Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Even The Japanese Got it!

  1. #1

    Even The Japanese Got it!

    This video confirmed that 99.9% of the Congress' members are either chickens or brain washed!

    Have fun

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...49942423&hl=de



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    that was interesting. That building 7 is the only thing that stands out the most. Rest you can bs and make up crap for it but how do you seriously explain building 7.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by smartguy911 View Post
    that was interesting. That building 7 is the only thing that stands out the most. Rest you can bs and make up crap for it but how do you seriously explain building 7.
    Well you see falling debris hit building 7 and started a fire even though the debris didn't start other fires but a fire started and it hit the main support beam and the building pulled itself.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by smartguy911 View Post
    that was interesting. That building 7 is the only thing that stands out the most. Rest you can bs and make up crap for it but how do you seriously explain building 7.
    You know, it is very healthy that different people have different perspectives.
    While you think that building 7 is the most serious factor for questioning I see that the theory of demolition regarding the two towers is the strongest.

    Also the guy in the parliament mentioned another strong point that the Pentagon refused to release any other films or footage from the bunch of security cameras they have. How do you explain that?
    This is to me is parallel to why the 911 report failed to include building 7.
    Very suspicious acts which leave alot of people to believe that something is being hidden on purpose.
    I am sure that the more the people will research the issue the more strong points they will find.

  7. #6
    Building 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of the towers. There was reported a gash of about ten stories high and as deep as 25% of the way into the building on the far side of the building-the side not shown in conspiracy sites.
    See image file #79 here: http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/di...&cat=20&pos=78
    There are few pictures from the far side of building #7 since that is where all the debris from the two towers was and people could not get there or be there to take photos. #139 shows massive smoke coming out of the south side of the building. http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/di...cat=20&pos=138

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Building 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of the towers. There was reported a gash of about ten stories high and as deep as 25% of the way into the building on the far side of the building-the side not shown in conspiracy sites.
    See image file #79 here: http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/di...&cat=20&pos=78
    There are few pictures from the far side of building #7 since that is where all the debris from the two towers was and people could not get there or be there to take photos. #139 shows massive smoke coming out of the south side of the building. http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/di...cat=20&pos=138
    And you think that would bring WTC7 down in the way it did?

    It was ADMITTED by Larry Silverstein WTC7 was pulled. The descision was made to pull it, there was a countdown, and it was pulled. It is that simple.

    Ok,

    Pete

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by phixion View Post
    And you think that would bring WTC7 down in the way it did?

    It was ADMITTED by Larry Silverstein WTC7 was pulled. The descision was made to pull it, there was a countdown, and it was pulled. It is that simple.

    Ok,

    Pete
    And we all know you don't don't run into a building and slap c4 on it and it comes down within an 20 mins of Larry Silverstein ordering it. It takes weeks of planing if not months of preparation.

    "Energy and persistence conquer all things"
    Benjamin Franklin
    The greatest sins are those who remain silent in the face of evil.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    That is not the only meaning to "pull" a building. One is to attach cables to try to control which direction it may fall and to litterally pull a building down- but that is more often used on smaller buildings and there would not have been time to do that in this case. They did try it on Bulding 6. http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/pullit.html
    Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

    Unidentified construction worker 2: "Well they got the cables attached in four different locations going up and they'll be pulling, pulling the building to the north. It's not everyday you try to pull down an eight story building down with cables."
    Another is to pull everybody out incase it does collapse. That is the intended use in this case.
    http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Larry_Silverstein
    Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.

    The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.

    "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

    His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.

    FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.

    FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:

    "I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]
    Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.

    "Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street." [2]

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by phixion View Post
    And you think that would bring WTC7 down in the way it did?

    It was ADMITTED by Larry Silverstein WTC7 was pulled. The descision was made to pull it, there was a countdown, and it was pulled. It is that simple.

    Ok,

    Pete
    Perfect time to quote my source debunking your "truths".

    This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant.
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Check this link and look at the photos with the huge gashes in the building, and all the fires inside. They "pulled" all the firefighters out, and made sure it was in a confined area and everyone was out.
    Conspiracy theories are just self-esteem boosters for those who have none. It empowers them with a feeling of being "in the know", and boosts their self-esteem by talking down to everyone as if they are sheep.

  13. #11
    What is actually involved in bringing down a large structure with planned explosives? http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
    In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.
    Weeks, if not months pre-planning.
    Then the building has to be prepped. Walls and debris removed from the building. Places they want to put charges have to be exposed by taking out all walls and insulation and whatever else around them.
    The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
    Next you have to place your charges and run miles of wiring from each to the central control point for the explosion. Then to control that the blast goes where you want it to and to insure that the force of the explosion is directed at the target and not dispersed into the surrounding area, each explosive site must be wrapped
    To further reduce flying debris, blasters may wrap chain-link fencing and geotextile fabric around each column. The fence keeps the large chunks of concrete from flying out, and the fabric catches most of the smaller bits. Blasters may also wrap fabric around the outside of each floor that is rigged with explosives. This acts as an extra net to contain any exploding concrete that tears through the material around each individual column. Structures surrounding the building may also be covered to protect them from flying debris and the pressure of the explosions.
    None of this can be done neatly or discretely- let alone unseen in a massive building.
    To help the blasters work through this process, a blasting company may bring in an independent demolition consulting firm, such as Protec Documentation Services. Protec uses portable field seismographs to measure ground vibrations and air-blasts during an implosion. Brent Blanchard, an operations manager for the company, says that they also inspect surrounding structures prior to the implosion, so that they can help assess any damage claims following the blast. Additionally, Protec's staff videotapes the blast from multiple angles so that there is a record of what actually happened. Using data collected from previous blasts, the company's engineers can predict ahead of time what level of vibration a particular implosion may cause.

    Once the structure has been pre-weakened and all the explosives have been loaded, it's time to make the final preparations. Blasters perform a last check of the explosives, and make sure the building and the area surrounding it are completely clear. Surprisingly, implosion enthusiasts sometimes try to sneak past barriers for a closer view of the blast, despite the obvious risks. With the level of destruction involved, it is imperative that all spectators be a good distance away. Blasters calculate this safety perimeter based on the size of the building and the amount of explosives used.
    Once the area is clear, the blasters retreat to the detonator controls and begin the countdown. The blasters may sound a siren at the 10-minute, five-minute and one-minute mark, to let everyone know when the building will be coming down. If they are using an electrical detonator, the blasters have a detonator controller with two buttons, one labeled "charge" and one labeled "fire." Toward the end of the countdown, a blaster presses and holds the "charge" button until an indicator light comes on. This builds up the intense electrical charge needed to activate the detonators (this is similar to charging a camera flash to build the necessary electrical energy to illuminate a scene). After the detonator-control machine is charged, and the countdown is completed, the blaster presses the "fire" button (while still holding down the charge button), releasing the charge into the wires so it can set off the blasting caps.
    Then they go back in and double check to see if all the explosives went off and carefully removing those which did not.

    There is no possible way all this could have gone on in either of the two towers or even in Building 7 without being very noticable.

    A hotel in Biloxi took about two weeks just for the explosives setting prep work- and that was an uninhabited 12 story building.
    http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2...andCasino.html
    The building had been damaged by Katrina, but not to the point it couldn't be salvaged, a spokeswoman for Harrah's explained earlier in the week. The company simply wanted to start new, with a clean foot print for the next phase of construction, she said.

    It took Cherry Demolition 1½ weeks to drill the building and about two days to load the 400 pounds of explosives into the holes. The company, which has been on the Coast since February preparing the building, works mostly in the South and mid-West.
    Prep work began in February and this was in May it was finally demolished.

    Six months went into prepping a housing block in Glasgow for demolition. http://www.gha.org.uk/content/defaul...=850&newsType=


    Just because every detail of what happened cannot be clearly explained does not mean that a conspiracy was involved.

    Conspiracy theory is great. You get to believe what you want and everything you find that goes against that belief is part of the cover-up and lies behind the conspiracy. You feel that you are the only one who knows the whole truth.

    I find it intersting that some people who believe the government to be too incompetent to run almost anything could pull off something as big and complex as 9/11 with what would have required unbelievable precision (planting all the explosives in the buildings and then coordinating the triggering of the explosives to the planes flying into the building and they blowing up more buildings in the area on a couple hours notice without a single person becoming wise to something going on) without anybody seeing anything or the vast number of insiders it would have required and not have a single one of they come foreward with evidence. That boggles my mind.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-30-2008 at 02:40 PM.

  14. #12
    I'm not sure that people are thinking their government is incompetent. They believe your government to be hoodlums. Hence anything is possible.
    I only wish the opposition member had been wearing a tinfoil hat (for light relief you understand!) Thanks ...great vid.
    The world does not consist of a throng of geniuses. WilliamBanzai7

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by coyote_sprit View Post
    Well you see falling debris hit building 7 and started a fire even though the debris didn't start other fires but a fire started and it hit the main support beam and the building pulled itself.
    The debris didn't hit the culprit beam; Too much stress was placed on it as a result of other beams being disabled. There was no 'main support beam' as far as I know.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by smartguy911 View Post
    that was interesting. That building 7 is the only thing that stands out the most. Rest you can bs and make up crap for it but how do you seriously explain building 7.
    Building Seven had explosives that were set up by a group of Terrorist Time Travellers.
    "If Ron Paul had raised 22 million, he'd have 21.8 million on hand. That's about how he does not like to spend". -Pat Buchanan

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by V-rod View Post
    Building Seven had explosives that were set up by a group of Terrorist Time Travellers.
    That makes so much sense his dialysis machine works as a time machine too.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by reaver View Post
    The debris didn't hit the culprit beam; Too much stress was placed on it as a result of other beams being disabled. There was no 'main support beam' as far as I know.
    WTC 7 was cantilevered over a power plant. Its structure was one of the most asymetrical in terms of strength you will ever see. Yet it fell straight down into its foundation with squibs of smoke all the way. I don't care who you are, that's odd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by V-rod View Post
    Building Seven had explosives that were set up by a group of Terrorist Time Travellers.
    I've heard a lot of theories on this, both from government and non-government, and that has to be the most reasonable theory I've heard.
    We have allies many of you are not aware of. Watch the tube. Show this to your 30 and under friends. Listen to it. Even if you don't like rap, it has 2.7 million views.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU#t=0m16s

    Cut off one min early to avoid war porn.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by V-rod View Post
    Building Seven had explosives that were set up by a group of Terrorist Time Travellers.
    Let's hope they didn't see their future selves, that could ruin the whole Space Time Continuum, and break my Flux Capacitor, negating the 1.21 jigawatts...


  22. #19

    Melted Steel

    As far as WTC 7, man is not an "it"! Now, WTC 1 & 2........ if the metal was so hot that they were weakened and fell.......... how could this nice lady stand there like that? Not to mention the survivors that got out of that building, so much heat that "weakens" so much steel, what a joke!



    9/11 and 7/7....... same thing.
    FJB

  23. #20
    It is obvious that she was not at the hottest part of the fire. Parts of a building burning hot enough to weaken welds (the actual steel does not have to melt for the building to fail) does not mean that every point of the building reached that temperature. The fireball was more in the middle and far side of the building and not at the point of initial impact.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegades View Post
    Perfect time to quote my source debunking your "truths".



    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Check this link and look at the photos with the huge gashes in the building, and all the fires inside. They "pulled" all the firefighters out, and made sure it was in a confined area and everyone was out.
    So thats all it takes to bring down steel engineered structure? You guys are hillarious. In one sentence you'll explain that bringing a building down at freefall speed with demolitions isn't possible because it would have taken weeks of planning, but at the same time you think random collateral damage makes perfect sense.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is obvious that she was not at the hottest part of the fire. Parts of a building burning hot enough to weaken welds (the actual steel does not have to melt for the building to fail) does not mean that every point of the building reached that temperature. The fireball was more in the middle and far side of the building and not at the point of initial impact.
    If only all the people working in demolitions had realized how easy it is to take a building down, they wouldn't have had to waste all those weeks of planning setting up demolitions in each building.

    Just spray some kerosine, light a match, and wait an hour.

    Lets hope the terrorists dont figure this out, they'll be sneaking kerosine into all of our steel buildings.

  26. #23

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Catatonic View Post
    So thats all it takes to bring down steel engineered structure? You guys are hillarious. In one sentence you'll explain that bringing a building down at freefall speed with demolitions isn't possible because it would have taken weeks of planning, but at the same time you think random collateral damage makes perfect sense.
    Perhaps you can enlighten us with when and how the explosives would have been placed in Building 7. "Looks like it fell like a building blown up" is not strong enough evidence. And why go to all the trouble of trying to synchronize the explosions to trying to deliberately crash planes into the building? There had already been a car bomb exploded in one of the underground parking lot several years earlier- why not make it look more like that if you wanted to fake it? Why blow up building #7 in the first place? The insurance was on the two towers. I went through looking at what it would take to actually do it deliberately to see if that could have been done- and it could not have been done without being very noticable to occupants of the building. So there must be another answer. That is that the building was damaged by the fall of the two towers (and there is photographic evidence of that including gaps of many stories in the side and smoke from internal fires) which contributed to the collapse. It was not carefully placed explosives waiting in secret for the proper monent.

    When one part of the conspiracy theory is debunked, another point is brought up. Not everything in a tragedy can be explained. That does not mean that it was deliberately done.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-01-2008 at 03:56 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Lots you haven't seen

    Here's a good one to watch.

    "Compelling compilation of tons of rare and partly unseen news footage of 9/11"


    Gov. Exhibit
    http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo..._p200003-1.jpg

    Make sure to watch those buildings (1 & 2) "collapse" over and over again in that video up there, it doesn't really collapse, it turns to dust.

    It's simple, quit rationalizing all of the "mistakes" that happened and start saying "what the *fark!"..... here is a good WTC 7 site, not the homepage.....

    Read this page
    http://www.wtc7.net/steeldisposal.html
    .

    *
    .
    .
    .
    FJB

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Perhaps you can enlighten us with when and how the explosives would have been placed in Building 7. "Looks like it fell like a building blown up" is not strong enough evidence. And why go to all the trouble of trying to synchronize the explosions to trying to deliberately crash planes into the building? There had already been a car bomb exploded in one of the underground parking lot several years earlier- why not make it look more like that if you wanted to fake it? Why blow up building #7 in the first place? The insurance was on the two towers. I went through looking at what it would take to actually do it deliberately to see if that could have been done- and it could not have been done without being very noticable to occupants of the building. So there must be another answer. That is that the building was damaged by the fall of the two towers (and there is photographic evidence of that including gaps of many stories in the side and smoke from internal fires) which contributed to the collapse. It was not carefully placed explosives waiting in secret for the proper monent.

    When one part of the conspiracy theory is debunked, another point is brought up. Not everything in a tragedy can be explained. That does not mean that it was deliberately done.
    I don't know that demolitions were used, but its a better explanation than 'durr the fire did it!' You have no evidence these buildings collapsed by fire other than thats what the government says.

    You said the reason the lady in that picture wasn't being burned alive because the fire was burning at different heat levels in different areas. This makes perfect sense. The problem is you witness a total uniform failure of the entire core instantly. The only way to do this with fire/heat would be to apply the exact same amount of heat to the ENTIRE CORE at the exact same time. There's no way asymmetrical damage can cause a symmetrical collapse.

    It takes a LOT of effort, coordination, and power to bring a building down like that, as you acknowledged in the fact that it takes weeks for professional demolitions experts to bring a building down. There's no way the entire building failed instantaneously from some fire, and some debris.

    "And why go to all the trouble of trying to synchronize the explosions to trying to deliberately crash planes into the building?" You might have noticed building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Also, how obvious would it be if no planes had hit these buildings? Seriously. You're talking about a government that has already made real plans to fly remote controled air lines into buildings in order to start war. They could do it in the 70's, why couldn't they do it today? Maybe next time they won't bother with using planes, since building 7 is evidence of how willing our public is to accept fantasy as reality.

    Honestly, I don't have all the answers as to why, because there hasn't been a real investigation. Demolitions simply fits the characteristics of what happened better than any other explanation. Unless you think gravity is capable of launching 5 ton steel beams into adjacent buildings?

    You're going to ignore all accepted applicable physics, thermodynamics, and first hand testimony, and back up your claim with nothing more than 'the government/popular mechanic said so'.

    There's no way gravity can cause the resistance of steel to equal that of air. There's no way asymmetrical damage can cause catastrophic symmetrical failure. There's no way to get matter to move into the path of most resistance on its own.
    There's no way around the law of conservation of momentum, according to which all 3 of these buildings should have collapsed in the direction of the damage received rather than implode.
    There's no way around the fact that steel weakened by heat becomes elastic and results in bending and/or twisting, not IMPLODING.
    There's no explanation for the multitude of steel structures built with weaker designes that have survived much greater damage, and in come cases raging infernos so hot that fire fighters couldn't even attempt to put them out that lasted over 24 hours and did not collapse. Of course that was before 9/11, the day physics and thermodynamics changed forever.

    Need I go on? Or are these more conspiracies? Sorry, there's a lot more to it than 'a plane hit a building and the building fell down'.

    The only way you can explain any of these characteristics with anything approaching rational logic is through demolitions.

    All 3 of these buildings had been shut down by the FBI in the weeks before 9/11. Which is harder to believe, a method was devised to plant explosives while these buildings were shut down, or the laws of physics got thrown out the window for one magical day?

  31. #27
    The problem is you witness a total uniform failure of the entire core instantly.
    The entire core of a building does not have to fail instantly for it to fall down on itself. All you need is one critical point to fail and the weight of one floor collapses and that knocks down all the floors below it one at a time. It does happen very fast.
    The problem is you witness a total uniform failure of the entire core instantly.
    Again, the main damage to Building 7 was caused by debris from the collapse of the two towers- the fires were probably contributory but not the only reason it went. No claim that it was hit by a plane.
    All 3 of these buildings had been shut down by the FBI in the weeks before 9/11
    Any link to that? I do not recall hearing that anywhere.
    Even so, it would take months- not a couple of weeks to wire and prepare a building that size for demolition.

    Mach- Your government exhibit of debris shows where debris from the airplanes ended up- not where debris from the building collapse went.

    What about buildings #4, 5, and 6? Why were they not blown up if all the other ones were? Was #3 blown up? It was destroyed too. I see no visual evidence of any explosive devices going off during the collapse of the two towers. The failure is obviously at the levels where the planes caused damage- where the portions above crashed into the floors below causing them in turn to collapse. As the floors pancaked, the air within the levels was compressed and tried to flow outward- causing the windows and walls to seem to explode outwards- blowing papers, office furniture, and whatever else along with it. Physics are not being ignored by people who agree it was the crash of the planes that led to a series of sequences ending in the structural failure of the buildings.

    People who wish to believe it was done on purpose by the US government are the ones substituting fantasy for reality.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-01-2008 at 05:51 PM.

  32. #28
    It's nice to actually explain what the video is about before wasting people's time. thanks

  33. #29
    The video does explain how the planes and fuel led to the collapse of the two towers. It also shows that building 7 was also damaged and had fires raging inside and the police kept people back because they were concerned about it collapsing too which of course it eventually did.

  34. #30
    "The entire core of a building does not have to fail instantly for it to fall down on itself. All you need is one critical point to fail and the weight of one floor collapses and that knocks down all the floors below it one at a time. It does happen very fast. "

    This has been seriously debunked. Even if your pancake theory was what happened, it would not come down at freefall speed. Again, even if its fast, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the resistance of steel to equal air, unless you're in fairy tale land.

    You really think these buildings were designed so that all it takes to topple the building is for one point to fail? Seriously? If you really think that, why do you think it would take months of planning to bring it down? They could just load up explosives at one point and watch the building implode. Silly demolitions experts, don't they understand post 9/11 physics?






    This is the windsor building. It burned like this for over 24 hours and didn't collapse. This was a weaker design than the wtc buildings. How did it not collapse after one hour?

    "Again, the main damage to Building 7 was caused by debris from the collapse of the two towers- the fires were probably contributory but not the only reason it went. No claim that it was hit by a plane. "



    This pic is from the OKC bombing. Notice a good quarter of the building gone? From a violent explosion? YET IT DIDN'T COLLAPSE, AMAZING! I can provide many real world examples of drastically weaker buildings receiving incredible amounts of damage and not imploding. All you can provide is 'george bush and popular mechanic says so'.

    "Any link to that? I do not recall hearing that anywhere. "

    The WTC buildings being closed down is well documented and there is a lot of recorded testimony, look it up yourself.

    "What about buildings #4, 5, and 6? Why were they not blown up if all the other ones were? Was #3 blown up? It was destroyed too. I see no visual evidence of any explosive devices going off during the collapse of the two towers. The failure is obviously at the levels where the planes caused damage- where the portions above crashed into the floors below causing them in turn to collapse. As the floors pancaked, the air within the levels was compressed and tried to flow outward- causing the windows and walls to seem to explode outwards- blowing papers, office furniture, and whatever else along with it. Physics are not being ignored by people who agree it was the crash of the planes that led to a series of sequences ending in the structural failure of the buildings.

    People who wish to believe it was done on purpose by the US government are the ones substituting fantasy for reality."

    You ignored nearly everything I spelled out for you, way to cherry pick info. You have NO SOURCES to back up your claim. Popular mechanic is a joke but you can try to source it if you want. The MIT report actually proves my point but you can try to source it if you want. NIST is still a work in progress and even they admit they CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT DEMOLITIONS but you can try to source it if you want. You need to take a look in the mirror before you accuse people of living a fantasy. The NIST report actually debunks most of your claims, you might want to read it.

    Using specifics, and not generalizations, how exactly did the fires in any of the 3 buildings result in symmetrical failure?

    How do you get Kerosine to burn more than 5 minutes?

    Why did firefighters say the fire was nearly out right before it imploded?

    How do you explain the explosions reported before the buildings were even hit?

    How do you explain the seismic coming from the wtc buildings right BEFORE they collapsed?

    The MIT report goes into detail about the effects of heat over team on steel, explaining that if the jet fuel had burned at its maximum possible temperature (only attainable in controlled settings) for a little more than an hour, it would be sufficient to reduce the strength of the core by 50%.

    They don't explain how you can get kerosene to burn for over an hour nor do they mention that these buildings were engineered to hold 3 times their load weight.

    But even if you ignore all that, there's the problem of how you get the rest of the core, completely undamaged, to give a resistance equal to air. Basically steel resistance = air resistance. And then you have to ignore all the explosions.


    Don't worry, this will be in hot topics soon. Out of sight, out of mind.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. any of you read Japanese?
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2012, 12:03 AM
  2. Japanese Economy
    By jabf2006 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 09:52 AM
  3. Anyone know how to write in Japanese?
    By torchbearer in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 07:41 AM
  4. Japanese fighting NWO?
    By ArchPaul in forum National Sovereignty
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 03:03 AM
  5. Japanese Pacman
    By TheEvilDetector in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2008, 06:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •