Slow your role. It shows that at ONE TIME, Iraq had WMDs. That's all. They had plenty of time to transfer them to another country before the U.S. even got there.
New 9/11 Doc
- Thread starter HallofFame
- Start date
Slow your role. It shows that at ONE TIME, Iraq had WMDs. That's all. They had plenty of time to transfer them to another country before the U.S. even got there.
Oh good God...no plane?...a HUGE BUILDING hit it. Fires burned on multiple floors for hours completely uncontained. The building started to bulge out on the southwest side three and a half HOURS before the collapse...what f'n demo technique causes that? You got evidence of THAT in any of your videos? C'mon...ONE video of a controlled demo that shows the building bulging outward hours before it implodes. Firefighters said the building was groaning and shifting before they were ordered out two hours before the collapse.
Have you ever even seen what it takes to do a controlled demo? The columns that have to be exposed and wired? And you seriously think that this could be done in a fully occupied bldg over weeks and no one noticed? And not a single person involved has ever spoken out about the greatest mass murder in the history of the US? And they were...I'm literally shaking my head here...they were LUCKY ENOUGH that the north tower hit WTC7 as it collapsed and set it on fire so they could cover their tracks?
That's just off the charts idiotic.
< traditional demolition
< WTC 7
Just bc some fringe "scientists" say these things are facts doesn't make them so.
I don't know who did it, or how it was done, or who was responsible or WHEN they did it. I just know when I see explosives bringing down a building. I'm sorry you don't.
You don't know jack shyte. I'll ask again...do you have a video of a controlled demo where one corner of the building bulges out hours before the implosion? If you think that's a usual thing then you have NO IDEA what it looks like when explosives bring a building down.
Do you think they arranged for the north tower to hit it and set it on fire? If that wasn't "the plan" how do you think they were going to explain an undamaged building just suddenly collapsing?
I'm amazed at how stupid some people can be....shouldn't be, I suppose.
Do you think they arranged for the north tower to hit it and set it on fire? If that wasn't "the plan" how do you think they were going to explain an undamaged building just suddenly collapsing?
I'm amazed at how stupid some people can be....shouldn't be, I suppose.
Not on a bet...but I will ask again:
Do you believe they arranged for the collapse of the north tower to rip a huge gash in WTC7 and set it on fire? Is so...how did they manage that? If not, how were they going to explain the collapse of an undamaged building?
How about this explanation for what happened.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
I don't know who the "they" is you're talking about. I just know what I see.
I don't think the damage you're referring to is what brought down WTC7at all. Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, with explosives and debris...as in a controlled demolition.
Please, can I have a kiss?
Well, let's forget about the Towers for a minute. Let's ask ourselves what any cop would do if a crime was committed. No conspiracy. Just good detective work. Cui bono goes back to the days of Cicero. Who benefitted from this? We know that this was the event that catapulted our country into our interventionist excursions into the ME. We know that over $1TRILLION $$$$ has been spent to fight a tactic known as terrorism. Look...over here AQ. No...over here ISIS. Now they're in (pick a country). Bad men everywhere. Problem is...they're both a creation of Washington.
We know that the neocon think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), called for a Pearl Harbor like event in 1997 to get us into the ME. We know that the Patriot Act was written at a CFR study group by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman in 1998 looking for an event to implement the consolidation of federal agencies morphing into the Dept. of Fatherland Insecurity. Sorry, that was after the bombing of the Reichstag and Hitler & Goerring blamed it on the Communists and installed the Enabling Act. I meant to say the Dept. of Homeland Security. It was passed in the middle of the night w/o anyone reading it. The Bill of Rights was lost that day.
We know, as I posted today in the Iran deal thread, that General Wesley Clark was told 9 days after 9/11, that DC targeted 7 countries for invasion. He told this in 2007. It has all come true and then some. We know that immediately following the planes hitting the Towers, the evidence was carted off onto a ship. It was a FRIGGING crime scene. You can't tamper with that. Who gave that order? We had learned 30 years after the JFK assassination of Operation Northwoods. It was signed off by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they wanted to bomb buses and trains in the US and blame Fidel Castro so they could sell war to the American schmuck/ citizen. Google it. So, yes. Our leaders do think of killing our own to achieve their goals. History is littered with false flags. While you're at it...Google Sibel Edmonds (FBI translator) and FBI Special Agent, Colleen Rowley.
Why did Condi Rice say no one could ever imagine anyone flying planes into bldgs. as her defense for not stopping it, when she had said just that weeks before? The people who prosecuted the war in Iraq knew that WMD's were a lie as they were being told. There is evidence of that. Lastly for now, ain't no way in flipping hell a few scattered office fires can make a bldg. collapse into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds w/o ever being hit by a plane. Even if you say it could (a 1st in history) the iron beams would still be standing erect. They vaporized into thin air. there was no jet fuel on it to make EVERY BEAM collapse.
This one is for building 7.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
Everyone calm down, demolitions and physics expert Tar Heel the moron has spoken.
He even knows who "they" are, too! Never says exactly, but "they" are in the conversation, apparently.
Steel-framed Skyscrapers don't drop perfectly straight down into their own footprint from fire.. Even if a whole side or corner or portion of the building is damaged, compromised, knocked-out, weakened, whatever... the building doesn't then proceed to drop STRAIGHT DOWN into it's own footprint. It would fall or give to the weakened portion. It wouldn't bring down perfectly untouched parts of the building that were completely intact! What would do that is a controlled demolition, however.
Hey, Tarheel By Birth only, show me a video of another steel-framed skyscraper that collapsed straight down, in it's own footprint, from a fire, or damaged corner... and turned into a pile of dust.
Hey, Tarheel By Birth only, show me a video of another steel-framed skyscraper that collapsed straight down, in it's own footprint, from a fire, or damaged corner... and turned into a pile of dust.
Just posted two links that explain what happened to the buildings.
Who benefited is not in doubt. What I find hard to believe is that the MIC would have cooked up a conspiracy with this many moving parts thinking they could keep it all secret. If they were smart enough to think it up they would have been smart enough to know that this would be looked at from every angle. Easier ways to start a war without the risk.
Who did order steel sold? This link makes it seem less a part of a plot. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nagement-world-trade-center-shanghai-baosteel
TexMichFan,
Steel-framed skyscrapers do not collapse from fire. Even your links merely show fires burning. I can show you skyscrapers that look like a blowtorch... up and down the entire building. They never collapsed! Only 1 collapsed, and only two others have ever collapsed, but they were also hit by planes. If we are to believe the fires made them collapse, then whoever designed the WTC and built them should be brought up on criminal charges. They were unprecedented in structural inadequacy! I don't buy that either.
Steel-framed skyscrapers do not collapse from fire. Even your links merely show fires burning. I can show you skyscrapers that look like a blowtorch... up and down the entire building. They never collapsed! Only 1 collapsed, and only two others have ever collapsed, but they were also hit by planes. If we are to believe the fires made them collapse, then whoever designed the WTC and built them should be brought up on criminal charges. They were unprecedented in structural inadequacy! I don't buy that either.
See there's your problem. Someone says they dropped straight down in order to support their demolition hypothesis, and you believe it bc it supports yours.
The fact is debris and parts of the buildings did not fall straight down and when they fell they damaged more than a dozen surrounding buildings, flattened countless cars, fire engines, and many people for blocks around the actual building footprint.
When you watch the actual collapse from close views, it's clear to see debris flowing outward as it falls vs. falling straight down.
Yeah, you're right. That's not straight down at all.
In all of those other demolition gifs I presented on page 1, you'll see the same, relative potential for damage, and the damage itself, caused AROUND the general area of the collapse.
Around 3:45'ish is the view I was remembering. Seems pretty obvious the building starts coming down at the point of impact, and the top of the building tips as it comes down. Doesn't seem like a controlled demolition to me, but I'm no expert.
Now I'm off to bed, you jackwagons had me watching 9/11 videos for most of my night. I even ventured into the abyss that is the youtube comment section, thus decreasing my hope for the future of homo sapiens on this planet.
In that burning building, at the end were they zooming in to show where the plane and all of the jet fuel hit that building? You know because it was the same as the WTC and all.
(1). There's a huge difference between force and momentum.
(2) Yes, I'm not an expert - unlike you who apparently learned your physics from the morans# at loose change - unless you include the following courses at Iowa for my mechanical engineering degree: physics I, physics II, physics III, single variable calculus, multi-variable calculus, differential equations, statics, dynamics, deformable bodies, materials science, vector calculus, etc.
Stick with something you know.
All this and you think the momentum was enough to push through that much opposing force? At that speed? According to your calculations, why didn't the top simply crumble into sections at a time?
Are you seriously this dumb? I never actually thought so until now. The "they" is whoever the hell YOU think wired WTC7 for demolition. Then "they" designed the collapse of the north tower so that it WOULD damage WTC7 and set it on fire.
Now I know you're awfully slow but don't you think it would have raised some questions on 9/11 if WTC7 HADN'T been hit and set on fire but just suddenly imploded and collapsed? All by itself? So YOUR "they" MUST HAVE designed the collapse of the north tower to surgically do exactly what it did to WTC7 so they would at least have an implausible excuse for it falling down, right? A more intelligent person might ask, "Well, why not just have the north tower fall right on top of WTC7?"
That's a good question and I'm not surprised it didn't already occur to you. Care to answer any of the questions raised here or are you still going to maintain that it was a controlled demo because you say so? Let me guess...they DID expect the north tower to fall on WTC7 but thought they might need a back-up so they spent weeks wiring it to implode on the off chance that they missed it with one of the tallest buildings in the world.
That you can't even conceive of how incredibly idiotic that sounds is mind-boggling.
If those collapses were the work of controlled demolition then the people who orchestrated the demolition certainly had a flair for the dramatic. Typically when a building is imploded all floors, including the lower floors, fall simultaneously. When the towers came down, none of the floors below the impact point moved an inch until the floors above them pancaked down on top of them. So I guess someone had to coordinate the timing of the explosions such that they went off precisely as the upper floors reached them.
Last edited:
I can't recall ANYBODY complaining or reporting they saw dozens of men hauling in strange boxes and wires and going to work in their offices with explosives and construction and tearing shit up.
None.
None.
I'll offer what I've already posted that you keep ignoring.
Steel-framed Skyscrapers don't drop perfectly straight down into their own footprint from fire.. Even if a whole side or corner or portion of the building is damaged, compromised, knocked-out, weakened, whatever... the building doesn't then proceed to drop STRAIGHT DOWN into it's own footprint. It would fall or give to the weakened portion. It wouldn't bring down perfectly untouched parts of the building that were completely intact!
Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, with explosives and debris...as in a controlled demolition.
The stupidity is mind boggling. It really is. I didn't want to infect myself by reading the whole thing.
Please tell me someone posted the excellent Popular Mechanics article debunking the conspiracy dipshits...
Is there a video you can point me to of how skyscrapers fall from fire?
No one knows or will ever know what structural damage was done when the plane hit the tower but there was not a portion of the tower that was as you state "perfectly untouched" once the plane hit.
The best argument against the conspiracy theorists is simple common sense....which is probably why it doesn't convince them. The best analogy for their thinking is the scene near the end of "Huckleberry Finn" where instead of simply setting Jim free, Tom insists on a complicated plan involving tunneling.
For the purposes of rational thinking, let's stipulate that the conspiracy theorists are correct about the motive for the attack and the identify of the perps.
Why on God's green Earth would they embark on such a complex method, which was fraught with opportunities for something to go wrong, and had no redeeming virtues? If they could, by some amazing activity, wire the three buildings for demolition without anybody knowing, why go to the incredible trouble of training the flight crews and hijacking the airliners? All that would do is increase the chance of being discovered by about a million times. It would not advance the plot in any way,
Just think how much scarier and more intimidating it would be to discover that terrorists could infiltrate the security of those buildings -- which was pretty tight, as an attempt to destroy them had been made earlier -- than to think they could hijack airliners, which everybody knew could happen.
And what about the plane that was crashed in Pennsylvania? What was it supposed to hit? And since it didn't get through, why didn't the perps push the button and blow up the intended target, anyway?
For the purposes of rational thinking, let's stipulate that the conspiracy theorists are correct about the motive for the attack and the identify of the perps.
Why on God's green Earth would they embark on such a complex method, which was fraught with opportunities for something to go wrong, and had no redeeming virtues? If they could, by some amazing activity, wire the three buildings for demolition without anybody knowing, why go to the incredible trouble of training the flight crews and hijacking the airliners? All that would do is increase the chance of being discovered by about a million times. It would not advance the plot in any way,
Just think how much scarier and more intimidating it would be to discover that terrorists could infiltrate the security of those buildings -- which was pretty tight, as an attempt to destroy them had been made earlier -- than to think they could hijack airliners, which everybody knew could happen.
And what about the plane that was crashed in Pennsylvania? What was it supposed to hit? And since it didn't get through, why didn't the perps push the button and blow up the intended target, anyway?
Then what the f*** was "their" plan? Did "they" engineer the north tower to fall in such a way that it would surgically scrape a huge gash in WTC7 and set it on fire on multiple floors or not? "They" had to do SOMETHING to explain why a 47-story building just suddenly fell. Or do you believe "they" were just going to drop it - for no reason at all - and make the claim that...I don't know...seismic shock waves brought it down?
If you're going to make your ridiculous claim, you have to explain this. Have at it.
you anti American conspiracy people demean the memory of an act of terror and the memory of those who died. you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I appreciate this thread every year so it can help identify what conspiracy theorist nut bags should not be taken seriously.
Got a few other question for you conspiracy controlled demolition people - assuming you are right and it was a controlled demolition. I am assuming a large amount of explosives would have been needed on multiple floors.
Why wait once the plane hit to start the process?
Why after the plane hit and the building was flooded with first responders some of who would have been looking at the structural integrity did not one of them find a bomb wired up? It takes a demolition crew weeks to wire a building shorter than the Trade Centers so there had to be a lot of explosives.
Why wait once the plane hit to start the process?
Why after the plane hit and the building was flooded with first responders some of who would have been looking at the structural integrity did not one of them find a bomb wired up? It takes a demolition crew weeks to wire a building shorter than the Trade Centers so there had to be a lot of explosives.
The conspiracy theorist could be part of a conspiracy to hide the real reason the towers were brought down.
