Printable View
Did anyone see what I posted previously??? Please, check out this link, it is LOADED with conspiracy theories. I am not sure if it was an inside job, but I want to know what you guys think of this video. And if it seems bad at first just wait, it has some VERY good points.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9%2F11+justice
i forgot to mention something
you cant really convince a conspiracy theorist that its not a conspiracy because they will just tell you that its all part of the conspiracy
thanks
spiritofthewolf
Saying "It wasn't a conspiracy, because I just know it wasn't!" doesn't realy hold any value. Facts are facts. As I said before, all the little things that make no sense make it look like a conspiracy, because if they had nothing to hide you couldn't really acuse them of anything. In this case you can. Certain theories are stupid, but some are not so stupid and they have proof to back them up.
maybe the terrorist that did 9/11 want us to think our own GOV planned it out and did it themselves, maybe instead of our GOV brainwashing us, maybe the Terrorist are trying to brain wash us instead----OOOOOOO another Conspiracy-----thats how stupid the 9/11 conspiracy BS is, get the hell over it...all you conspiracy theorist are wasting your time, because honestly Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, you actually think we will know the honest to god truth...
Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal... Like i said before, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, we would know by now because someone would have talked...plain and simple, bottom line..its just human nature..like when you tell your friends you had sex with the hottest chick at your school and she told you not to tell anybody about it..well, eventually you cant hold it in any longer and you open your mouth...Thats involving a living breathing single person---9/11 involves thousands of innocent dead people, i dont see how any person could deal with the guilt of killing that many people and keeping it from the nation.....if they can, then they have changed the way human nature works
Is it me or did you not address a single fact in that rant pertaining to any of the events of 911?Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf
So you think someone would have talked only 7 years later? So you think the type of person involved solely for money would have a sudden change of heart and give it all away and go to prison for life?
Wow, thanks for posting this, ive never seen it. It does a very good job covering the most telling facts and in a very short amount of timeQuote:
Originally Posted by LucidMike14
Memeticverb lets see how good you are with math..follow along.. replying to your LITTLE comment about a dude with shit loads of money and all this conspiracy shit..
Ok Memeticverb lets take your example of PAYING PEOPLE OFF to keep their mouths shut about 9/11
White House Workers: 6,366
Supreme Court Workers: Unknown
Pentagon: 28,000
Misc: God knows how many
Ok you take 34,366 plus how many other thousands ,maybe even hundreds of thousands of people/employee's of the GOV or associated with them and you say, ok we are gonna give you each 1 million dollars per year to keep your mouth shut about 9/11
alright lets just do 34,366 times 1 million
34,366 x 1,000,000 = 34,366,000,000,000
your talking 34 billion dollars a year for just those 34,366 people, NOT INCLUDING the people in the supreme court or whoever falls under the MISC category
Now last bit right here.. SINCE 9/11 with the assumption of PAYING PEOPLE OFF
september 11th 2001, now its 2007, so 6 years
34,366,000,000,000 X 6 years= 206,196,000,000,000
That number right above this is the money involved in paying just the 34,366 people SINCE THE EVENTS OF 9/11 (not including everyone that would have to be involved in the Cover up)
So with your Assumption:
Were not talking about just paying one person off, were talking about paying thousands and thousands of people off, and as you can see with that simple math up there, its not even freaking possible to do so...so money and paying people off, is out of the equation....and if you dont think the mathematics is FACT go ahead and try me...Quote:
So you think the type of person involved solely for money would have a sudden change of heart and give it all away and go to prison for life?
spiritofthewolf
That's a good point and really funny, but I wanted to get the record straight by saying that one million is a one with six zeros, not nine. But the number in your point does come out to something in the 34 billions. 34,366,000,000. I used to be a math teacher, so I get myself sucked into numbers every time I see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf
Proceed. :)
People like to bring up that arguement a lot. "How come no one has said anything?" The obvious reply would be, they have, you just dismissed what they said as untrue and went on your way.
Well now that you've mentioned it...Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf
JFK assasination video
Yeah, you're right. No conspiracies. It's all just terrorists and crazy people with weapons. I mean what would people have to gain from 9/11... Lets all just shut up, like someone said in the comments of the vid, at least you're not kissing some kings ass (like the rest of the non free world).
all im saying is that if 9/11 was truly an inside job, the damn conspiracy videos/articles/movies whatever else you wanna place in the category wouldnt change so many freaking times...but instead the so called Conspiracy Theorist come to the conclusion that none of their so called THEORY'S is even possible, so they try to figure out the next best thing...like a missle with wings lol or, a military plane actually flying into the WTC buildings, or best yet, bombs placed inside the WTC buildings to bring them down, but we all know that the buildings colapsed from where the planes hit.....
Everyone debates the fact that the planes fuel couldnt of done anything to the beams in the WTC..The fact is, is that the beams got weakened with all the weight it was supporting then each floor fell ontop of eacother..
If you dont think this is possible about the weakened beams.. Try holding out a bucket of water straight infront of you and see how your arms get weaker and eventually you would have to put them down---or collapse...
anywho, 9/11 wasnt an inside job, bottom line
The problem is that the building has massive steel columns going through the entire building, and the building was designed to be able to take plane crashing into them and still stand. Also building 7 wasn't hit, and hard only very minor fires, yet it collapsed as well. I have yet to see anyone explain how building 7 fell.
As for the theories changing, they don't. Yes some people put out goofball ideas but thats only to distract you from the people that actually do know what they are talking about. If you listen to them, the people who are serious about wanting to find out what happen, always give the same story. Which is that bombs where placed inside the buildings. Which is backed up by people having reported explosions in the buildings before they fell. The fact that there was a lot of work being done on the building ahead of time. And then the huge amount of things which hint at people knowing an attack was going to happen, such as all the high up political people canceling planes trips days before the event.
Of course if your so sure, maybe you can explain to me how building 7 imploded in on itself? It was never hit by anything, theres a ton of videos on it. One side of the building looks totally untouched, and the other side of the building has a few fires going on and then boom, the entire building falls to the ground in a pile of rubble. Nothing left standing.
Forget about everything else for a minute. Explain that, there is a video of the guy owning the building even saying he told them to pull it down! There are steel buildings that burned for entire days and didn't fall. Yet this building, has some fuel splash onto it and 2 floors get caught on fire and the entire building collapses into nothing. I mean just using common sense thats impossible. And building 7 is a wide building too, I mean if half of it collapsed then maybe but the entire thing did, all at once!
Theories aren't changing. It seems so because there are so many of them and because they don't work together to make one.Quote:
Originally Posted by spiritofthewolf
We don't know where the building collapsed. Actually we know that people felt and heard explosions 10 seconds before they collapsed. They even found certain molten metals there which are produced by some X explosive.
9/11 was definately an inside job.
Dude, NO F'N WAY!!! People INSIDE the buildings reported explosions right before they fell? They must have been some crazy-fast text messagers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I've seen the videos a thousand times. The buildings collapse from the floors where the planes hit, and down from there. The top portions fell and crushed every floor underneath them. The whole "jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough" argument is circumstancial. I think the combination of the plane smashing the steel had an effect. Still, it wouldnt have to "melt" the steel. Enough heat weakens metals, and that was probably all it took.
Why would anybody need the towers to fall? It seems like terrorists flying planes into our buildings would be enough to invade a country. Plus, the the country lost a lot of money by loosing the money capital of the world.
WTC 7: News Clips and Video Comparison with Controlled Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n_rR_TBVmg
WTC 7: Video with Opinion from an Demolition Expert, A very nice side-by-side comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
WTC7: Rare fotage taken before WTC7 fell, showing telling signs of the damage it sustained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdGMRYn3Iw
All the evidence I need is Osama confessing to the attacks. What would Bush do, hit up Osama on his Nextel? Chirp Chirp "Osama!! Its 'yo boy Bush!! Hey could you confess to these attacks so we can come fu*k up your organization and jack your oil and make ourselves rich? Thanks, buddy, and HEY!! See ya soon ;)"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Felt and heard explosions, did they? Why didnt the thousand other people that were there hear and feel these explosions? These select, rogue people could just have their own agenda. Could these shock waves have been falling concrete from 1500 feet high? Unless you can PROVE otherwise, i suggest not using absolute words like "definately" an inside job.
Wrong, there are tons of people who all said they heard explosions. It wasn't a few rogue people. There was a lot of them, and many of them where fire fighters and police officers who were at the scene, none of which have any reason to lie about it.
And even if you think the building falling is totally possible, then there is still the question. Why did they collapse the way they did? Everyone says it looks like a controled demolitions. It takes weeks of planning to get buildings to fall like that. There are ton of factors that need to be considered. Yet all 3 buildings(one which wasn't even hit) imploded.
Common sense would tell you, that all three couldn't fall like that. Even one is unlikely. The plane crashed into the side, how come it didn't fall sideways? Your telling me it weakened the metal but only in the center and not the sides? If you ever looked at the plans for the bulding, it has huge steel columns like I said. A far more likely collapse would been having the outside of the building fall off first.
I bet there are a lot of people out there who would do anythinig for money. It would make sense that they made a deal. There is also the "flying Osama family thing", not yet explained. If I was a police officer, I would keep the Osama family and use them against Osama Bin Laden, instead of letting them fly away (when all the other flights were cancelled).Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Explosion stuff. You can search yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
I will use definately untill they show me enough proof to debunk the theories. I will also use definately because they seem to lie about everything, this isn't realy an Iraq debate, but it's somehow connected.
about the WTC 7 building and how it fell without being hit or damaged.. The owner of the WTC 7 building was going to demolish that building anywayz on september 11th despite the terrorist attack on the same day, that is why the WTC 7 building fell and that is why if you watch the video of the WTC 7 building falling you can clearly see the DEMOLITIONS going off...The owner I remember seeing him on the news and talking about it...so yah, the whole "OMG whats up with WTC 7" and why did it fall..that is why, because it got demolished.....
Besides all the videos you all see on the internet about how the WTC was an inside job and all the websites you all look at are all one sided, of course they want you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but do you think that any of the people that have made those video's or statements, along with the professors who have done the same thing and movie actors (charlie sheen or Rosie odonell) Have they yet to go to any of the fire houses that were involved in 9/11 and say "Well im sorry to say, but even though you lost some great men, perhaps your best friend, but 9/11 was an inside job" ???
FUCK NO they havent, because they dont have the fucking balls to do it, they just make up some stupid ass story about how people heard explosions 10 seconds before the buildings started to fall... Now if thats the case, i can disprove that theory right now
1.) If there were so called EXPLOSIONS 10 seconds before the buildings fell, then ALOT, and i mean ALOT of people would have heard it, just not a select few that decide to go on camera in some ONE SIDED video to make a statement they got paid for to say...
2.) if there were so called EXPLOSIONS 10 seconds before the buildings fell, why would it take so long (10 seconds) after the explosions for the buildings to start falling (FROM WHERE THE PLANES HIT) I might add.. Now we have all seen controlled explosions before, mostly taken place in Las Vegas to build another casino after they knock one down... Now when they blow up the buildings, the buildings begin to fall right after the explosion, but in the WTC incident, 10 seconds after the explosions the buildings start to fall??? not only that, but someone would have had to plant the EXPLOSIVES right where the planes hit, cause thats where the building begins to colapse... So the whole "SOMONE PLANTED EXPLOSIVES THEORY" is a bunch of BS... I cant believe you all believe made up one sided videos on a 9/11 conspiracy theory, specially on the internet.. Get some of these pricks on national Television and have them explain straight up an exact plan on how the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory went down from point A to point Z --how did they get explosives into the buildings without anybody noticing it--im sure if someone had noticed, they would have notified authorities---enless the cops are in on the conspiracy too--which then again--thats alot of money to be handing out to thousands and thousands of people asking them to keep their mouths shut.....
so yah, explosives werent planted, im sorry, those video's you see of 9/11 being an inside job have no credibal evidence...they can say what they wanna say but do we have 110 % proof it was an inside job.....nope....
and for those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.....go educate yourself
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-M.../dp/158816635X
i copied this from the link above:
It is absolutely amazing the kind of reviews people will dare to give. As one prior reviewer astutely noticed, many "reviews" were done by people with an agenda to sell who obviously did not read the book. In fact, even before the book was published you had 911 conspiracy folks writing negative assertions about the book before it was even published. This tells you the mindset of such people and the prejudice they have. There is simply no way you can be objective by trying to trash something before you've even read it. But such is the folly of some. And let me say that I am particularly disappointed with Ed Haas, who appears to be just using this forum to promote his conspiracy agenda instead of reviewing the book honestly.
As someone who came to this issue trying to objectively ascertain what the truth is regarding 911, and as a former native New Yorker for over 30 years, I will now try to render an honest review of this book as one who has actually read it and also has verified many of its points from my own research. I will also point out some of the facts which prove that most of the negative reviewers did NOT read the book.
First, let's dispense with the most obvious nonsense arguments. It is a fallacy of logic to argue that because the book was done by folks at Popular Mechanics (PM), which is owned by Hearst Communications, that this automatically dismisses the evidence from the many independent scientists, engineers, physicists, and other experts. This is known as the genetic "consider the source" fallacy. Such reasoning is flawed and is just a way of avoiding the facts presented by PM.
Second, it has not been conclusively proven that the Ben Chertoff who used to be the head of the magazine's research department at PM is in any way related to Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security. Now, according to Ben's mom, Michael MIGHT be a distant cousin (p. 102). Yet conspiracy theorists unwisely take a MIGHT and turn it into a conclusive fact. Nonsense. If that is the case, then I can argue that the Bush administration is using Bush's baked beans to poison us all in a worldwide conspiracy to dominate the world...LOL. And do I even need to point out that people having the same last name does not necessarily mean they must be related. That fallacy is called the non sequitur. But let's move on.
One argument has been made that the people at PM are not scientists and engineers. Fair enough. But that's a red herring designed to divert our attention from the facts. They CONSULTED many scientists and engineers and reported what THEY said. That is the point. But since we are on the topic of "scientists and engineers," perhaps we are to believe that David Ray Griffin, who doesn't have the first degree in relevant scientific or engineering fields, is a credible source of information about what happened on 911? Mr. Griffin has been shown to be an author with an agenda who cannot see that he has been duped by the likes of French author Thierry Meyssan, who "...never visited the United States for his research" (p.59). So the work of Griffin is highly suspect and lacks real credibility.
It is easy for some reviewers to talk big talk about PM committing "straw man fallacies" while committing their own fallacies, but the facts are otherwise. This book is excellent in its presentation of the facts and documentation. The only problem I had is that it didn't use the standard numerical reference techniques most scholarly books use. I would have also liked it if they made it easier to contact the many experts consulted by providing contact information such as email addresses. That way, it would be easier to verify that these experts really said what it is claimed they said.
However, I have found in my research that if you really want to contact someone, all you need is some basic information and you can usually follow-up and make contact. Other than that, the book does a great job of answering (with credible sources from those expert in the relevant fields) most of the major wild 911 "inside job" conspiracy theories.
The book is divided up into 4 major sections: The Planes, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93, with an afterward by James Meiggs, editor-in-chief of PM, 3 appendices (Appendix A: Experts Consulted, Appendix B: World Trade Center Report, Appendix C: Pentagon Building Report), notes and an index. I will now highlight points from each major section:
The Planes:
The book nicely puts the issue in a conspiracy "claim" vs. "fact" format, which makes things easier to follow. Some claim that the 19 "amateur" hijackers with box cutters taking over planes and flying them and hitting "75 percent" of their targets raises a lot of questions. Perhaps. But you don't need to be an expert flyer to crash a big plane into a big building. That's common sense. But "Debunking 911 myths" points out that "The hijacker pilots...may not have been have been highly skilled, but they were not complete amateurs" (p. 4).
Some have tried to argue that there was a "missile" or "pod" underneath the planes that hit the Towers. However, this assumption was based on an inaccurate interpretation of bad photography. "Debunking" consulted Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. His findings? "After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a `pod'...In fact, Greeley confirms the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear" (pp. 9, 10). So, conspiracy theorists have mistaken lighting angles and pixel distortion on digital images for some kind of "pod" or missile.
Another false claim debunked by "Debunking" is the idea that there was a "stand down" order given to the military so that the hijacked planes could reach their targets. "Debunking" catalogs all the confusion on 911 and shows that even though the hijackers had turned off the transponders, fighter planes were ordered to battle stations. But with over 4,000 planes in the air, and an inadequate ATC system, it is not hard to see why intercepts were delayed (pp.14-19). It was also pointed out the NORAD's more sophisticated radar focused outside the continental US for threats, not inward. No need for wild conspiracy theories.
The World Trade Center:
One claim is that the Towers were not brought down by the combination of large planes full of jet fuel slamming into them and the subsequent damage, but they collapsed due to intentially placed bombs or controlled demolition charges.
However, "Debunking" provides evidence from credible independent sources that this was not the case (pp. 28-58). I have personally watched video of authentic controlled demolitions and the Towers and building 7 do NOT precisely match them. In real demo, the puffs of smoke from the charges going off, sometimes called "squibs," always come first and then the building comes down. With WTCs 1,2, 7 the "squibs" show up only AFTER the building begins to collapse. But conspiracy theorists ignore that little fact to their detriment.
Conspiracy theorists are fond of making mention of the work of professor Steven Jones of BYU. It is claimed that he found something in a sample of the WTC rubble which indicates to him that explosives were used. However, the credibility of Mr. Jones is in question on many counts.
First, his own colleagues at BYU, who are civil engineers while he is NOT, do not find his work credible. Second, "Debunking" consulted metallurgy professors (specialists in metals analysis) who "...found flaws with the evidence Jones uses to support his arguments...Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University, said: `The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing ...or show materials that appear to be other than steel'" (p. 41).
Third, what really caught my eye was this info regarding the "thermite" allegedly found by Mr. Jones. "Richard Furehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says that Jones does not provide adequate evidence to show that thermite reactions did take place...even if they did, that would not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. THE THERMITE REACTION COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH ALUMINUM METAL AND ANY OXIDE THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEAR IT (p. 42, emphasis added.). So, a thermite reaction can take place in other ways. Interesting that we don't hear that from the conspiracy folks.
And finally, "Debunking" provides more information from various experts showing that Mr. Jones' work is "naïve and unscientific" (as Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT personally told me in a private email), but space won't permit me to go into further detail.
When it comes to building 7, most conspiracy theorists always mention the words of Larry Silverstein on a nationally televised show using the words "pull it." These words are interpreted to mean that Silverstein was admitting he told a "fire commander" (note not a demolition specialist) to "pull it" (misread to mean demolish building 7). However, "Debunking" points out from 4 different demolition experts that "pull it" is "not slang for controlled demolition" (p. 57). Even after Silverstein clarified his words, saying that his concern was to "pull" the squadron of firefighters from the building, conspiracy theorists still cling to their misinterpretation and misapplication of Silverstein's words. What's more, with all the fuss over the collapse of Towers 1, 2 and building 7, people forget that other buildings and structures either fully or partially collapsed that day (such as the St. Nicholas Church, the North Bridge - wonder if Silverstein owns those too, or if demolition charges were placed in those too).
And yes, despite false claims to the contrary, "Debunking" did address in detail the Empire State Building and the B-25 that crashed into it and listed the vital differences between that incident and the collapse of the Towers (pp. 29-32).
The Pentagon:
One conspiracy theory about the Pentagon, circulated mainly by a French writer who never visited the United States, is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Some say it was a missile (although no credible witnesses say they saw one) and other say it was a "Global Hawk" (a smaller, unmanned plane, although no one saw that either and no GH parts were found).
Pentagon Video - Some people argue that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then the security camera should clearly show it. Yet "Debunking" points out that the Philips LTC 1261 camera filmed at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling at about 780 feet per second. Now, anyone who knows anything about photography can understand what that means; you will not get a clear image of a plane (p. 61).
Small Debris - Although most conspiracy theorists claim that the debris of the Pentagon was too little to be from flight 77, they also do not investigate the fact that most airplane crashes do NOT leave great remains. "Debunking" gives several examples of this fact. So this does not prove flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Intact Windows - Now the idea that regular windows could remain intact after a commercial jet hits a building would seem rather incredible, but not when you know all the facts. "Debunking" explains that the Pentagon windows were blast resistant and weighed "1,600" pounds each (p. 71). Wow! My first reaction was `What the heck kind of window weighs that much?' It seems they wanted them to withstand a powerful missile or bomb. But these were not household windows, and therefore any conspiracy argument from intact windows after the plane crash appear to be based on ignorance.
Flight 93:
"Debunking" deals a death blow to the main conspiracy theories surrounding this flight. Instead of the flight crashing due to the heroics of the brave passengers, the flight is said to have either been shot down by an F16 or a mysterious white jet. But the facts show that the Army Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre lied on the Alex Jones show about knowing the pilot who allegedly shot down flight 93. Mr. Grand-Pre also lied about contacting General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time (pp. 77-80).
"Debunking" also proves, from a credible source, that the white jet that was seen around the wreckage of flight 93 was not a military plane but "a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation" (p. 82).
Cell phones - Conspiracy theorists are fond of saying that all those calls were somehow faked because cell phones can't work above 8,000 feet. However, "Debunking" proves from cell phone company sources that this is not true: "While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001...because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet...says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA - The Wireless Association" (pp. 83,84).
When it comes to the small amount of wreckage found at the flight 93 crash site, "Debunking" also documents, from experts in air crash analysis, the fact that most plane crashes routinely leave little wreckage (pp. 86-90). The problem, then, is that while conspiracy believers ask many questions, they seem to rarely find credible answers from proper authorities.
So despite what you hear from some fake reviewers of the book, the book does address most of the wild conspiracy claims they tried to say the book did not address (which shows they didn't read the book).
In conclusion, it seems to me that the fake reviews by people with an agenda to push shows the dishonesty and disingenuousness of those in the 911 conspiracy movement. The facts show from this book, and other sources available online, that if the "official story" has holes in it the size of a "hundred pound block of Swiss cheese" (as one reviewer opined), then that goes hundreds of times more for these wild "inside job" theories which have no credible, factual support.
I applaud the people at PM for doing a fine job of putting together a masterful work disproving these nonsensical theories that ultimately dishonor the memory of the lives we lost on 911 and their surviving families. Remember, Remember, the FACTS about the 11th of September...because the Master Himself said it best: "and you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).
If I remember correctly, the explosions weren't at the plane, but at the base of the WTC.
I don't understand how many people you want interviewed about the explosions...
All the stuff you posted from the book are the same as the videos on the internet. I don't know why I bother to argue here anyway. It's just like one of those religion discussions. I don't know if the facts I read are true or not, but I don't really want to make a living as a conspiracy theorist. I'll read something and treat it as truthfull. If it's not, then I'm really sorry. Unless you got all your information yourself, by researching all the stuff instead of just reading it, then you're no closer to the truth than I am. I don't really need to prove any explosions or whatever. For me the small facts and all the lies are enough to convince me, that you don't really need to wait for terrorists to give you a reason for starting a war. Who said you need to plant explosives, you just pay someone to drive a plane into a building and there you have it. Can't you eaven admit a small possibility that it was all planned out?
Nice try, Spiritofthewolf.
At least you admit that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. But this means the official government story is a lie since they have vehemently denied this fact.
The twin towers, as already pointed out, collapsed symmetrically, straight down, into the path of greatest resistance, at a rate of about 6-10 floors per second. If this is what you expect from a failure in a support column, or even several somehow failing simultaneously, then you should recheck your logic.
As soon as the affected steel gave way, all the weight shifted to the other beams, causing them to give way. You claim "simple physics" prove a conspiracy. Do you really believe the highest levels of government would let construction-illiterate people like ouselves have that kind of proof. Since the WTC towers had never been hit by a plane before, there is no ground to say what "should" have happened
Why would Osama confess to such an act? He got SCREWED. Al Quaeda got SCREWED. How could he benefit from that? Osama bin Laden was also an educated constructionist. He knew about construction, and about how to bring down construction.
Wrong wrong wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
I try not to get involved as much as possible but this one just bugs the crap out of me
If you see in any close-up video, the top section actually fell at an angle. Of course the rest fell in a straight line after being pummeled by the top section, but it was hardly perfect. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NejV8cE3wc
Comparing WTC7 to a controlled demolition is also a bit annoying - Sure they post videos showing how similar they are, but where are the videos of buildings taken down in a non-controlled manner to show how different they are? They've got really nothing to compare it to. I'm not completely dismissing WTC7 as an inside job however using logic like that is simply useless.
Actually if you ever seen a building getting blown up like that, there is always a delay. Its not 10 seconds, but there is a delay. Thats because of inertia, and that the fact that the supports are not blown away but cut by the explosions. Also the fact that not all the supports are blown at once, because they are trying to control the way it falls.
The fire fighters themself were among the most quoted as having heard explosions in the buildings. And yes I have seen them being interviewed about this topic before.