Why The Towers Fell
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
- Status
Risus said:
If you're serious, please go through any of the threads on this topic.......I've done my 15 minutes of research. I've read some of the sites and am satisfied with the facts presented by those that debunk conspiracy theorists.
Above and beyond that, I know thousands saw the planes crash........and I've looked at sites not primarily concerned with 9-11, like sites on demolition.
The fact is that planning and carrying out the conspiracy necessary to do 9-11 as a "false flag" operation would seem, to any rational mind, to make it impossible.
At least 30,000 man hours to rig the twin towers and set the explosives necessary in the OPEN.......so much more if in secret.
If you're serious, please go through any of the threads on this topic.......I've done my 15 minutes of research. I've read some of the sites and am satisfied with the facts presented by those that debunk conspiracy theorists.
Above and beyond that, I know thousands saw the planes crash........and I've looked at sites not primarily concerned with 9-11, like sites on demolition.
The fact is that planning and carrying out the conspiracy necessary to do 9-11 as a "false flag" operation would seem, to any rational mind, to make it impossible.
At least 30,000 man hours to rig the twin towers and set the explosives necessary in the OPEN.......so much more if in secret.
Compare this photo of the Empire State Building and the photo you have posted of the WTC.
There's a pretty big difference between a 15 ton bomber flying at ~275 MPH (Top Speed)and a 100 ton commercial airliner flying at ~540 MPH slamming into a building.
The ESB didn't collapse because it was overbuilt.
Oh my...oh my...the poor soul. He's actually comparing a twin engine propeller plane from WWII to a Boeing 767!
so what your saying now is that the WTC was not as well built as the Empire State Building
what utter horse**** you people talk one minute its architecture is designed to withstand airplane crashes by top architects, next it don't compare to a building made years earlier
your off you head pal
look more rubbish fabricated to fit your reasons for the collapse
To render a material softer, more flexible and/or more moldable then if you theory was correct why then were people seen holding on to the outer frame of this in your words very hot metal you know and i know that after the initial impact the fuel in the planes that hit the WTC caused a fire ball then as you put it one very hot fireball that would have dissipated within seconds as can be seen by any number of the videos taken at the time B/S lone-wolf B/S answers to the reason why the towers fell
Last edited:
Okay, space cadet. You win. The world revolves around you and your paranoia. Do you have a clue what reality is? I think I understand why vigilantes wanted you out....
so now your saying that the fact that the WTC was LESS engineered, bollacks colpy and you know it, as time goes by people invent better not worse things, and same goes for buildings ,you know and i konw that because i have shown you this example, you lot are falling over each other to contratict the very same reasons given for the collapes in the first place, which all of you said was fire . and that simply aint the case
When the bomber hit, its fuel tanks exploded, sending flames racing across the 79th floor in all directions. Many reported seeing flaming debris fall down the elevator shafts same thing m8 but what a surprise it did not fall down due to the fires
Not impossible
colpy and yes you went too all the debunking sites you could find.!!!
this i believe is the only thing that you have rehearsed.!!!
not the facts as you put it just the debunking site, as this fits with your intentions that's all you have done diddly squat in looking for the real reasons for the attack your own eyes should have told you that but no your so fuk-ed up over getting at me in your childish head that your judgement is severely clouded
No.
What I know is that, as pointed out above, you equate a twin engine WWII bomber, smaller,much slower, and with only 10% of the fuel.....with modern jet aircraft.
As well, I said the ESB was over-engineered because they had no computer modeling........therefore they built in much high tolerances and margins of safety........they had no other way to ensure the thing would stand.
The WTC is living (or dying) testimony to engineers' mistaken belief in their own omnipotence......they thought the buildings could withstand the impact of a fully fueled jet......they were wrong. My guess is that they did not take into account the fact that the initial impact might blast away the insulating materials around central beams........whatever they missed in their model, it was important,
As an aside JUST LOOK AT THE DAMN BUILDINGS! Two slim, high spires, and that heavy ESB...........
What becomes very clear is that (a) you don't read anything that doesn't fit into your neatly contrived delusions.
and (b) it wouldn't matter if you did, because you have the reading comprehension skills to deal with reality in the first place.
Now I'm waiting for 637 pages of cut-and-paste horse poo.....(sigh)
Compare this photo of the Empire State Building and the photo you have posted of the WTC.
There's a pretty big difference between a 15 ton bomber flying at ~275 MPH (Top Speed)and a 100 ton commercial airliner flying at ~540 MPH slamming into a building.
The ESB didn't collapse because it was overbuilt.
The ESB didn't collapse because it was overbuilt
B/S
quoting your mate who you all agreed with at the time CDNBear here goes "You mean the WTC was not a revolutionary new building design? One that incorporated all new, and only used in one other structure to date, structural designs?"
no were not were discussing your theory that jet fuel brought down the towers idiot
, i say it did not you idiots say it did ,then you lot flip flop around when i give an example that you cannot refute.!!!!!!
I'm not paranoid or a space cadet, your medication is in need of a boost, lone-wolf you know your all wrong, and now you have taken this path of denial of the truth, you aint got the balls to admit that your theories about what happened are wrong, i on the other hand have had to fight you lot tooth and claw ,answer every dam stupid question like "give your answer in tons" , "when were these pictures taken" "do you know about det cord" and all the other B/S debunking site issues that you lot could find to prove me wrong, and i have done my bit in showing you the facts, but because of your pigheaded attitude towards me, you and your m8s a too afraid to admit i might be right, and that you would have to concede the merit to me, that's the truth lone-wolf your too chicken to admit defeat,especialy to me
An observation and question to the THERE-IS-NO CONSPIRACY supporters.
An argument often used by your side is that no organization could have put all the supposed explosives in the WTC without anyone noticing it. You will say the WTC collapse was simply caused by the burning jet fuel, which weakened the steel structure to a point where everything just collapsed.
By doing so you are clearly saying that ALL IT TOOK to bring down the WTC was to crash a commercial airliner into it.
By your own arguments, you are admitting that making the WTC collapse wasn't such a complex operation to organize. All you had to do was manage to crash a commercial airliner into it. I'm asking the following question:
For whom would it be easier to successfully accomplish what was done (crashing commercial airliners)?
For foreign terrorists?
Or from terrorists working from within the US government?
I mean, if as you suggest, a bunch of foreign terrorists could pull it off (crashing a commercial airliner in the WTC), can you at least acknowledge that an organization that has infiltrated the US government would have even more chances of successfully pulling it off...???
An argument often used by your side is that no organization could have put all the supposed explosives in the WTC without anyone noticing it. You will say the WTC collapse was simply caused by the burning jet fuel, which weakened the steel structure to a point where everything just collapsed.
By doing so you are clearly saying that ALL IT TOOK to bring down the WTC was to crash a commercial airliner into it.
By your own arguments, you are admitting that making the WTC collapse wasn't such a complex operation to organize. All you had to do was manage to crash a commercial airliner into it. I'm asking the following question:
For whom would it be easier to successfully accomplish what was done (crashing commercial airliners)?
For foreign terrorists?
Or from terrorists working from within the US government?
I mean, if as you suggest, a bunch of foreign terrorists could pull it off (crashing a commercial airliner in the WTC), can you at least acknowledge that an organization that has infiltrated the US government would have even more chances of successfully pulling it off...???
No.
fire is fire pal
quoting your mate who you all agreed with at the time CDNBear here goes "You mean the WTC was not a revolutionary new building design? One that incorporated all new, and only used in one other structure to date, structural designs?"
b/s they over compensated
when faced with the fact you come down to insults just like all the rest you sad old man
this picture of the pentagon attack notice no plane and that the roof has not fallen in yet only after the roof fell in were pictures of it shown to make it look like the damage was more extensive and who the fuk are all these people why are they here prior to any investigating forensic teams are at the site.?
you hate it it when i show you the truth or facts don't you colpy that's why your so up tight, an imature The US government has steadfastly refused to release the evidence which it claims to have. Evidence, which, if in existence, would settle once and for all the questions which are being raised, nearly 7 years later, on
There are small, indestructible time replacement parts in all aircraft which allow for positive identification, and these could be offered to silence critics about Flight 77.For several years NIST has been promising its imminent report on the strange collapse of Building 7. This could be completed and released
You say the 9/11 truth movement has taken over from the peace movement. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't do the obvious thing and produce the evidence to silence this vast new movement?
There is a natural temptation to ponder what actually happened, and some people succumb to developing theories, it is true.
It is unlikely, as you point out, that everyone will agree. But because the Bush administration has elected to withhold its purported fact-settling evidence, its citizens are dealing with a mystery. The best the public can do is conduct its own investigation by working with available media reports, witnesses, and forensic samples.
But the scientific people in the 9/11 research community simply advance the "best evidence", then demonstrate that it is incompatible with what we have been told, and call for a new investigation.
You say the 9/11 truth movement has taken over from the peace movement. Why don't you ask why the government doesn't do the obvious thing and produce the evidence to silence this vast new movement?
There is a natural temptation to ponder what actually happened, and some people succumb to developing theories, it is true.
It is unlikely, as you point out, that everyone will agree. But because the Bush administration has elected to withhold its purported fact-settling evidence, its citizens are dealing with a mystery. The best the public can do is conduct its own investigation by working with available media reports, witnesses, and forensic samples.
But the scientific people in the 9/11 research community simply advance the "best evidence", then demonstrate that it is incompatible with what we have been told, and call for a new investigation.
- Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips. Re the chemical signature of the highly explosive incendiary thermate found in the dust at the World Trade Center. Lecture at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4&feature=related
- In 2006, over 700 human bone fragments were found on the roof of the adjacent Deutsche Bank building, some less than a centimeter long. How does a simple gravitational collapse splinter and disseminate human bones in this manner? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/nyregion/15letter.html
- Oral histories from first responders at the WTC scene indicating ground-shaking explosions from beneath the buildings were released in August 2005 by the New York Times, at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192. There is a summary by Dr. David Ray Griffin at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
- The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have said that they were denied access to key witnesses, and that their formal investigation was obstructed by the C.I.A. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html
- article on the Military Drills of September 11th, which shows that there were 29 different reports of hijackings that morning, has 58 references, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6906
- Status