9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Make no Sense
Created on: August 21st, 2006
Some 9/11 conspiracy theorist being crazy.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.76) | 58 | 3 | 90 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3,987 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 49 | https://www.bing.com |
| 7 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | https://7ooo.ru/ |
| 3 | http://7ooo.ru/forum/ |
| 3 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
Actually you're wrong foxy. Mr. Silverstein has never commented on the quote. His publicist made a 3 minute statement back in 2003 saying that he meant to "pull" the other firefighters out of the building. "Pulling" firefighters from a building isn't used by anyone in the firefighting field. However, Mr. Silverstein is deep into construction and real estate. He is extremely familiar with terms such as "pulling" in a demolition sense.
foxy, you don't need to gut a building, that just cuts down on harmful chemicals that could get into the air. All it would take is around 200 well placed thermate charges to take down the Twin Towers, and even less to take down WTC-7. Also, normally accessed portions of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were closed off in the weeks leading up to 9/11. This included stairwells, service passages, and so on and so forth.
WTC 7: Damaged by falling debris from tower 2, starting fires on the 4-9 floors, also blowing off the fire proofing. Diesel fuel from the emergency generator, also damaged from the debris, provided fuel for a blaze lasting 8 hours...in a severely damaged building. It's a much simpler solution than controlled demolition. Ockham's Razor my friend...
actually foxy, it was already determined by FEMA that the fires never reached the generators, and even if they had, FEMA also concluded that diesel fuel isn't capable of burning at a temperature that could compromise the structure of WTC-7. We in the 9/11 Truth Movement have already ripped that Popular Mechanics article to shreds.
I have actually done my own independent studies, instead of blindly listening to either side. I have talked with numerous "experts" on both sides of the argument, as well as experts in the fields of Physics, Structural Engineering, Fire Proofing, Metal Fatigue, and Controlled Demolitions. My tests have shown that the buildings could hardly support their own roofs after the impact and resulting fires. The south tower was approximately lost approximately 67.24 % of its structural integrity, JUST from....
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1738
There ya go. There is an extremely vast aray of testimonials from the janitorial and maintenance staff that worked at the towers.
Also, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the towers days before 9/11.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/062804ignoredclue.htm
Bomb sniffing dogs were only there because of the prior vague threats issued against the buildings two weeks before hand. When that threat passed the dogs were removed...nothing out of the ordinary.
Btw: What do janitors know about complex demolitions, bombs, and the like? They are not experts and are not reputable sources.
I don't even see a janitor on that site, i see an IT worker who said they upgraded the cabling in the tower the weekend before and that he saw 'engineers'. But don't you need engineers to upgrade cabling? I don't see how this proves demolition anymore than it proves that the 'engineers' were even demolition-related.
Not true. Each building was designed to take ONE hit from a 707 lost in the fog at APPROACH SPPED, after dumping fuel...NOT a 767 at 550 mph, full of fuel.
Straight from the video: "The impact of the explosion from whatever happened" Bombs were never mentioned. And this only shows how confusing this situation was for all involved.
Actually, the buildings were never "designed to take a hit from a 707", it was a scenario proposed back during it's inception. The Towers were over-engineered to never go down. They construction in the towers was a mesh-like construction model. It was engineered thusly so that the Towers could support more than 200% of it's actual load. Losing 60% of it's structural integrity wouldn't have been sufficient to take the buildings down. In addition, most of the jet's fuel exploded outside of the Towers.
Yoo hoo, I posted a video already. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5653955826753385916&q=WTC-7&hl=en
The bombs running up the supports are actually very visible in this video. Also, please take care to watch and see how the roof actually begins collapsing, as the building then falls at perfect free-fall speed to the ground. WTC-7 has even been described as a "work-of-art" by demolition experts.
"The Towers were over-engineered to never go down" So was the Titanic, I'm sure Jack and Rose would love to hear that.
Nothing can be over engineered. Any engineer will tell you that it is a constant goal to see how close to 100% they can get. They can never achieve over 100% efficiency.
Furthermore, Why involve planes if the the buildings were wired with explosives (Shouldn't the dogs have found the explosives in the weeks prior) . Simply imploding building with people inside would assure that no
If charges are placed along main supports, as thermate is, then you don't need the charges along every single support in the building. Thermate also explains why there was molten steel for weeks after the towers collapsed, as jet fuel and subsequent fires couldn't describe why the supports of the buildings were so cleanly cut and why the steel became molten for weeks.
9/11 was the pretext for us getting into the Middle East.
We didn't need buildings to be demolished, we needed something to piss off the American people to support an invasion of the Middle East. Zionists in the Middle East are extremely dangerous to America. People are too stupid to understand how dangerous and commited to their beliefs they are. That's why 9/11 had to happen. It was the only way reform in the Middle East could've happened.
"supports of the buildings were so cleanly cut" not the supports that I saw...care to show otherwise.
And are you suggesting that thermite was used...despite the fact that it has NEVER once been used in a controlled demolition in history? Thermite is highly unreliable, and does not provide the necessary reaction to efficiently take down a building.
Also, you clearly understand very little about geo-politics. China currently has the fastest growing economy in the world. They are undergoing sweeping military reform and have promised to produce 2000 new nuclear and biological weapons by 2015. Even more horrifying, it's been predicted that China's GNP could surpass the United States' by 2025.
First you say that taking the buildings down was not the point, now you say that taking down a symbol of America was the point. The buildings by your own admission were a symbol of America...which is it?
Regarding the metal: Most has miniscule fissures which the metal will fail along under extreme strain, like a building falling on top of them...this also heat the metal greatly (Try it by bending a paper clip...it gets hot).
=_= I was saying the buildings didn't need (if I could've put this in italics I would've) to be demolished, as in, a major political figure that everyone loved could've been assasinated or something to that effect. I was trying to say that the whole point was to try and strike at the heart of America.
Planes alone would have done that, so would a straight to the point bombing (Like in 1993), or a complete demolition...so why hit the buildings with a plane AND bring them down? If you could have seen the terror on the faces of New Yorkers that day, you would know that the buildings being hit purposely by planes would have been sufficient.
Actually, the bomb reports came from the bottom of the towers, this would also explain why the buildings fall straight down into themselves and at freefall speed. Falling straight down as a result of pressure would not have allowed the building to fall at free fall speed, it's a scientific impossibility. In addition, metal can't become molten until 1500 degrees farenheight, only thermate, which burns at nearly 3000 degrees could create molten pits like that.
Video evidence clearly shows the point of failure to be approximately at the point of impact.
Bomb reports can easily be dismissed as vaporized jet fuel combusting in the elevator shafts, which had their hermetic seals broken by the impact of the planes. As I said, your only proof of bombs is hearsay and speculation.
To make it look as though those planes brought the Towers down, and not explosives. Planes just can't take down steel structures like the Twin Towers. 1993's bombing wasn't anywhere near the magnitude necessary to bring down the Towers.
As far as China goes, we've come a long way since the USSR. It's much easier to track a country's growth in this day and age. It's also profoundly simplistic to track a country's GNP.
On a final note, most New Yorkers believe there is a government cover-up surrounding
By the way, friction (From bending metal or similar means) alone can build up incredible amounts of heat, enough to melt metal. In the process of failure, plenty of metal would have bent...creating the friction.
Office fires can easily reach 1100 degrees or hotter...which is enough to weaken steel...even structural steel significantly.
...foxy, you can clearly see the North Tower's main antenna collapsing prior to the rest of the building, even FEMA acknowledges that this is true in their report and admit that it's only possible if the building's main structural supports failed first. For them all to simultaneously fail at once without the building tipping, you would need to use demolition explosives. Also, don't give me any crap about the South Tower, the top 30 floors didn't even tip, they are vaporized as the Towers collapse.
Friction heat only lasts minutes in large steel beams. 1100 again though is not enough to cause steel to become molten for more than three weeks after the collapse of the Towers.
You're misquoting the Zogby poll and misrepresenting the info. It's 49.3% of New York City citizens believe that our leaders knew about 9/11 in advance. 41% of all of New Yorkers period believe it overall. This poll of course wasn't split down the middle. There was the third option of "unsure".
4 for the truth. BTW, otacon, davinci, etc, you miss the big picture. You imply that the United States government is a dictatorial killing bueacracy. Then how come you conspriacy theorists are still alive? If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't the United States governement want to kill you because they worry that their plan has been leaked? Well, so far, no news of any deaths to anyone in the 9/11 "Truth" movement or the shut down of 911truth.org or the taking off of those videos from Google Video.
Ho-ho-holy crap you're all a bunch of raving nutters. ATTENTION, ATTENTION, PEOPLE OF EARTH. WE LANDED ON THE MOON, JFK WAS SHOT BY ONE SHOOTER, THERE WAS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY, AND XENU WILL SOMEDAY DESTROY US ALL. 'Truth Movement'? How the hell can you idiots figure out how to breathe in the morning? Jesus.
You theorists are idiots. People like you ruin America by coming up with these stupid stories and sh*t. BTW, Loose Change was an awful movie, and everyone with half a brain knows it was bull. This is why the world laughs at crazies like you. When you have a South Park episode where the storyline is set around parodying and making fun of idiots just like you, you should know something is wrong.
Honestly, I get this stuff all the time on youtube. I mean, people trying to sound like they know what they're talking about, but they're just saying things and going "how is that possible?"... like this. If anything, I'm gonna ignore a lot of stuff, and ask about the towers... if it was a 'masked demolition', then why didn't they just blow the place up and say "terrorists bombed the place"? I mean, it would have worked...
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link