hard to believe. thats what they said... i'm not real sure why building 7 is so important to the CT'ers anyway, whether they did it intentionally or not, what does it matter? with the damage done to the complex as a whole, that building would have been torn down anyway... I'll explain it to you then. 1. Building 7 is important because it was not hit by a plane, which is the excuse/cause given for the collapse of the twin towers. 2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it collapsed anyway, and they are claiming that it was not demolished on purpose so now they have to try to convince people that the fire caused the building to fall. (They are not very convincing) If it had been only the twin towers that fell, it would have been a whole lot easier to successfully sell the story that the reason for the buildings collapse was that they were hit by planes driven by terrorists. BUT building 7, also fell into its footprint in a very neat and professional manner that resembled a controlled demolition and it was NOT HIT BY A PLANE. So somebody had a lot of splainin' to do. And they got together all their writers and 'splainers that are on the government payroll and they took a while, but eventually they came up with some explanations that a few people bought lock stock and barrel, but by the time they did that, the conspiracy theorist had over run the Internet. Clearly the propaganda 'splainers need to be quicker on the draw for any future terrorists events they want to have. They are clearly out gunned by the conspiracy theorists. ok, in that statement, you had 2 actual facts: Building 7 was not hit by a plane it collapsed anyway the rest is mostly observational viewpoints...your looking for reasons to prove them wrong, and skipping the things that could say they're right... critical thinking would be to look at both viewpoints from equal and different angles... i can see where building 7 is a little fishy, but it makes no difference when they tore it down, no life was lost when it fell... Actually it does matter because it illustrates how they are willing to lie about something if it suits their agenda to do so. If they could feed you a lie about building 7, what makes you think they wouldn't lie about the Trade Center towers, or for that matter just about anything else? On its' own that they tore down Building 7 is pretty innocuous, buildings are demolished like that routinely, and the idea that they decided to tear this one down because of what happened to it is somewhat believable. BUT when you look at how they went out of their way to say that wasn't what happened and tried to spin it as coming down simply from fire....that combined with the other events of the day raises a whole host of questions. So it DOES matter how and when they tore it down when you factor in all of that, and that's on top of the fact that to implode a building, ANY building, it takes time to set things up inside, you gotta plant the explosives and get everything ready ahead of time. You can't just do that in less than a day. They would have had to had this planned long before. The whole thing just brings about more questions than it does answers, it may seem insignificant on its' own but when put together with everything else it becomes quite important. sorry, just don't see it that way... I can tell you don't, or maybe don't want to see it, but it doesn't change things. Regardless of your personal opinion of it, how they dealt with the situation pretty much speaks for it itself, as well the fact AGAIN that the building would have had to have been rigged up long before. There's no way they could have gotten it ready to be pulled in hours, just couldn't have done it. since there is ZERO evidence of any type of explosive being used there, I'd rather use my thoughts on other aspects of it... BTW, thats not a fact... But you basically admitted that the they tore the thing down no? How the hell else is it gonna come down that way??? And you REALLY think that they could have planted explosives in hours? Less than that even since they wouldn't have even known they wanted to tear it down till just before? Yeah that makes sense.......come on use your brain I'm begging you! just a refresher... i never said i thought they did, i said i didn't care whether they did or not... makes no difference to me when it came down, about 12 square blocks around it was demolished by the muslims hatred for jews and bush... it was coming down no matter what, just a matter of when... Nevermind the the fact that Bin Laden had ties to the Bush family LONG before this happened........but never let the truth get in the way of a good story right? yes, and I'm going let you think about why they hated bush... it seems to speak for itself, but maybe not... investigate that one for a while... Trying to prevent a Bush-2nd Term! Good old Soros couldn't be expected to leave the US,even though he threatened to! Now 9/11 CT is a viable goodpaying Cottage Industry! The more outrageous the Claims,the bigger the take! The Twoofers been so duped! It's pitiful! |
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 04/14/13 12:43 PM
|
|
It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ And we really ought to take that CT-Tool serious? Is that what you are trying to tell us? That Guy is really getting tiresome with his same unproven Garbage! But I guess anything is good enough for him to get back into the Limelight! Even a pack of slanderous Lies! |
|
|
|
In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.
You only have to know two things. One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation. On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/ |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/14/13 02:12 PM
|
|
Hate for Bush was one of the mainreasons for the surge of Conspiracy-Theories!
Trying to prevent a Bush-2nd Term! Good old Soros couldn't be expected to leave the US,even though he threatened to! Now 9/11 CT is a viable goodpaying Cottage Industry! The more outrageous the Claims,the bigger the take! The Twoofers been so duped! It's pitiful! Bush and most all of our presidents are descendants of royal (dragon) bloodline, and are members of secret societies,and attend strange burning rituals at Bohemian grove paying tribute to a giant owl. And you have the audacity to call a truth seeker "pitiful." Truthers are just ordinary people. Yes there are plenty of disinformation agents out there making ridiculous claims and selling books on every conspiracy you can imagine, and some of them are just disinformation agents being paid to be ridiculous in order to give people like you (who are loyal supporters of the dragon leadership that worship an owl and join secret societies with silly stupid rituals) something to poke fun at. I think perhaps you should take a close look at the dragon leadership and the secret societies of the ancient Roman empire and royal families if you want to see something "pitiful." They have been exposed. |
|
|
|
you all bring me hours of Joy and Laughter!
|
|
|
|
you all bring me hours of Joy and Laughter! And we all know who you all are. You have been exposed. |
|
|
|
Hate for Bush was one of the mainreasons for the surge of Conspiracy-Theories!
Trying to prevent a Bush-2nd Term! Good old Soros couldn't be expected to leave the US,even though he threatened to! Now 9/11 CT is a viable goodpaying Cottage Industry! The more outrageous the Claims,the bigger the take! The Twoofers been so duped! It's pitiful! Bush and most all of our presidents are descendants of royal (dragon) bloodline, and are members of secret societies,and attend strange burning rituals at Bohemian grove paying tribute to a giant owl. And you have the audacity to call a truth seeker "pitiful." Truthers are just ordinary people. Yes there are plenty of disinformation agents out there making ridiculous claims and selling books on every conspiracy you can imagine, and some of them are just disinformation agents being paid to be ridiculous in order to give people like you (who are loyal supporters of the dragon leadership that worship an owl and join secret societies with silly stupid rituals) something to poke fun at. I think perhaps you should take a close look at the dragon leadership and the secret societies of the ancient Roman empire and royal families if you want to see something "pitiful." They have been exposed. That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. |
|
|
|
Hate for Bush was one of the mainreasons for the surge of Conspiracy-Theories!
Trying to prevent a Bush-2nd Term! Good old Soros couldn't be expected to leave the US,even though he threatened to! Now 9/11 CT is a viable goodpaying Cottage Industry! The more outrageous the Claims,the bigger the take! The Twoofers been so duped! It's pitiful! Bush and most all of our presidents are descendants of royal (dragon) bloodline, and are members of secret societies,and attend strange burning rituals at Bohemian grove paying tribute to a giant owl. And you have the audacity to call a truth seeker "pitiful." Truthers are just ordinary people. Yes there are plenty of disinformation agents out there making ridiculous claims and selling books on every conspiracy you can imagine, and some of them are just disinformation agents being paid to be ridiculous in order to give people like you (who are loyal supporters of the dragon leadership that worship an owl and join secret societies with silly stupid rituals) something to poke fun at. I think perhaps you should take a close look at the dragon leadership and the secret societies of the ancient Roman empire and royal families if you want to see something "pitiful." They have been exposed. That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Really? You don't get out much do you? http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/06/presidential-bloodlines.html Did you know all 44 U.S. presidents have carried European royal bloodlines into office? 34 have been genetic descendants from just one person, Charlemagne, the brutal eighth century King of the Franks. 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election. “This information comes from Burke's Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England's Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline - the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes” -Researcher/Author David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center” ***************************************************************** Disinformation agents: http://www.texemarrs.com/102008/unmasking_agents.htm Almost every day I receive e-mails, letters, and phone calls from government-paid disinformation agents. How do I know that's what they are? Because they are the ones attempting to trash and besmirch the reputation of the most hard-working and dependable leaders in the Patriot and Truth Movements. The CIA, FBI, Israeli Mossad, and other spy groups have "black budgets" in the tens of billions and are freely spending taxpayer dollars setting up fake "patriot" websites and radio programs and bankrolling trained disinformation agents. They also subsidize books and videos that specialize in defaming and smearing true patriots. Anyone who is genuinely and honestly exposing government corruption will eventually get on the list of these smear agents. They'll stop at nothing, lying and deceiving, manufacturing false news reports and dredging up any personal junk they can get hold of, trying to spread confusion and chaos among patriotic Americans. I am often the target of these government-subsidized rapscallions, but I consider it just part of the price we all have to pay for the privilege of publishing the truth. To me, it is a badge of honor to be attacked by those lying jackals and turncoats who have a blind eye as far as freedom is concerned. How to Spot Them How can you and I spot the government-funded fakers who, so often, pretend to be patriots and lovers of liberty? Here are some clues. Ask yourself... 1. Do they focus on the elite powers-that-be in high places of government, OR instead, do they waste their time attacking fellow patriots in the Truth Movement? 2. Do they constantly relish writing and publishing trash and smears against patriot leaders and truthtellers? 3. Do they call in to Patriot talk shows and target for smears and vitriol the host, the guest, or other patriot leaders? 4. Do they insist that only those who currently are exposing this or that particular group (whether it’s the CFR, Trilateralists, Zionists, Jesuits, Neocons, Blacks, Russians, etc.) are trustworthy? 5. Do they rail at legitimate patriot authors and leaders, calling them names and accusing them of being greedy and "in it just to make money?" 6. Do they seize on virtually every word or statement made by a patriot leader or author, trying to find fault or some minor inaccuracy? (Note: One author I know was accused of being academically inept simply because he had misspelled the name "Zbigniew Brzezinski" in his otherwise excellent, 300-page book). Disregard These Piranha Fish and Cannibals The government shills and con-agents are like piranha fish, working and grinding their teeth, cannibalizing the flesh of good, honest, and sincere people in the Patriot and Truth Movements. Watch out for them and avoid their treachery. Let us all keep our eyes and hearts on what really matters. The wise old saw is still operative, that either we, as freedom-loving, patriotic Americans, all stand together united or, surely, divided we shall fall. |
|
|
|
the non-expertise of Craigy is absotively and posilutely touching!
He even takes credit for Reagonomics,which actually was Stockman! So,it was Craigy,but put the blame of it on Stockman! Really touching! Yet,he is constantly cited as THE Authority on 9/11,yet hasn't had any training a tall in Engineering! Another washed up Blabber! |
|
|