[QUOTE=Not to mention how many of them are from rather dubious sources (hint: Infowars and Worldnetdaily have well-deserved poor reputations for accuracy).[/QUOTE]
and your proof is where? is everyone supposed to just take your word for it?
[QUOTE=Not to mention how many of them are from rather dubious sources (hint: Infowars and Worldnetdaily have well-deserved poor reputations for accuracy).[/QUOTE]
and your proof is where? is everyone supposed to just take your word for it?
Official Chronicler of EP
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Look, you said you love to debate, right? Please, show us that this is something you can do.
Michael Ballack, he scores free-kicks.
He's got black hair, and he's german.
Michael Ballack, trains in paddocks.
in his spare time, HE FARMS HADDOCKS!
Watch me play Super C, guys!!
Fear and Loathing
WND reports stories no other newspaper does, refuses to cite where they're getting their information from, mixes op-ed pieces into their news reports and generally does the exact same thing your site does: lots of claims, no details for them. This can be established simply by reading the articles on their website. They also have a bent towards racism, particularly of the anti-arab variety (for some reason, they have trouble realising that arab != muslim, and vice versa)
Infowars doesn't cite sources and likes to ramble on about the illuminati and the NWO without providing evidence. Again, this can be seen simply by checking their site.
I actually encourage the other members of this site to check both those groups out. So that everyone is clear where they lay on this stuff.
Quote:
If the US government was able to covertly destroy two of the most recognisable buildings in the world and pull the wool over our eyes for six years, don't you think they'd be able to stop "the truth" from spreading via Google Video? Seriously, have you not heard of press leaks or something? In this day and age it would be nigh-on impossible to keep something of that magnitude under wraps for so long. Unless... oh man, unless they want us to believe they're imperfect, thus absolving them of any suspicion... :O
-----------------------
they did pull the wool over your eyes. thats why we're in iraq.
fighting the war on terror, remember?
-------
Quote:
Allright then. Explain the existence of us Non-US people who don't watch US news, don't like the government much (US or non-US, I'm not overly fond of either), understand the science and still don't buy your conspiracy theory.
-------
what doesnt add up?
----
Quote:
Spend more money to achieve what, again?
----
Larry Silverstine, two months before the attack, bought the whole world trade center complex and took out a record insurance policy on them for 3.5 billion dollars which he has now been payed. He then bought the SEARS tower, another big terrorist target.
that and we needed a reason to go to iraq so they put fear into americans to support america
bush also stated there were WMD's in iraq. there were never any WMD's.
----
Quote:
People seem to be forgetting that even though steel doesn't melt until it reaches around 1400 degrees celsius, it does start to weaken significiantly at lower temperatures. Jet fuel has been known to burn at anywhere between 250 and 1000 degrees celsius - in extreme cases that's certainly enough to cause a building's steel structural supports to lose their integrity and start to buckle, and that's even if you don't take into account the effects of a heavy, fast-moving, object crashing into its side. The towers were probably designed to be aircraft proof, yes, but it's not like that theory could be tested. Also keep in mind the advancements that have been made in aviation since the WTC was originally built. We're talking about different eras here.
-----
the towers were not only designed to hold an aircraft, but also to hold a fire for a few days before collapsing
----
Quote:
People voted Bush in merely because they're stupid, nothing else. Never underestimate idiocy. Never. An attempt towards his own people was NOT necessary for his return to the throne. Any other politician would have benefited from such an event had they said that retaliation would be swift and undeniable, which is pretty much what the Republican party and its heads implied would happen was Bush to be reelected. Lo and behold, he was placed back into office, and what happened afterwards is history. Whether or not you can come up with an explanation as to why and how 9/11 happened, it's still not believable that a few thousand people had to die for men to get a tad bit richer. Like I said, other means would have achieved just the same.
Also, if anything could be proven and used to demonstrate how the White House bombed its own people, I'm sure it would spread like wildfire and the last place I'd take it as credible would be the emulation forum I daily visit. Come on, now, get us either good empirical data or scientifically verified information, then we'll see. Until then, you're just another conspiracy theorist bred by the infected bowels of the internet. A word of wisdom would be that you stop believing every other clip you see on the net. Need you be reminded that EVERYONE has to gain, no matter which side of the fence they're on?
---
Operation Northwood is a de-classified document from the 1960's that talks about harming U.S. civilians and blaming it on the Cubans as a pretext to go to war with Cuba. (Sound familiar? Harm civilians by bringing down towers. Blame it on the Arabs. Invade Middle-East.)
----
QUOTE
What's to say he didn't have a backup plan. Say, a couple tourists or dudes working at the towers hiding bombs in briefcases? It would explain why nobody mentioned seeing demo equipment, as you wouldn't need to run wiring through the building (yes, timed explosives are a possibility, but hardly synchronized well enough to pull a blast of that scale adequately). It's not like people didn't get bombs in there before.. It'd also be hard to make sure that terrorists inside detonated due to the fact that the corpses would've been pretty freakin' mangled by the time anyone found them, and it's not like people were inspecting EVERY INDIVIDUAL PEICE FOR EXPLOSIVE EQUIPMENT.
----
Part 1: Demolitions
707 and 767 are "comparable"
Which I suppose is code for "the 767 weighs AT LEAST 50 000 KG's MORE when empty."
Last I checked that wasn't "comparable", that was about 1/3 of a 707. Notice the "at least"? I could spend time tracking down specifics as to what model the TT's were built to withstand and as to what hit the towers, but I have better things to do with my time, and you're already wasting it with this video. I suppose after a "week without sleep" numbers are hard to do.
Two pockets of fire
I don't know about you, but that's what it looked like to me from the outside as well. HOWEVER that doesn't mean the fire wasn't there. I honestly can't see shit inside the building (offices, people) doesn't mean it isn't there.
Fuel used up on initial impact, plane couldn't make that hole, etc. etc.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
Seems solid enough for me.
If you've ever made your own fire, you know smoke etc. etc.
For starters, I highly doubt the maker of this video has EVER started a fire (no, I'm not a pyro.... although it would explain my urge to burn things then have sex with them). Smoke doesn't always mean a fire is ENTIRELY oxygen deprived. It can also be from the burning of certain objects, substances and chemicals, say, the kind you find in an office complex? Heck the high volume of smoke would probably indicate that there WAS a fire inside the building (there goes your "the fire was minor and the fuel was used up in the initial blast" argument). Way to go video maker, you just discredited yourself. Have a cookie. I baked it with anthrax.
Hmm, they got the manager of the build, but not the designers or engineers. Nor any aeronautical engineers responsible for building and designing boeings. How very odd... perhaps they *gasp* said the director was full of shit? "I believe that the building probably " ? Sounds rather unsure of himself don't he?
yadda yadda, no steel buildings trashed by fire, yadda
Sure, but how many of those fires were started by explosions or plane crashes? All it takes is a combination of a bent structure combined with high heat for the whole thing to go, given it's the right supports and the right place. Ever played jenga? same shit basically.
EDIT- Oh, and remember the Concord? The so called "uncrashable jet"? Then one crashed. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's impossible.
According to this video, it took 30 minutes for the FIRST tower to fall. Odd, I figured oxygen starved fires would've burned out by then. Not to mention 30 minutes of heat can do quite a bit to metal. Don't beleive me? Stick a nail on a burner set to a low setting, come back in a half hour. Hardly scientific of an accurate model, but an example nonetheless. Combine that with wear and tear, the SIZE of the building compared to the others mentioned, and the fact that there was a PLANE CRASH and an EXPLOSION and you have a totally different situation.
As for the "fires/fuel not considered when making a building plane proof" statement, well I suppose you can chalk that up to lazyness or cheapness. Unless the government is somehow causing big construction companies to cut corners by creating several generations of slackers in preparation for 9/11, but at that point you're just making an ass of yourself.
Look at this steel
I'm looking, and I'm seeing an end cleanly sheered off. Wait a minute, it's so obvious, an army of saw wielding suicidal government employees did it! A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, as a girder is only as strong as whatever's holding it in place. if it's possible to beleive that a bomb could've detached a girder or two, it's possible to believe a plane PLOWING THROUGH A BUILDING AND EXPLODING could've done the same.
it was like they detonated, boom boom boom boom boom
Where are the visible fucking explosions, the priming cables, and the team of guys working the detonators, etc? Oh, I know. They don't exist. Which I guess also accounts for why none of the people in the buildings mentioned seeing explosives, wiring, modified structures for containing the explosives, or dudes flicking switches. Y'know, it's kinda funny how the word "explosion" automatically means "bomb". I mean it's not like there were other things that could've exploded in the building right? Or separate gas tanks in the plane. Or possible other sources. Yup, it's ALWAYS the guys with the shades and the suits. Oh, and the windows would've shattered outwards or something were this a controlled blast. Unless of course the government slacked on the explosions. Yup, they set up this big thing yet they took the chance that they wouldn't have enough explosives to do the job right.
And that's the 15 minute mark.
egh, I'm sure the majority of this needs some referencing or clarification. Regardless, I've had my fill for this setting. More statements to come unless someone else beats me to it.
-----
Building 7 was the farthest bulding away from the twin towers and surprisingly it caught fire while buildings that took large chunks of debris right into them did not. Building 7 was designed to withstand temperatures over 2000 degrees for days if need be. Larry Silverstine admitted that they had to "pull it down" because there was nothing that could be done. A building in Madrid Spain caught fire and burned for two days and people were just waiting for it to collapse but it did not. It takes days to set up a controlled demolition, but they brought down bulding 7 in the afternoon of 9/11. What was in bulding 7? Department of Defence, CIA, Office of Emergency Management, Secret Service, and the City's command bunker. (Overseeing the entire operation), along with other things. In other word, Bulding 7 contained all the evidence.
World Trade center complex engineers reported to have designed the buildings to withstand at least 2 Boeing-757 crash impacts and not collapse.
Listen to this one: CIA's website admits having NORAD training for a drill that involved commercial planes crashing into tall buildings. Guess when this drill was practiced? Coincidentaly, it was on 9/11 on the same exact moments the true events were happening. What did this do? Confuse NORAD to think everything was a drill- delaying them so they could not react as fast. They still had time to stop the last aircraft. No one explains how FOUR airplanes were hijacked within two hours. Now- Bush on the week after 9/11 said he never heard of a plan to crash airliners in the world trade centers. (While NORAD was training for it)
let me know if i missed anything
youre entitled to your opinion, and i to mine.
since when does arab = muslim? muslim = arab?
ive more then 2 sources
Last edited by Mikey; 14th-August-2007 at 13:07.
Fear and Loathing
You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Learn the distinction.
Are you familiar with what "!=" means? It means "does NOT equal" or "is NOT equivalent".
I've noticed, but when two decidedly dodgy sources make up a significant chunk of your "argument", your credibility suffers by a similar amount.
no, sorry, i over looked it
ive 10+ sources
you question 2 and automatically toss out the rest?
ETA: also gonna point out that im not raymond or anybody else in this thread
and that link he put up isnt a good source
i still recommend sitting down with a bowl of popcorn and watching mine
Last edited by Danny0990; 14th-August-2007 at 03:59.
Fear and Loathing
No, I toss out the parts that aren't supported. It just happens that somewhere between 1/3rd to 1/2 of your sources simply cannot be taken at face value and I have no way of knowing which sources are intended to support which points since you didn't record which sourves are for which claims.
In future, you might want to footnote your cites, so that everyone knows right away which articles are intended to support which points.
let me know what youre unclear on and ill be happy to help you dig
and thank you for the advice, i know that site is one huge clusterfuck but we did our best trying to keep the page organized with all the information we had
Super Moderator
The iraq situation and the 9/11 conspiracy are mostly separate.
Also, most people accept that the iraq invasion was BS in one way or another. Heck even mainstream news mentions it.
What he was stating was that if they were able to hide 9/11 for so long, why were they not able to stop a handful of people posting videos on the internet. It's not like it'd be hard. A couple people suffer "accidents", problem solved. CIA, black helicopters, etc.
Also it kinda calls into question how good the US is at hiding stuff. They can't secretly plant a couple nukes in Iraq yet we're supposed to beleive they pulled of a gigantic scam and yet a couple guys with a couple night courses in physics under their belt can somehow bust the whole thing wide open? Hard to swallow.
-------
Quote:
Allright then. Explain the existence of us Non-US people who don't watch US news, don't like the government much (US or non-US, I'm not overly fond of either), understand the science and still don't buy your conspiracy theory.
-------
Raymond2007's claim was that the reason we called BS on 9/11 was due to us being suckered by mainstream media and liking the US government, yet people not from the US who aren't exposed to US media still don't buy the conspiracy theories. Hypnos was asking him to explain how these people can exist if the only reason anyone believes CNN and the government media machine is because they're suckers who'll buy anything the government spoon feeds them. He wasn't exactly being nice about people who disagreed with him...what doesnt add up?
And Larry is connected to an American/Afghani government conspiracy.... how?Larry Silverstine, two months before the attack, bought the whole world trade center complex and took out a record insurance policy on them for 3.5 billion dollars which he has now been payed. He then bought the SEARS tower, another big terrorist target.
Getting a little ahead of ourselves aren't we?that and we needed a reason to go to iraq so they put fear into americans to support america
bush also stated there were WMD's in iraq. there were never any WMD's.
If they wanted Iraq, why not make the terrorists Iraqi? What did they have to gain from Afghanistan?
Oh, and faulty intel and a BS reason for war is in no way relevant or similar to a conspiracy to kill thousands of american citizens. Yes, people stll die in war and so on, but they're military or civilians of someone else's country. It'd be a much smaller PR nightmare were a missle or two to blow a couple buildings in Baghdad to crap due to the US government. It just seems way too high risk for the US government to have actually done 9/11. Sure, they had reasons, but what they stood to lose far outweighs what they could've gained, at least from where I'm sitting.
Really?the towers were not only designed to hold an aircraft, but also to hold a fire for a few days before collapsing
No no no, Northwood is a declassified document from the 1960's that talks about CREATING THE ILLUSION of US civilians being harmed by cubans. It was all supposed to be staged and fake. Nobody really died. 'cept soldiers and cubans in the ensuing battles.Operation Northwood is a de-classified document from the 1960's that talks about harming U.S. civilians and blaming it on the Cubans as a pretext to go to war with Cuba. (Sound familiar? Harm civilians by bringing down towers. Blame it on the Arabs. Invade Middle-East.)
Ever lit a fire on an elevated platform? Stuff nearby doesn't get the embers, stuff at a distance does. That's how a fire spreads. Even if it was a conspiracy, then there was no real loss of life at that building, as the fire was smaller and started later. Sure, you could argue that it was because those people were government agents. But I could also claim it was because the situation was less serious there, and that the fire was not connected to any big conspiracy, just a couple flaming chunks hitting it.Building 7 was the farthest bulding away from the twin towers and surprisingly it caught fire while buildings that took large chunks of debris right into them did not. Building 7 was designed to withstand temperatures over 2000 degrees for days if need be. Larry Silverstine admitted that they had to "pull it down" because there was nothing that could be done.
A building in Madrid Spain caught fire and burned for two days and people were just waiting for it to collapse but it did not. It takes days to set up a controlled demolition, but they brought down bulding 7 in the afternoon of 9/11. What was in bulding 7? Department of Defence, CIA, Office of Emergency Management, Secret Service, and the City's command bunker. (Overseeing the entire operation), along with other things. In other word, Bulding 7 contained all the evidence.
The building in madrid didn't get hit with an exploding airliner, did it? Different situation, different results. The building could've also been more recent and smaller. Unless it was AN EXACT REPLICA of the WTC, built AT THE SAME TIME, suffering the same WEAR AND TEAR, and subjected to an IDENTICAL CRASH, it's not a controlled experiment, and therefore there's no reason to believe that a building in madrid not collapsing means a building in NYC shouldn't have collapsed.
EDIT- Also, the building in madrid (if it's the one I'm thinking of) was a "towering inferno". Big open fire. Big flames. But the thing is, the heat had somewhere to escape to and the building was constructed of materials that burned readily. When that plane entered the side of the building, a bunch of fuel and crap spilled all over the place and the various materials and furniture went up. The fires were contained to certain areas. And if we are to believe the statements that the towers are built of crap that doesn't burn, is it not hard to beleive that for that period of time those buildings were smoking the fires were trapped to certain areas? Now picture what that plane did to the side of the building, tore open some walls, maybe kinked a couple girders? Alright, you now have fire trapped to a small area, burning at, according to cosmic, "250 - 1000 C" (this is, of course, not taking into account the materials inside the building, and merely the jet fuel) for, let's say, a half hour. All that heat had to go somewhere, right? but the hole was only so big, the stairwells and vents were only so big. So what are you left with? A big ass oven several dozen stories up. On exposed steel. Probably bent exposed steel. Thing about bent steel is that it doesn't distribute weight right. As any blacksmith will tell you, warm steel and a shitload of weight is a good recipe for bendin'. Toss in the fact that there may have been bends put in by the impact and explosion, and you notice that the weight wasn't distrubuted the way it was supposed to be. So a couple girders give way. And that causes some of the other ones to take too much weight. They give. Now you have a smoking crater. All of this is entirely theorhetical and bullshit taken from my basic understanding of heat, engineering, and shit, but it seems solid enough for me. Need an idea of what this is getting at? Find an oven. Crank it up, toss in some food, give it a half hour. It'll cook. Take the top off, crank it up, it'll take you a lot longer to get the same results, if you get it at all. You're losing heat. Now this is far from a great theory or a well explained deal, but it kind of explains (in my mind anyway) how a big freaking fire may generate less heat over an area than a smaller, more contained burn. Or maybe I just had a few too many and need a refresher course in "how shit burns 101"
Oh, and I'd like to see the video of a big boom at WTC7. Also, "pulling it down" just as easily calls up a mental image of a bulldozer tearing the joint down. Didn't have to be a bomb.
No, they built it to take Boeing 707's. All info I've found on it said it was designed to take only one, but I'll let you have your "it could take 2". Also, the 757 didn't exist when the towers were built. so I don't see how they could've built to prepare for a non existant plane.World Trade center complex engineers reported to have designed the buildings to withstand at least 2 Boeing-757 crash impacts and not collapse.
And your reference for this is...?Listen to this one: CIA's website admits having NORAD training for a drill that involved commercial planes crashing into tall buildings. Guess when this drill was practiced? Coincidentaly, it was on 9/11 on the same exact moments the true events were happening. What did this do? Confuse NORAD to think everything was a drill- delaying them so they could not react as fast. They still had time to stop the last aircraft. No one explains how FOUR airplanes were hijacked within two hours. Now- Bush on the week after 9/11 said he never heard of a plan to crash airliners in the world trade centers. (While NORAD was training for it)
EDIT- By which I mean show me this on the CIA website.
Last edited by Raype; 14th-August-2007 at 05:09. Reason: Activate, editing boredom mode!
ipod videos maker
danny0990 double posted i dont think that should go unpunished.
edit: are you doing some project or something because you really seem to want to prove your point (which is weak) why did you sign up to this forum? was it really just to push this 9/11 thing? if you are so desperate for answers or for someone to argue with why not find a forum dedicated to solving the 9/11 mystery. you haven't posted anywhere else you already said you weren't coming back to this thread. everything you give us as "proof" is either 10 pages long or a three hour movie no one will read/watch and are about as coherent as a kindergarten report on global warming. stop being so horny to argue.
Last edited by skakidd; 14th-August-2007 at 05:18.
===
QUOTE
And Larry is connected to an American/Afghani government conspiracy.... how?
===
they used larry to carry out their plans
====
QUOTE
No no no, Northwood is a declassified document from the 1960's that talks about CREATING THE ILLUSION of US civilians being harmed by cubans. It was all supposed to be staged and fake. Nobody really died. 'cept soldiers and cubans in the ensuing battles.
====
either way you slice it, it was meant to deceive
======
QUOTE
Ever lit a fire on an elevated platform? Stuff nearby doesn't get the embers, stuff at a distance does. That's how a fire spreads. Even if it was a conspiracy, then there was no real loss of life at that building, as the fire was smaller and started later. Sure, you could argue that it was because those people were government agents. But I could also claim it was because the situation was less serious there, and that the fire was not connected to any big conspiracy, just a couple flaming chunks hitting it.
The building in madrid didn't get hit with an exploding airliner, did it? Different situation, different results. The building could've also been more recent and smaller. Unless it was AN EXACT REPLICA of the WTC, built AT THE SAME TIME, suffering the same WEAR AND TEAR, and subjected to an IDENTICAL CRASH, it's not a controlled experiment, and therefore there's no reason to believe that a building in madrid not collapsing means a building in NYC shouldn't have collapsed.
Oh, and I'd like to see the video of a big boom at WTC7. Also, "pulling it down" just as easily calls up a mental image of a bulldozer tearing the joint down. Didn't have to be a bomb.
======
youre comparing building 7 with the WTC, although the WTC's claim to not have been fire tested (doesnt mean the insulation wasnt installed), building 7 DEFINITELY was.
there is no big boom like you see in the movies, however there were recordings of firefighters that were inside the WTC saying they heard loud explosions. ever see how the WTC collapsed? rather neatly, yes? and the debri afterwards was scrapped A.S.A.P
Bush went on live TV saying building 7 burned down with the towers but the owner said building 7 had been pulled. id say they contradict each other, yeah? (video proof is available)
====
QUOTE
And your reference for this is...?
=====
my friend pulled that information out, but im gonna go out on a limb here and say...the cia website...lol?
=====
QUOTE
Getting a little ahead of ourselves aren't we?
If they wanted Iraq, why not make the terrorists Iraqi? What did they have to gain from Afghanistan?
Oh, and faulty intel and a BS reason for war is in no way relevant or similar to a conspiracy to kill thousands of american citizens. Yes, people stll die in war and so on, but they're military or civilians of someone else's country. It'd be a much smaller PR nightmare were a missle or two to blow a couple buildings in Baghdad to crap due to the US government. It just seems way too high risk for the US government to have actually done 9/11. Sure, they had reasons, but what they stood to lose far outweighs what they could've gained, at least from where I'm sitting.
======
The government claimed that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was picked up in ground zero by a police officer. (The passport survived the impact fell out of the guy's jacket passed through the smoke and explosions and fires gushing out and landed scratchless on the ground.) For six months they reported they had this passport. It turned out the guy was alive in Morroco and then the government claimed it was a mistake and the passport story dissapeared.
you'd be suprised at what the upper ups will do just to carry out their own agenda
ipod videos maker
wow you were offline like three seconds ago and then you come back and post this gem... were you prepairing it in notepad?
i got logged out while typing my response, duh.
====
QUOTE
edit: are you doing some project or something because you really seem to want to prove your point (which is weak) why did you sign up to this forum? was it really just to push this 9/11 thing? if you are so desperate for answers or for someone to argue with why not find a forum dedicated to solving the 9/11 mystery. you haven't posted anywhere else you already said you weren't coming back to this thread. everything you give us as "proof" is either 10 pages long or a three hour movie no one will read/watch and are about as coherent as a kindergarten report on global warming. stop being so horny to argue.
====
yeah, actually, i was getting some roms today for the kids and this thread caught my eye on the main page, so i took it upon myself to register. maybe your brain can't take 10pages or a 3hour documentary (im a boring person, i watch many), but others can. if this theory is true or not (i believe it is, farfetched as it seems, it all adds ups) it really doesnt matter to me, i get a hard on discussing it. i actually plan on enlisting in the military when i graduate. anyway, im off to bed now.
night
Dan the Dentist
Last edited by Danny0990; 14th-August-2007 at 05:35.
ipod videos maker
so danny why did you join an emulation forum to force your ideas and opinions on a bunch of gamers?
wait a fuck your first post was dirka dirka you crazy motherfucker who are you?
i see you viewing this thread what are you typing? hurry up im going to bed.
Last edited by skakidd; 14th-August-2007 at 05:31.
Super Moderator
How so? He was just some billionaire. Why would the government risk it? The way I see it, they had a shitload at stake. Why risk it by approaching some billionaire?
Oh hey, my. Larry sir, we'd like to kill a couple thousand new yorkers with some bombs in your building. It'll make you money. You in?
It's not like they could've just went up to him on the streets, they must've had some reason to beleive he'd want to be in on it, and I can't find anything linking him to either the US or the afghanis.
Barring secret societies of course. But then we can use imaginary links to tie everyone to everyone. WWII was staged. How? Churchill and Hitler were both Templars. Yup, I read it on the interwebs.
What? Politicians lie? UNHEARD OFeither way you slice it, it was meant to deceive
We're not talking about lies, we're talking murder. Not even the same league.
Ah, my mistake.youre comparing building 7 with the WTC, although the WTC's claim to not have been fire tested (doesnt mean the insulation wasnt installed), building 7 DEFINITELY was.
Have some FEMA
If you want a summary, the fireproofing was only rated for about 4 hours max.
How about a big boom like you see at OTHER demo sites? I was referring to IRL demos and such. The ones with the nice flashes, the loud thudding bangs, then the loud sudden wham of buildings slamming into the ground.there is no big boom like you see in the movies, however there were recordings of firefighters that were inside the WTC saying they heard loud explosions. ever see how the WTC collapsed? rather neatly, yes? and the debri afterwards was scrapped A.S.A.P
Oh, and as I pointed out earlier, they "heard" explosions. They "heard" bangs. What's to say that wasn't the sound of metal tearing apart, the separate tanks in the 767 catching, some computers exploding, or some other source? Where there's smoke there may be fire, but where there's a boom, there's not always an explosion.
What's to say it wasn't pulled down to prevent a fire spread? From what the official statements said, the building was empty and the structure was unsound. It could've been dropped to prevent more buildings from catching.Bush went on live TV saying building 7 burned down with the towers but the owner said building 7 had been pulled. id say they contradict each other, yeah? (video proof is available)
Nobody died when WTC7 fell, so they can lie all they want, it doesn't mean crap to me, nor does it show the US government is capable of murdering it's own people in a staged terrorist attack.
Yeah, I noticed that. I was trying to say link me to it. My bad.my friend pulled that information out, but im gonna go out on a limb here and say...the cia website...lol?
Which again proves that the US was guilty of faking a reason for going after Iraq. IIRC that passport story started well after 9/11.The government claimed that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was picked up in ground zero by a police officer. (The passport survived the impact fell out of the guy's jacket passed through the smoke and explosions and fires gushing out and landed scratchless on the ground.) For six months they reported they had this passport. It turned out the guy was alive in Morroco and then the government claimed it was a mistake and the passport story dissapeared.
And I don't believe it was ever widely used by the government.
Whereas they said the hijackers were afghanis since, what, 9/13/01? Probably earlier. I don't recall hearing anything about iraq's supposed involvement with Al-Queda until there were plans to invade iraq being made public.
I'll admit the government isn't exactly a bunch of boy scouts, but mass murders and conspirators? I'm not completely on board for that one.you'd be suprised at what the upper ups will do just to carry out their own agenda
EDIT-
It happens to us alli got logged out while typing my response, duh.
yeah, actually, i was getting some roms today for the kids and this thread caught my eye on the main page, so i took it upon myself to register. maybe your brain can't take 10pages or a 3hour documentary (im a boring person, i watch many), but others can. if this theory is true or not (i believe it is, farfetched as it seems, it all adds ups) it really doesnt matter to me,
I can take them just fine, it's just that most 9/11 documentaries have the same reports, the same claims, the same couple of supposed experts who have doctor in front of their name and therefore we have to buy their theory as to why the towers went boom so bush could grab some oil. Every once in a while there's some new info or some new idea, but it's usually limited to a mini segment within some doc that rehashes the same couple claims.
That's me alright, crazy bizarre off the cup theories that somehow make just enough sense to be believable.
Dude, too much infoi get a hard on discussing it
Last edited by Raype; 14th-August-2007 at 05:44.
Posting Permissions
