corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: 911 |
 |
|
|
There were explosives in those buildings. OH!!!!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patriot
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
1. There are things that are flamable in every building, to call them explosives is ignorant. I highly doubt they had highly concentrated "explosives" in the building itself. If there was, where is the proof.
2. The planes were full of fuel, therefor there was no need for further explosives to bring down the towers. They were flawed to begin with. The structural damage does not show that exploded outward but was actually crushed by its own wheight.
3. If there were explosives, and the planes flew into the correct floor and just happened to ignite the said explosives, the towers would have exploded and shrapnel would have flown further than it did.
Show me facts, structure and physical facts that there were. Until then, this is a conspiracy theory. And I highly doubt any government, even one that you disagree with and think is "evil" would kill its own citizens just to push a political agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
go to google video, type in 9/11 eyewitness, go to about 36 minutes in and watch the collapse. (it is shot at a different angle)
no way in hell it was fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patriot
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jusdeadphunky wrote: | | no way in hell it was fire. |
And yet another educated post. Heh well no, it wasnt just fire, but I think there WERE two planes involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hotelangel
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Location: Greensboro NC
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
While I do believe that parts of the government may have been involved in the attack, I don't believe that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.
The reason that the collapse of the twin towers was originally associated with a controlled demolition is because thats the only way the we have seen tall buildings fall before. If you actually watch the footage in comparison to an actual controlled demolition, they are nothing alike.
The towers colllapsed from the point of impact, and that would have required not only the perpetrators knowing the exact spot that the planes would hit, but for the buildings to be rigged in such a manner that the fire would not set off the explosives, but the explosives would have had to have been placed where the plane chrashed to ensure that the collapse would begin at the impact zone. This defies all logic and reason.
If there were ANY structural engineers or demolition experts that agreed with the CD theory, I might be willing to consider it. Since I am neither, I will have to agree with the experts over a college student, a talk radio host, and a shamed college proffesor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Are you people aware that a third building collapsed in NYC on 9/11?
The animation above is that third building. It is WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
I'll post the free fall speed and the time the building actually collapsed later. The physics around the time all of the buildings collapsed doesn't add up. Meaning, the resistance of even the "pancake theory" of the twin towers doesn't make since when considering the actual times of the collapses.
Regardless, there are more important things to consider when examining 9/11. I'll have time to present more later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hotelangel
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Location: Greensboro NC
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| corey michael wrote: | Are you people aware that a third building collapsed in NYC on 9/11?
The animation above is that third building. It is WTC 7. It was not hit by a plane.
I'll post the free fall speed and the time the building actually collapsed later. The physics around the time all of the buildings collapsed doesn't add up. Meaning, the resistance of even the "pancake theory" of the twin towers doesn't make since when considering the actual times of the collapses.
Regardless, there are more important things to consider when examining 9/11. I'll have time to present more later. |
I am aware of the collapse of WTC7. I am also aware that it suffered pretty significant damage caused from the collapse of the twin towers.
Why would they demolish building 7? The argument I hear most often is that it was the control center for the twin towers demolition. If thats true, then where was the control center for wtc7's demolition? Why would they risk evidence being found in the rubble, instead of simply taking it away and destroying it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patriot
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Like I always say, show me some hard proof, or else this is just a cute little bedtime story you tell your friends about our "evil" government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Patriot wrote: | | Like I always say, show me some hard proof, or else this is just a cute little bedtime story you tell your friends about our "evil" government. |
First of all, I don't tell my friends shit about the government. I reserve that strictly for you lucky people.
I really have no interest in persuading anyone about anything. At this point, people are going to believe whatever they have been told to believe. You can look at the physics arguments if you would like.
I'm just hear to learn a thing or two from you smart people. Of course, I will share my 2 cents at will.
Security was infiltrated and either insiders covered up the infiltration or the infiltration is being kept from the public in order to prevent acknowledgment of how vulnerable and incompetent our defenses were. Either way, those buildings were not brought down by the planes alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| P.S. If you can't look at the collapse of WTC 7 and realize that all 47 support columns collapsed simultaneously and the low likelihood that fires could ever do that, then I've got some of saddam's nookular boms to sell you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnycade
Newbie
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This might seen uneducated, but I found this on my friend's myspace, and it pretty much sums up my thoughts.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hotelangel wrote: | While I do believe that parts of the government may have been involved in the attack, I don't believe that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.
The reason that the collapse of the twin towers was originally associated with a controlled demolition is because thats the only way the we have seen tall buildings fall before. If you actually watch the footage in comparison to an actual controlled demolition, they are nothing alike.
The towers colllapsed from the point of impact, and that would have required not only the perpetrators knowing the exact spot that the planes would hit, but for the buildings to be rigged in such a manner that the fire would not set off the explosives, but the explosives would have had to have been placed where the plane chrashed to ensure that the collapse would begin at the impact zone. This defies all logic and reason.
If there were ANY structural engineers or demolition experts that agreed with the CD theory, I might be willing to consider it. Since I am neither, I will have to agree with the experts over a college student, a talk radio host, and a shamed college proffesor. |
they are exactly alike in the way they fell. there is no other way for a building to fall on its own footprint. the towers were exploded and wtc 7 was imploded.
go here and read why indeed did the wtc collapse. it is written by a physics professor and it is scientific and detailed. do you know that the 911 comission did not even look into the possibility of controlled demolition?
http://blog.myspace.com/index......6FC5091997 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHELBY
Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Location: Hartsfield, GA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| How do you guys/girls feel about them making movies about 9/11, i personally think it hasnt been long enough, the victims families havent had enough time to mourn their loss, i also think the government doesnt care to much about the citizens by allowing themovies to already be made, i think their just in it for the money! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SHELBY wrote: | | How do you guys/girls feel about them making movies about 9/11, i personally think it hasnt been long enough, the victims families havent had enough time to mourn their loss, i also think the government doesnt care to much about the citizens by allowing themovies to already be made, i think their just in it for the money! |
I agree. The victims families are still seeking answers. Watch 9/11 Press for Truth. The Jersey Girls, who led the pressure to create the 9/11 Commission, are documented in it. It is exactly the reason why Ann Cunter (sp?) was slandering them. I learned things that I never knew before. It isn't a conspiracy theory movie. It is based on a thorough mainstream media timeline. Best 9/11 movie I've seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corey michael
Not a Newbie
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Gulf Coast USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
