IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Loose Change, A video that will change everything you thought about 9/11
CaldMagi
post Nov 29 2005, 04:09 PM
Post #41


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



Why did the WTCs collapse due to fire, where there are dozens of others similiar buildings who hate fires that raged for way more hours, spread over way more storeys, and didn't collapse? Was the WTC really that badly engineered?


--------------------
QUOTE(psychø)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mekstizzle
post Nov 29 2005, 04:39 PM
Post #42


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 2-January 05
From: London, England
Member No.: 7,717



What i cant beleive is the tapes taken out of the petrol station...i remember that from some other documentary and this one brings it up again. Seriously, why the hell wont they show the tapes? Until they show those tapes its most certainly a lie.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 29 2005, 07:15 PM
Post #43


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



QUOTE(Mechanicalizzle @ Nov 29 2005, 01:07 PM) [snapback]1011838[/snapback]

What i cant beleive is the tapes taken out of the petrol station...i remember that from some other documentary and this one brings it up again. Seriously, why the hell wont they show the tapes? Until they show those tapes its most certainly a lie.

What’s a lie? That a plane hit the Pentagon? Your telling me that the simple fact that they haven’t released the tapes proves that the story of a plane hitting the Pentagon is now a lie? Riiiggghhht. dry.gif
QUOTE
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

...Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Read that page. You don’t need a security camera to prove it was a plane which hit the building.


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Nov 29 2005, 07:44 PM
Post #44


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Out of interest how many similar fires have there been in office blocks worldwide? I can olny recall the one in spain, but i seem to remember that tower was smaller and the fire was nearly at the top. I'd hazard a guess and say that you can't compare any other tower fires to these WTC fires. There are no other fire involving jet fuel, and there are no other towers where a jumbo jet has blown a huge hole in the outer wall (in the case of the WTC, the outer wall gave them most of their strength).
I seriously doubt anyone who claims that the fires were not to blame and compare this incident to any other tower fires. There has never been anything like this, and there's no way of realistically knowing how the towers were going to behave in such circumstances.
Using comparisons is never goingto prove anything, and models using physics equations are no better. How can you seriously expect to have a good idea of how a 100+ story building will react to a plane impact and fire in its upper floors? You have nothing to go on, and no way of really knowing how the structure reacted.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mekstizzle
post Nov 29 2005, 08:16 PM
Post #45


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 2-January 05
From: London, England
Member No.: 7,717



All i'm saying is that if they want people to shut up about the Pentagon. Show the tapes. Then i'll make a solid judgement.

This post has been edited by Mechanicalizzle: Nov 29 2005, 08:17 PM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Nov 29 2005, 08:39 PM
Post #46


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Yeah i suppose you are right there. I've never seen a photo or video of an actual plane hit the Pentagon. So i can't be certain that's what happened.
But a lot of witnesses (as in anyone on the freeway, Rt 395 next to it!) saw a plane hit that building, so i guess that they can't all be lying can they?
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GTA_PlAyA_728
post Nov 29 2005, 08:40 PM
Post #47


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 3-August 04
From: Chicago
Member No.: 269



Ok so what if they took the tapes and wont show it? They had a video of the plane hitting the pentagon from outside the pentagon. It showed like 10 frames of the plane hitting it.

Plus the fact that after they stoped the fire at the pentagon, they DID find evidence of the plane. They found the blackbox, some wheels, and scrap metal from the plane. They have tons of pictures to prove their was a plane in that building.

About the towers... Consider this.. When u take a plane going 500 Mph and hit it into a building, theirs a big chance that it will explode. The 2 planes that hit the towers werent even up in the air for more then an hour, they had plenty of fuel in them that could ignite.

When they create a building, i think they spray most of the building (inside the walls) with unflammable material so that fires would be harder to start. When the planes hit the towers, it blew out all that material which made it easier for everything to catch on fire quicker. Also, a hit like that couldeve caused the bolts from the skeleton of the building to break off from the vibration.


And heres something to think about.. WHY WOULD THE US LIE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED?! What do they have to keep secret? They found the terrorists journals stateing their plans for that day. A whole procedure on what they were going to do. And even after it all happened, they admitted that it was them that did it.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Nov 29 2005, 08:51 PM
Post #48


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



You have a few good points there.
If it was the US government (which i seriously doubt) then why did Al Qaida not deny it was them? Would they really want the blame, knowing what the resulting "revenge" from the US would bring?

If it wasn't the terrorists we all think it was, then it would have to be some huge international organisation, one so secretive we don't know it exists, and one with huge wealth and resources. No government could pull this sort of thing off and hope to cover it up. To think otherwise is just madness.


On the subject of the Pentagon, can anyone explain how the Googlemap of the area is so inacurate? Look at the pic i've posted, Route 110 to the east of the Pentagon is mapped as going in a big curve. Yet it clearly doesn't follow that path in real life, you can see it clearly. There's several other roads marked on the map that don't actually seem to exist on the ground as well, the one cutting across the green rectangle east of the pentagon.
Seems a bit odd to have such errors on a new map program.


This post has been edited by Lord Steve0: Nov 29 2005, 09:01 PM
Attached File(s)
Attached File  odd_roads_at_Pentagon.JPG ( 157.52K ) Number of downloads: 41
 
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Nov 29 2005, 09:29 PM
Post #49


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Online maps make all kinds of mistakes. For example Google seems to think that my house is about two blocked down the street, where no houses exist. sleep.gif


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Nov 29 2005, 09:36 PM
Post #50


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 29 2005, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1011817[/snapback]

Why did the WTCs collapse due to fire, where there are dozens of others similiar buildings who hate fires that raged for way more hours, spread over way more storeys, and didn't collapse? Was the WTC really that badly engineered?



they werent started with jet fuel, which enabled the fire to quickly overwelm the 5 floors. In addition, their were 25 stories of building on TOP of where the plain crahsed, theirs a lot more weight and a lot more stress.

ANd which other 110 story buildings caught fire?


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Nov 30 2005, 05:55 AM
Post #51


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.


--------------------
QUOTE(psychø)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Nov 30 2005, 02:18 PM
Post #52


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



what building over 80 stories caught fire, with jet fuel being a major propellant?

BESIDES THAT, Im gonna keep saying it until someone on the other side of this debate gives us an answer

YOU DONT NEED TO REACH THE MELTING POINT OF STEAL OF STEAL TO BECOME STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND. ALL THE DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT GOT UP TO THE MELTING POINT OF STEEL IS STUPID< ALL IT HAD TO DO WAS GET up to where there was enough heat to allow the steel to flex more than it should.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GTA_PlAyA_728
post Nov 30 2005, 10:49 PM
Post #53


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 3-August 04
From: Chicago
Member No.: 269



QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]

I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.


I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird rolleyes.gif Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 1 2005, 09:03 PM
Post #54


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Some of the video claims it was a planned demolition. Can i just say that even if it was, and you set the bombs in the perfect places ot take the towers down, the second the planes hit it doesn't mater where the hell the bombs were! The blast fromthe planes will mess up the structure, meaning your planned demolition won't work any more, the plane exploding has altered how the building will fall.

If you wanted to take the towers down then bombs at ground level, or in the car park would do the job perfectly (see the failed attempt in 1992/3? by Al Quaeda). You don't need the planes. I fail to see why anyone would use planes if you have an easier means availible to you.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Dec 1 2005, 10:23 PM
Post #55


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



You dont need to get the melting point of steal for steal to become structurally unsound.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattay
post Dec 1 2005, 10:34 PM
Post #56


Do Boy
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 82
Joined: 14-July 05
From: New Hampsha
Member No.: 19,171
PSN Name: PM me



QUOTE(OPX)

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

You do know, that everything that the Government says to its people about these things, like these conspiracies, is utter bullshit.

I don't believe one thing the Government told me about 9/11. I do believe that the U.S. Government had something to do with it. Either they set it up (I highly doubt), or they let it happened. I don't hate the Government or anything, but I just wish they would tell us the real truth once in a while.




--------------------


click my sig for a good time.
Thanks to D-O for the sig
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 2 2005, 08:32 PM
Post #57


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



I could maybe believe the government let it happen, but i doubt they'd set it up.
They could have known about it and let it all happen, and then know they could use it as an excuse to get a few wars going.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Un-Amurikan Bast...
post Dec 3 2005, 12:37 AM
Post #58


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-July 05
From: I try to be directly above the center of the earth
Member No.: 17,310



I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Nov 30 2005, 05:17 PM) [snapback]1013225[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]

I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.


I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird rolleyes.gif Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...


--------------------

QUOTE(Styx)
Dancin' on a landmine baby one leg left, I can still crawl and I'm not dead yet. You better get a bigger gun, I'm not dead yet.


QUOTE(K. M. Munshi)
Have a scripture to recite, but make your own path.

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GTA_PlAyA_728
post Dec 3 2005, 02:44 AM
Post #59


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 3-August 04
From: Chicago
Member No.: 269



QUOTE(Un-Amärakin Bastard @ Dec 3 2005, 02:05 AM) [snapback]1015949[/snapback]

I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Nov 30 2005, 05:17 PM) [snapback]1013225[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]

I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.


I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird rolleyes.gif Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...



1.) I saw 1/4 of the front of the plane inside that building in the frame that showed the flash. Thats how I saw it.

2.) Its pretty much obvious that what they THOUGHT was a bomb could have just been an explosion by something else. Their is 1 in 1000 chance it couldeve been a bomb. They check for weapons before you enter a building especially if you look middle eastern because of the 1993 bombing in the WTC.

When the people that escaped the WTC were talked to on News stations, they said the lower half of the building was malfunctioning because of the plane hitting it. So it was not only the top floors that were messed up. Thats why it most likely couldent have been a bomb, and was something that malfunctioned on the lower floors. Do i have absolute truth that it wasent a bomb? No, but i did list the facts that make the odds of it being a bomb slim to none. And so what if a firefighter from the outside heard it? Do you think only a bomb is loud enough to be heard from outside that tower? rolleyes.gif

4.) I didnt say the WEIGHT of the plane had anything to do with the WAY it calapsed. I said the weight of the plane was one of the reasons why it DID calapse. And the hole wasent only on one side of the tower. It blew out holes on every side. You think a plane hitting a tower at 500 MPH would cause only one hole on one side of the tower? rolleyes.gif

And the hole doesnt even matter. This is a pic of the South tower:
IPB Image
The floors above the hit from the plane tiped over to its left because those floors were detatched from the lower part of the building, BECAUSE OF THE 4 BIG HOLES, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. The floors below the hit from the plane went down straight because they were all attached to each other perfectly and they pancaked onto each other.

Now, the North tower went down straight like a planned demolition. since the plane hit the north tower near the last floor, their are no floors on top of that to calapse on its side. so those floors fell ontop of the floors below it causeing it to AGAIN pancake ontop of each other. Because all those floors didnt have any problems with its structure.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Un-Amurikan Bast...
post Dec 3 2005, 05:33 AM
Post #60


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 1-July 05
From: I try to be directly above the center of the earth
Member No.: 17,310



QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Dec 2 2005, 09:12 PM) [snapback]1016192[/snapback]

QUOTE(Un-Amärakin Bastard @ Dec 3 2005, 02:05 AM) [snapback]1015949[/snapback]

I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.

QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Nov 30 2005, 05:17 PM) [snapback]1013225[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]

I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.

Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.


I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.

Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..

1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.

2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.

3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.

4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..

They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.

And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.

They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird rolleyes.gif Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.

(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)

1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...

2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside of the building heard them too.

3) Nothing wrong here...

4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.

Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.

I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...

I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...



1.) I saw 1/4 of the front of the plane inside that building in the frame that showed the flash. Thats how I saw it.

2.) Its pretty much obvious that what they THOUGHT was a bomb could have just been an explosion by something else. Their is 1 in 1000 chance it couldeve been a bomb. They check for weapons before you enter a building especially if you look middle eastern because of the 1993 bombing in the WTC.

When the people that escaped the WTC were talked to on News stations, they said the lower half of the building was malfunctioning because of the plane hitting it. So it was not only the top floors that were messed up. Thats why it most likely couldent have been a bomb, and was something that malfunctioned on the lower floors. Do i have absolute truth that it wasent a bomb? No, but i did list the facts that make the odds of it being a bomb slim to none. And so what if a firefighter from the outside heard it? Do you think only a bomb is loud enough to be heard from outside that tower? rolleyes.gif

4.) I didnt say the WEIGHT of the plane had anything to do with the WAY it calapsed. I said the weight of the plane was one of the reasons why it DID calapse. And the hole wasent only on one side of the tower. It blew out holes on every side. You think a plane hitting a tower at 500 MPH would cause only one hole on one side of the tower? rolleyes.gif

And the hole doesnt even matter. This is a pic of the South tower:
IPB Image
The floors above the hit from the plane tiped over to its left because those floors were detatched from the lower part of the building, BECAUSE OF THE 4 BIG HOLES, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. The floors below the hit from the plane went down straight because they were all attached to each other perfectly and they pancaked onto each other.

Now, the North tower went down straight like a planned demolition. since the plane hit the north tower near the last floor, their are no floors on top of that to calapse on its side. so those floors fell ontop of the floors below it causeing it to AGAIN pancake ontop of each other. Because all those floors didnt have any problems with its structure.

1) Ok, I thought it was clear (they even zoomed in used a shading circle to show you) that the plane had not entered the building yet when that flash occured.

2) I know what they THOUGHT was a bomb was probably other stuff (if you could be arsed to finish reading my post, you'd know that).

3) You seem to not be understanding that I am against the conspiracy theory (even though the official explanation [terrorists] is technically a conspiracy theory) and do not believe there were bombs involved (again, if you read the post you would know that dry.gif), but I am correcting you because you are not putting up correct/sufficient evidence to support that side of the argument. I didn't say you could only hear a bomb from outside of the building, I was referring to your explanation of people in the building being able to hear the explosions because everything in the buildings were physically connected by wires and shafts and such, and if that was the only reason they heard them, the firemen wouldn't've heard them...just because the people heard the explosions and not saw them doesn't mean they didn't happen, because people in and out of the buildings heard them, and they don't just up and lie...

4) I know it blew out all 4 sides, but that was mostly flaming jet fuel, and not actually 400mph worth of jet liner plowing through the steel supports. So, if the plane plowed into one side, and flaming jet fuel shot out the other sides, the other sides are as equally damaged as the side the plane hit? I don't think so...nonetheless, the tower you pictured fell over proving my point about it falling over because of the extensive damage to ONE side compared the LESSER DAMAGE TO THE OTHER SIDES. And I agree about the other tower, because the plane hit so near the top of the building it couldn't really tip over...



--------------------

QUOTE(Styx)
Dancin' on a landmine baby one leg left, I can still crawl and I'm not dead yet. You better get a bigger gun, I'm not dead yet.


QUOTE(K. M. Munshi)
Have a scripture to recite, but make your own path.

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th October 2014 - 07:23 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4