Printable View
Not right off-hand. Just thought I'd ask. I see that it has more to do with the scope and breadth of the media, than the actual event? I mean I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, the Hiroshima bomb and things of that nature - more along the size of the event than on the buzz about it. I see what you mean, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, there are probably a lot of events that would kick 9/11's ass if they happened in the age of big media. Imagine how the internet and 24 hour news networks would handle the British invasion or the Civil War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Quote:
Yeah, it's the talk going on just like it would be, isn't it? And OH NO, I am losing in a poll in a forum dominated by Bush haters? You got me on that one. I guess Dream Views Extended Discussion polls are the true measure of reality.
That's wonderful. Maybe a cheesy music video from the 80's would have been an even more on-point response to what I said, like in the old days (a few months ago).Quote:
Originally Posted by Amerika
Death to Amerika
I'm canadian and I personally beleive it was an inside job, but I don't beleive that they put bombs in the building and all this random crap.
Maybe they wanted a reason to get into the middle east for oil and stuff. I think Bin Laden is made up by the americans
Who is the actor playing him? Who is running "Al Qaeda" in Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by theSheep
Probably Elvis, you know how his clones get around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Universal Mind, it's nice to know that there is at least one rational thinker here. I haven't been following this thread the whole time, so my bad if this has already been used.
"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. "
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
It was obviously a false flag operation. I don't think it went as far as doing the job, but U.S.A allowed it to happen.
This is the shit you aspect from a conservationist government.
Do you mean "expect" from a "conservative" government? An "aspect" is a component of a situation, and a "conservationist" is a person who pushes to save natural resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Why was it "obviously a false flag operation"?
This settles it once and for all...
Buckle in for 911 truth...
There have numerous experts debunking the possibility that the fireproofing was disloged in the manner NIST describes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinte
But this is besides the point, since if it was the fires that softened the steel enough to cause failure, and these failures were caused by asymmetrical damage, then why do we see in every video complete symmetry in the collapses? In other words, the buildings collapse perfectly straight down, meaning all the columns would have to have been severed at exactly the same time. It is very hard, if not impossible to imagine this happening from the gradual weakening by fires.
Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but when have you ever seen a controlled demolition start at the top?
Controlled demolitions start at the base of the structure - so anyone that claims it looked like a controlled demolition has never seen one.
I think this was addressed earlier, or in another thread, but thanks for bringing it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
Top Down Controlled Demolition
There is no reason a top-down demolition couldn't have been used.
And then look at WTC7, it doesn't seem to start at the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
Perhaps, but those explosions on the video were very obvious and only included a few floors.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
For the WTC, the collapse started directly below the impace point, so either those planes were guided to the correct floor or they wired every floor.
Yes - this one does look more like a controlled demolition. But is there any physical evidence to support the theory? Any eyewitnesses to the teams of demolition experts that would have been needed to plant the explosions?Quote:
And then look at WTC7, it doesn't seem to start at the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
Has anyone ever asked a controlled demolition expert what it would take to wire all three buildings? How many teams, how many hours? And then all it would have to be done and leave no physical evidence and no eyewitness to the work.