If an airplane bumps into a hard object it's not going to go boom? Sparks plus vapourized flammable liquid equal what?
9/11, an inside job?
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
If an airplane bumps into a hard object it's not going to go boom? Sparks plus vapourized flammable liquid equal what?
Really?
Time to step away from the computer my friend.
You're starting to go nuts.:lol:
Next you're gonna tell me JFK was killed by the CIA or the Mafia.
Conspiracies this vast are about as believable as the bible.:lol:
Really!!!
I was beginning to think the same thing. I think I need to step up my trolling, I'm getting bored and lulled into nutterdom.
I think you might be right!
You mean he wasn't? 8O
True, but there is some pretty fishy shyte floating around the bowl.
You could say that about anything....like the election of GWB....was it rigged? Of course not....but you could make a case for it with all the mistakes made with voting machines and those little bits paper....whatever they were called.
Marvin the Martian did it. He's been saying it's his intention to obliterate Earth for decades. It wasn't the Jews that put him up to it, it was Toronto wishing to be truly all there is to the planet.
It would have been nice if the spokesman was a better reader....
The one glaring omission in the fact that no steel-constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire is the one that only two steel-tube constructed buildings have ever burned ... and both of them collapsed.
WTC7? How was it constructed? I'm still not satisfied that it didn't have help to come down.
YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
It is not hard to find a whole encyclopedia full of evidence to show the official story is complete bunk. The scientific evidence is everywhere if you are willing to open your eyes. The weight of evidence is tilting the scales in favour of at least a cover up, if not a conspiracy.
It is not hard to find a whole encyclopedia full of evidence to show the official story is complete bunk. The scientific evidence is everywhere if you are willing to open your eyes. The weight of evidence is tilting the scales in favour of at least a cover up, if not a conspiracy.
Both sides of the argument are nuts, IMO.
The official version is suspect simply because of WTC7.
The other side is suspect because it keeps saying stuff like no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. The WTC buildings 1 & 2 did not collapse due to fire, they collapsed due to impact, fire-induced structural stress, and a lot of mass bearing down on weakened structure. There are a number of other wacky ideas besides that.
So I'm not going to add to the dustcloud of uncertainty, leap into one theater or the other, and I'll wait for the dvd.
The official version is suspect simply because of WTC7.
The other side is suspect because it keeps saying stuff like no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. The WTC buildings 1 & 2 did not collapse due to fire, they collapsed due to impact, fire-induced structural stress, and a lot of mass bearing down on weakened structure. There are a number of other wacky ideas besides that.
So I'm not going to add to the dustcloud of uncertainty, leap into one theater or the other, and I'll wait for the dvd.
When did errant typography and/or errors in spelling become an issue for anything other than school or nit-pickers?
There are a lot of DVDs. Take your pick. I think if 1000+ engineers and architects are willing to put their reputations on the line and face public ridicule because they believe the evidence they have used to come to their conclusions is for real, then I would take their word over some politicians and bureaucrats.
Don't be daft, Cliffy. I meant I'll wait till the dvd comes out that makes sense of ALL the factors.
so...... exactley why did the 3 towers collapse..... fi it was an inside job and the towers were helped...... how were they helped along in their collapse? Was it done after the planes hit the towers? How? Was it pre planned? If yes, how did they know when and how the terrorists were going to strike?
I tend to rule out conspiracies for a couple reasons:
1) I've worked with heat treatments of steel and mechanical/materials engineering personnel (doing stress calcs etc) enough that I have no doubt the heat of the fires of those planes would have been enough to destabilize the twin towers, especially when you consider the load above the impact/fires. Once the tops collapsed, it was a domino all the way down
2) The number of people who would have had to be "in the know" and keep their mouths shut in the face of the raw emotion of the day is too large. One example: how many people would have been needed to plant explosives or ignore them in their regular duties before the detonations? 9/11 was just too big for me to buy that the US gov't had anything to do with it.
1) I've worked with heat treatments of steel and mechanical/materials engineering personnel (doing stress calcs etc) enough that I have no doubt the heat of the fires of those planes would have been enough to destabilize the twin towers, especially when you consider the load above the impact/fires. Once the tops collapsed, it was a domino all the way down
2) The number of people who would have had to be "in the know" and keep their mouths shut in the face of the raw emotion of the day is too large. One example: how many people would have been needed to plant explosives or ignore them in their regular duties before the detonations? 9/11 was just too big for me to buy that the US gov't had anything to do with it.