Why are we going to do your work for you? Especially when you won't look at it anyways.
New WTC 7 Investigation by AIA
- Thread starter HallofFame
- Start date
Again Aegon. I have looked it up. The science shows what happens. The burden of proof isn't on my side. You sit there and tell me to research it, and yet the science shows Fire Hot You. How about you side provides some evidence that it's wrong, or that there is some great conspiracy.
I wish I could see your laughing face as you typed this. Do you really believe what you wrote? Really...conspiracy theorists are the direct beneficiaries? Not the military industrial complex that has extracted over $6 Trillion from suckers err taxpayers? Not Michael Chertoff, whose Rapescan machines are used at airports. Not the growth of a whole new cabinet, DHS, that was planned in 1998 and waiting for just the right event to be implemented. Not Big Oil that has taken over oil fields by the force of the U.S. military? Our gov was so concerned for the loss of 3,000 American lives that they sent over another 8,000 to die...not in Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, but, in Iraq and Libya and Syria and so on and so on. In fact, we continue to aid Saudi Arabia, a huge sponsor of terrorism. You have ignored all lessons in history. " War is the health of the state". Randolph Bourne
Did the American people win? No. The Constitution has been thrown to the curb with the Patriot Act, NDAA, wiretapped phone convos, read e-mails by the NSA, surveillance cameras watching who picks their nose. Not the TSA having sexual predators fondling children or popping the colonoscopy bags of WW2 vets? But, you claim it was the theorists who benefitted. Tell me what contracts they have won from the fedgov.
Choose your words more carefully next time. There was nothing 'hypothetical' about Operation Northwoods. Your explanation gives understatement a whole new meaning. It was a reality signed by General Lyman Lemnitzer and it was not just planned to target Guantanamo. They wanted to blow up bus stations in Miami. Northwoods was a plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s.
Now Google FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds (the most gagged woman in the U.S. besides Heather Brooke) and Special Agent Colleen Rowley.
What work chief. Someone provide evidence that fire isn't hot yo and I'm happy to listen.
What f'n proof are you talking about?! My proof is science. Which has shown why and how the buildings were brought down. Where's yours! No Provide me some. Where is the f'n explosive material! Where is the person who says that yep we in the government blew it up! You're a joke. i knew it before this thread, but it only affirms it.
I didn't realize I needed photos of every skyscraper that were like a torch and didn't collapse from the fire in order for you to realize that it might be slightly peculiar that the ONLY ONE THAT EVER FELL DUE TO FIRE just happens to be the one that this thread is about. Hundreds of others managed to remain intact structurally... except one. Actually, two others fell from fire... on the very same day. Planes have hit other buildings, and didn't fall. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber in the 1940's. It's still there. Apparently the WTC buildings were the worst built in history.
It took much longer than 6 seconds. The east penthouse collapsed first, then there's a good 4-5 seconds before anything else happens. I'm seeing AT LEAST 10-11 seconds from east penthouse collapsing until it disappears from view, obscured by other buildings. So add another 1-2 seconds and we're up to 11-13 seconds. Hell, don't add the 1-2 and it's still already 50+% longer than your 6 seconds. Time it yourself at: 1:37 or 1:50 or 2:10
I find it...unsettling...to agree with Clone, but he is dead on here. You fly a jet into a building, any building, and the structural integrity is immediately compromised. Add in fire from jet fuel...all it takes is one bone to break, and the whole thing tumbles. Google what was a priority for the new WTC. It was structural integrity. It went straight down because it was a structurally important piece. As Lone said, the only other explanation is controlled charges. In two of the biggest, and most heavily populated buildings on the planet.
Sorry, color me doubtful.
Science is your proof? Okay then ANY, explain to me why the path of least resistance in regards to the two towers was straight down, instead of off and to the side? Why didn't the tops of the towers go towards where there was the least resistance? Instead, they fell straight down, into the rest of the building which WAS NOT structurally damaged.
Which means that the force would have had to exert even more than the weight alone in order to cause the buildings to fall at near free fall speeds.
Tell me that Any.
Look up the elevator shaft rennovations that happened before 9-11. Also, look up the man who owned the buildings, what he wanted done with them, BEFORE 9-11 happened, and what happened after 9-11, and how much money he made from it.
No, for one quit talking science, You're not a scientist. Saying science is on your side, is saying that something you don't completely understand, is the answer to your side of the debate. There are MORE than enough counter science arguments to go against your 'science'. Second, you looked at videos that supported your views. I guarantee you haven't looked into the other view on the subject.
Yeah, this was a poor choice to make your point. Try actually watching the video first. Keep reaching for straws though.
You said earlier that you've shown evidence but people ignore it. What is this evidence? Also, what is your theory of what really happened?
Yeah, showing actual video of the collapse is a HORRIBLE choice, right? rollingeyes.gif
Facts about 9-11.
Most of the fuel in the planes burnt up on impact, don't believe me, watch the explosions when they hit.
The 1st one in particular hit high, yet the weight somehow PUSHED STRAIGHT DOWN?, instead of pushing off to the side? It took down the rest of the structure in which the structural integrity was almost completely intact? Path of least resistance anyone?
The 2nd one hit lower, and should have been much weaker almost immediately.
Most of the fuel in the planes burnt up on impact, don't believe me, watch the explosions when they hit.
The 1st one in particular hit high, yet the weight somehow PUSHED STRAIGHT DOWN?, instead of pushing off to the side? It took down the rest of the structure in which the structural integrity was almost completely intact? Path of least resistance anyone?
The 2nd one hit lower, and should have been much weaker almost immediately.
The video argued against your claims moron. Think much?
I showed lots of evidence in a previous thread about this, and it was ignored.
My thoughts, planes actually hit, buildings were set to fall, during the elevator shaft renovations which occurred beforehand. Thermite was used, FOUND on site by the way.
Saudi Arabia was deeply invovled in this. Likely along with people in our government, or closely connected to it.
The owner of the buildings, who if you read about his suspicious activity before all of this, was also like involved.
He certainly profited heavily from all of this. Read up on how that happened.
They used this as a reason to anger the people enough to get us heavily invovled in the Middle East, something the American people didn't want.
Fun facts about the Pentagon:
No video proof, if there is, we haven't see it. We only have one video, with just a few frames, that is completely unclear.
The Pentagon has anti-aircraft missiles on grounds......yet failed to shut down.
NORAD, PENTAGON, and multiple organizations ALL failed to stop the Pentagon hit, despite the WTC attacks already having had happened. Shouldn't the Pentagon been on high alert?
Washington DC is a no fly zone, only military craft allowed.
The impossiblity of the planes maneveur into the SIDE of the Pentagon, rather than the much easier hit from on top. Keep in mind, the pilot had only flown private planes,...two totally different types of piloting.
No video proof, if there is, we haven't see it. We only have one video, with just a few frames, that is completely unclear.
The Pentagon has anti-aircraft missiles on grounds......yet failed to shut down.
NORAD, PENTAGON, and multiple organizations ALL failed to stop the Pentagon hit, despite the WTC attacks already having had happened. Shouldn't the Pentagon been on high alert?
Washington DC is a no fly zone, only military craft allowed.
The impossiblity of the planes maneveur into the SIDE of the Pentagon, rather than the much easier hit from on top. Keep in mind, the pilot had only flown private planes,...two totally different types of piloting.
Why bother even hitting the pentago? The twin towers would have been enough? How does the crashed plane in Pennsylvania fit into the conspiracy.
It wasn't hot enough to melt steel, but of course you already knew that. You seem to know everything, right?
No it's not time to change the subject. You bring up valid questions that are necessary to answer. Why do you accept the official story when it has so many holes in it that it wouldn't even make a believable hollywood script? It would be laughed out of the theaters. Valid questions are being risen by A/E911 For Truth that any semi-intelligent person should want answers to. There are too many holes in the official story that have never been answered. The science doesn't add up, nor does the official story account for contrary eye witness testimony from that day. It is long past time to ask for an independent inquiry as to what actually led to this disaster and not trust the agencies who have led us astray. Why did our government wait for over a year to conduct an "official investigation" after the attack, and that was largely pushed by the families of the victims? Why did our President and VP insist that they both be questioned together in secret, and NOT under oath? Search out the DVD September 11, The New Pearl Harbor and watch it with an open mind. It will at least help in answering some of your doubting questions, or at least make you believe the official story is bunk.
FYI, I am a former air traffic controller who knows that the FAA's official story is totally contrived for that day, and for the past 8 years have been involved with structural steel and its construction and the science of metallurgical properties which are totally different from what the so called "experts" have told us happened that day. The NIST's theories on the collapsed Building 7 have been totally debunked over and over by scientists and engineers alike. It is time for a real investigation to be done and not the whitewash story we have been told. Let a new investigation be performed with no pre-conceived notions and let the evidence lead it to wherever it may go. Just don't stand in the way.
Especially since almost all the fuel burnt at impact, where does everyone thing the explosions came from? It takes explosive like material to do that. The gas was practically burnt away immediately after the explosion.
Path of least resistance is pretty irrefutable, and should be easy to understand and realize whether you're an architect, engineer, Popular Mechanics writer, or average dullard on HROT.
This! Plus it was like 8-9 Hours after the main towers collapsed that wtc7 came down. That in itself debunks pretty much all of this nonsense.Like I already said, it took longer than "nanoseconds", and here's damage from falling debris. You've lost all credibility. Just stop.
My comment about a story that would be laughed out of theaters referred to the phantasms of the conspiracy theorists, not the government explanation....although I have said that I don't necessary think we have the whole story from the government.
You are wrong about the debunking, by the way. Alternative theories have been advanced, and you have chosen to accept them and reject the explanations offered by the government (and those who support its basic findings). That's your right.
What do you think happened? Why? Who was behind it? How and why did the perps concoct such an elaborate ruse (the hijacking and subsequent crashes of four airliners)?
is there any doubt now that al q and isis and muslim brotherhood are all tools used by the globalists, and Obama is the head toolbox?
Not a conspiracy theorist, but I disagree with that statement and logic.
If you blow up a big building, it's going to scare people who live in areas with dense population and live/work in big buildings. While most Americans live in an "urban/suburban" setting, terrorists are pretty unlikely to come and blow up a building in Iowa City or even a house in Queens because the impact isn't quite as dramatic as brining down a building with thousands of people inside.
If you hijack and airplane and blow up a big building, it has the potential to scare a larger audience. About 1.7 million Americans fly every day, including people who live in suburban and rural environments. Many flights connect through major airports in major metro centers. It's an added layer of terror. Just look at how flying has changed since 9/11 (arriving at the airport far earlier, creation of entirely new government departments, Air Marshals, stricter limits on what you can carry on the plane, body scanners and pat downs, etc.). This has impacted many, many more Americans than just those who live/work in dense urban areas.
Also, they tried to simply blow up the WTC with a bomb in 1993. It was a bit of a failure, but what attack would've caused more fear? One with a bomb in a truck that brings down a building? One with strategically placed structural bombs that brings down a building? Or one where planes originating from three different cities (Boston, Washington D.C., Newark) all converge to bring down a building (+/- additionally placed explosives that may help ensure the result you wanted)?
Wrong. This is completely false and continuing to repeat this is irresponsible and ignorant. Not to mention, I suppose whoever rigged the explosives beforehand knew exactly what floors two jetliners flying at top speed would later crash into the buildings as well? You honestly think those jets crashed into the buildings at exact precise predetermined locations? Because they collapsed right where they were hit.
To start with, understand there is a huge difference between force and momentum.
In order to go to the "path of least resistance" something would have needed to push the center of gravity of the tops of the towers horizontally over a pivot point. You would need a massive horizontal force, particularly when you compare it to the downward force that you have to overcome. (The lower the floor you push horizontally, the harder you have to push to get some horizontal movement).
And if you actually watch certain views of the collapse, you can see the tops don't drop quite straight down, they rotate slightly - that's because all the supports on the first floor to fail don't fail at exactly the same time - so you get some rotational movement of the tops, but very little.
In addition, floors thousands of feet in the air possess stored energy and are exerting force down on every floors below them. Once a floor fails -- any floor -- take the mass of the floor and drop it 14 feet onto the floor below. The mass is no longer a static downward force, it is now in motion and has momentum, so now you have the momentum of thousands of tons of concrete and steel falling 14 feet. That floor hits the floor below -- which is not built to withstand that type of momentum -- and for purposes of physics, the two floors combine into one floor with twice the mass of an original floor -- so now you have twice the mass, which doubles the momentum, and the two combined floors fall another 14 feet at an increasing velocity onto the third, as so on .... which is why the velocity of the collapse increases on a floor by floor basis.
Maybe or maybe not. If they were such great pilots they could hit the Pentegon they could certainly hit the side of a building pretty close to where they needed to. So which one is it either they couldn't hit close on the wtc or they were skilled enough to strike the side of the Pentegon? Can't be both.
Of course it can be both. Jeez. There was a relatively small aiming point in the case of the Pentagon. Hitting the Pentagon would have been similar to landing. Hitting a particular floor of one of the towers, on the other hand, would require some pretty sophisticated calculating by the pilots.
Of course, maybe the conspiracy theorists will tell us that a target was painted on the outside of the towers, and of course it was done in invisible paint that could only be seen by the terrorist pilots wearing special goggles....which probably are made by a company on whose board Neil Bush once served.
Besides, didn't you know that it wasn't an airliner that hit the Pentagon, despite the eyewitnesses and the photos? That was a guided missile!
My golly. You have to get with the program, coach!
We disagree on which would have provided the biggest impact on public opinion. Fair enough. But you aren't saying that they went to this incredibly complex operation simply to draw attention from the fact that the "only" could raze the buildings with conventional explosives?
when Obama first came into office he said he was going to investigate 9-11, he quickly forgot about it
no, actually I'm quite right and who said they hit at a predetermined spot?
By the way, I'm not necessarily insisting this was a conspiracy by certain cells of the US government. Maybe they were just the worst-built high rise structures ever. If those WTC plaza buildings were that ineptly-built, then it was just a matter of time before they came down! If they ever wanted them down, there would have been no need to plant demo charges. Just set them on fire. I hope whoever built them didn't build anything else.
