The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: Rama Set on March 22, 2013, 06:11:28 AM
-
Continued from this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57971.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57971.0.html)
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
I never thought I would say this, but the theory you are putting forth is even less viable than the NASA conspiracy.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
-
Here's my take on it.
I think the buildings were rigged with explosives many weeks to a few months in hand. Just before the explosives were being placed starting from the top down, I think companies already in those buildings were basically told to ship out well in advance. I think the buildings were then stripped of all furniture, carpets, basically everything that was re-usable, then Thermite cutter charges placed in strategic places through out the building to achieve a pancake collapse, which could not happen without explosives anyway.
How did they achieve this without being seen or people being suspicious?
Fairly easy, by using the freight elevators, so trucks are going in, under the building and all the necessary explosives took in and all the furniture took out.
I would imagine there's many people in that area that are still asking questions today about seeing strange movements about that complex but who's going to make any sense of it all before anything has happened, when you consider it's just normal every day movements that they see anyway, at the time.
How can all of this be achieved without involving too many people?
Well, you have to segregate it all, for instance, removal companies will be employed to remove office items and strip the floor under the assumptions of either re possession or simply floor clearance for a new company or revamp, so they maybe are doing an innocent job but now, I'll bet most if not all of them are thinking, " what the hell...we cleared so many floors, I wonder if it was being rigged for demo" and another company's removal men could be thinking the same.
So basically, compartmentalisation is the key in all this. You get 5/10/20 removal companies to innocently clear the building and they just do their job.
They can put two and two together after the event but who's going to listen? do they want to speak out about it, or even, dare they speak out about it, or maybe some have and have been told to button their lips or never work again or worse. I don't know the answer to this, I'm just piecing it all together.
Ok, so there's the building cleared and now the charges are put in place, this time by people that do know what's about to happen, as in, they are paid to rig and blow up the buildings ready for a new complex to be built and anyone who mentions it, will face the consequences, so up to now, nobody knows what the whole plot involves other than what they are told at the time and will have to put two and two together later...but think about this.
Imagine you were a demo expert and you were given that job on the understanding that you get paid handsomely as long as you don't open your mouth, letting on about the demo to anyone, so you agree, as it's your job, the pays excellent and so what, to you , you're just downing some big skyscrapers and clearing a complex for rebuilding of up to date ones.
Many people can be asleep but people are not stupid and can see that there is a lot wrong with this. The problem is, dis info is always put into it as well to get people arguing against each other so most people don't know whether they are batting or bowling.
These set ups might appear amateurish in their making but they are well thought out in advance and contingency plans are always in place to shut those up who are awake to what's going on, that's why you get TV programs made about conspiracy theories and the reason they do this, is to pretend to go along with the conspiracy , yet they totally twist it away from what really happened to what some people think happened and then create the debunking version to really screw you up.
To see past all that, you have to see past the manipulation of the media side steps of issues to ones which they promote, for example, the media will come out with, " conspiracy theorists may have a point in this terrorist attack being known about because they cite NORAD's inability to respond as a proof that they knew what was about to happen."
You see how that throws people off what really happened?
You see, this gives the full mindset to planes being really hijacked and NORAD let it happen, so your mind cannot comprehend the building being controlled demolition, as planes obviously did it and you know this happened because you saw those planes hit the building didn't you? On TV.
On TV.
Let me explain something to you.
Hollow Aluminium planes, do not melt into buildings like that, with nose, fuselage, wing tips, tail fins, in fact, everything pieces of it melting into a steel framed skyscraper as well as through floors and leaving a cartoon hole of it's shape in the building.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
And this is why Sceptimatic's belief is so inane and for those who suffered most in this tragedy, offensive. Each person touches lets say 100 lives, that is 300,000 people who would have to in on it, including Saddam now?
Is this really what you are arguing Sceptimatic? You cannot be bothered to go out and speak to widows yourself but instead tell us, "Thats what I believe love me or hate me, I believe what I believe." This is not enlightened behavior, this is not scepticism, and it is not the standpoint of someone who has an open mind. It is insensitive and possibly even sociopathic to have such disregard for others.
I request that this thread be locked as I am no longer interested in having this conversation continue.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Blow me.
-
Here's my take on it.
I think the buildings were rigged with explosives many weeks to a few months in hand. Just before the explosives were being placed starting from the top down, I think companies already in those buildings were basically told to ship out well in advance. I think the buildings were then stripped of all furniture, carpets, basically everything that was re-usable, then Thermite cutter charges placed in strategic places through out the building to achieve a pancake collapse, which could not happen without explosives anyway.
How did they achieve this without being seen or people being suspicious?
Fairly easy, by using the freight elevators, so trucks are going in, under the building and all the necessary explosives took in and all the furniture took out.
I would imagine there's many people in that area that are still asking questions today about seeing strange movements about that complex but who's going to make any sense of it all before anything has happened, when you consider it's just normal every day movements that they see anyway, at the time.
How can all of this be achieved without involving too many people?
Well, you have to segregate it all, for instance, removal companies will be employed to remove office items and strip the floor under the assumptions of either re possession or simply floor clearance for a new company or revamp, so they maybe are doing an innocent job but now, I'll bet most if not all of them are thinking, " what the hell...we cleared so many floors, I wonder if it was being rigged for demo" and another company's removal men could be thinking the same.
So basically, compartmentalisation is the key in all this. You get 5/10/20 removal companies to innocently clear the building and they just do their job.
They can put two and two together after the event but who's going to listen? do they want to speak out about it, or even, dare they speak out about it, or maybe some have and have been told to button their lips or never work again or worse. I don't know the answer to this, I'm just piecing it all together.
Ok, so there's the building cleared and now the charges are put in place, this time by people that do know what's about to happen, as in, they are paid to rig and blow up the buildings ready for a new complex to be built and anyone who mentions it, will face the consequences, so up to now, nobody knows what the whole plot involves other than what they are told at the time and will have to put two and two together later...but think about this.
Imagine you were a demo expert and you were given that job on the understanding that you get paid handsomely as long as you don't open your mouth, letting on about the demo to anyone, so you agree, as it's your job, the pays excellent and so what, to you , you're just downing some big skyscrapers and clearing a complex for rebuilding of up to date ones.
Many people can be asleep but people are not stupid and can see that there is a lot wrong with this. The problem is, dis info is always put into it as well to get people arguing against each other so most people don't know whether they are batting or bowling.
These set ups might appear amateurish in their making but they are well thought out in advance and contingency plans are always in place to shut those up who are awake to what's going on, that's why you get TV programs made about conspiracy theories and the reason they do this, is to pretend to go along with the conspiracy , yet they totally twist it away from what really happened to what some people think happened and then create the debunking version to really screw you up.
To see past all that, you have to see past the manipulation of the media side steps of issues to ones which they promote, for example, the media will come out with, " conspiracy theorists may have a point in this terrorist attack being known about because they cite NORAD's inability to respond as a proof that they knew what was about to happen."
You see how that throws people off what really happened?
You see, this gives the full mindset to planes being really hijacked and NORAD let it happen, so your mind cannot comprehend the building being controlled demolition, as planes obviously did it and you know this happened because you saw those planes hit the building didn't you? On TV.
On TV.
Let me explain something to you.
Hollow Aluminium planes, do not melt into buildings like that, with nose, fuselage, wing tips, tail fins, in fact, everything pieces of it melting into a steel framed skyscraper as well as through floors and leaving a cartoon hole of it's shape in the building.
Do you think Saddam is a liar?
-
Well, let's be fair here - I wasn't there when the towers fell, and I didn't personally observe anyone dying. I just saw it on TV, so I guess I'm being duped. ::)
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
And this is why Sceptimatic's belief is so inane and for those who suffered most in this tragedy, offensive. Each person touches lets say 100 lives, that is 300,000 people who would have to in on it, including Saddam now?
Is this really what you are arguing Sceptimatic? You cannot be bothered to go out and speak to widows yourself but instead tell us, "Thats what I believe love me or hate me, I believe what I believe." This is not enlightened behavior, this is not scepticism, and it is not the standpoint of someone who has an open mind. It is insensitive and possibly even sociopathic to have such disregard for others.
I request that this thread be locked as I am no longer interested in having this conversation continue.
My conversation is now over with you, you were told about this, so don't respond to me anymore.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
And this is why Sceptimatic's belief is so inane and for those who suffered most in this tragedy, offensive. Each person touches lets say 100 lives, that is 300,000 people who would have to in on it, including Saddam now?
Is this really what you are arguing Sceptimatic? You cannot be bothered to go out and speak to widows yourself but instead tell us, "Thats what I believe love me or hate me, I believe what I believe." This is not enlightened behavior, this is not scepticism, and it is not the standpoint of someone who has an open mind. It is insensitive and possibly even sociopathic to have such disregard for others.
I request that this thread be locked as I am no longer interested in having this conversation continue.
My conversation is now over with you, you were told about this, so don't respond to me anymore.
You are just avoiding the question I posed about Saddam. You insinuate that someone is a liar and then don't even have the courage to look them in the eye.
-
quite frankly i agree with sadam. FUCK YOU skeptic. i wish upon wish that a news paper or or news channel finds this and finds you and forces you to say that to the famlys of all 3000 people that died in these attacks. in fact i might just link what you are saying it to a few. im sure they can use your IP address to track you down.
-
quite frankly i agree with sadam. FUCK YOU skeptic. i wish upon wish that a news paper or or news channel finds this and finds you and forces you to say that to the famlys of all 3000 people that died in these attacks. in fact i might just link what you are saying it to a few. im sure they can use your IP address to track you down.
I tried to tell people what you are. I think this just proves exactly what you are.
-
I think this topic should go in the rant section.
Remember people: Never question any event on the planet because you always get people who scream foul.
-
I think this topic should go in the rant section.
Remember people: Never question any event on the planet because you always get people who scream foul.
Sceptimatic-Someone on this site, a respected member, has said that they lost someone on 9/11. You basically say they are lying, and now you cannot deal with the consequences? It is time to be an adult and answer for what you have said.
-
I think this topic should go in the rant section.
Remember people: Never question any event on the planet because you always get people who scream foul.
Sceptimatic-Someone on this site, a respected member, has said that they lost someone on 9/11. You basically say they are lying, and now you cannot deal with the consequences? It is time to be an adult and answer for what you have said.
And who was that?
I can deal with anything, don't underestimate.
-
I suppose the families and friends of all the dead are in on the conspiracy as well. GTFO scepti.
-
I definitely think this should be in the rant section where all the girls can rant as much as they want.
-
I think this topic should go in the rant section.
Remember people: Never question any event on the planet because you always get people who scream foul.
Sceptimatic-Someone on this site, a respected member, has said that they lost someone on 9/11. You basically say they are lying, and now you cannot deal with the consequences? It is time to be an adult and answer for what you have said.
And who was that?
I can deal with anything, don't underestimate.
Saddam did. Is he a liar?
-
I think this topic should go in the rant section.
Remember people: Never question any event on the planet because you always get people who scream foul.
Sceptimatic-Someone on this site, a respected member, has said that they lost someone on 9/11. You basically say they are lying, and now you cannot deal with the consequences? It is time to be an adult and answer for what you have said.
And who was that?
I can deal with anything, don't underestimate.
Saddam did. Is he a liar?
I don't see any post where he said that. Would you like to show me.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
It can be locked for all I care. I wasn't the one that put it up, so what's it to me. I'm not the one crying about it, you lot are.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
I will let Saddam speak for himself.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
I will let Saddam speak for himself.
Yes, let Saddam speak for himself eh, that way it might stop you whining like a little girl.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
It can be locked for all I care. I wasn't the one that put it up, so what's it to me. I'm not the one crying about it, you lot are.
Where do you get off on trolling on a subject like this. The stuff about the flat earth and the moon landings where all in good fun, but now your just bieng plain disrespectful.
Just call your ISP and tell them to cut you off cos no body needs to hear your dumb shit. Then go die in a hole.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
I will let Saddam speak for himself.
Yes, let Saddam speak for himself eh, that way it might stop you whining like a little girl.
I am not sure you know what whining means.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
It can be locked for all I care. I wasn't the one that put it up, so what's it to me. I'm not the one crying about it, you lot are.
Where do you get off on trolling on a subject like this. The stuff about the flat earth and the moon landings where all in good fun, but now your just bieng plain disrespectful.
Just call your ISP and tell them to cut you off cos no body needs to hear your dumb shit. Then go die in a hole.
Oh I don't think i was trolling. I think I put a decent theory forward but how was I to know that a bunch of screaming little cry babies where going to wish death and what not on me, instead of having a theory themselves.
I still believe this should be in the rant section, where you can cry yourself to sleep.
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
Use the rant section.
Right there and you already replied to it. Stop being immature.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
I will let Saddam speak for himself.
Yes, let Saddam speak for himself eh, that way it might stop you whining like a little girl.
I am not sure you know what whining means.
Of course I do. You are doing it and the others in this topic. Like a pack of screaming whining kids.
You put up the topic and are now whining. What's the matter with you, you big girls blouse.
-
This thread again? Scepti, what's your stance on the Holocaust?
-
This thread again? Scepti, what's your stance on the Holocaust?
No stance on it whatsoever, I have never studied it, so I cannot comment on it.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
It can be locked for all I care. I wasn't the one that put it up, so what's it to me. I'm not the one crying about it, you lot are.
Where do you get off on trolling on a subject like this. The stuff about the flat earth and the moon landings where all in good fun, but now your just bieng plain disrespectful.
Just call your ISP and tell them to cut you off cos no body needs to hear your dumb shit. Then go die in a hole.
Oh I don't think i was trolling. I think I put a decent theory forward but how was I to know that a bunch of screaming little cry babies where going to wish death and what not on me, instead of having a theory themselves.
I still believe this should be in the rant section, where you can cry yourself to sleep.
Your theory would be decent if it were supported by something outside of your own thoughts. As it stands it is a hypothesis that withers under the slightest scruntiny. You definitely do not understand what whining is. I will add it to the list of topics you display ignorance about.
-
This thread should be locked right now. I don't think we should entertain sceptimatic on this particular line of bullshit.
It can be locked for all I care. I wasn't the one that put it up, so what's it to me. I'm not the one crying about it, you lot are.
Where do you get off on trolling on a subject like this. The stuff about the flat earth and the moon landings where all in good fun, but now your just bieng plain disrespectful.
Just call your ISP and tell them to cut you off cos no body needs to hear your dumb shit. Then go die in a hole.
Oh I don't think i was trolling. I think I put a decent theory forward but how was I to know that a bunch of screaming little cry babies where going to wish death and what not on me, instead of having a theory themselves.
I still believe this should be in the rant section, where you can cry yourself to sleep.
Your theory would be decent if it were supported by something outside of your own thoughts. As it stands it is a hypothesis that withers under the slightest scruntiny. You definitely do not understand what whining is. I will add it to the list of topics you display ignorance about.
It withers under the slightest scrutiny, yet I have seen no scrutiny of it in this thread, just a pack of emotionally unstable people go into hyper mode.
-
Here's my take on it.
I think the buildings were rigged with explosives many weeks to a few months in hand. Just before the explosives were being placed starting from the top down, I think companies already in those buildings were basically told to ship out well in advance.
You have no evidence of this, so who cares?
I think the buildings were then stripped of all furniture, carpets, basically everything that was re-usable, then Thermite cutter charges placed in strategic places through out the building to achieve a pancake collapse, which could not happen without explosives anyway.
No evidence and the link here has a list of pancake collapses, all annotated, and some indeed did not require explosives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse)
How did they achieve this without being seen or people being suspicious?
Fairly easy, by using the freight elevators, so trucks are going in, under the building and all the necessary explosives took in and all the furniture took out.
I would imagine there's many people in that area that are still asking questions today about seeing strange movements about that complex but who's going to make any sense of it all before anything has happened, when you consider it's just normal every day movements that they see anyway, at the time.
Conjecture with no evidence.
How can all of this be achieved without involving too many people?
Well, you have to segregate it all, for instance, removal companies will be employed to remove office items and strip the floor under the assumptions of either re possession or simply floor clearance for a new company or revamp, so they maybe are doing an innocent job but now, I'll bet most if not all of them are thinking, " what the hell...we cleared so many floors, I wonder if it was being rigged for demo" and another company's removal men could be thinking the same.
So basically, compartmentalisation is the key in all this. You get 5/10/20 removal companies to innocently clear the building and they just do their job.
They can put two and two together after the event but who's going to listen? do they want to speak out about it, or even, dare they speak out about it, or maybe some have and have been told to button their lips or never work again or worse. I don't know the answer to this, I'm just piecing it all together.
Your solution to keep this under wraps is to involve as many people as possible, only increasing the risk of exposure? Not very smart. Again, all conjecture with no evidence.
Ok, so there's the building cleared and now the charges are put in place, this time by people that do know what's about to happen, as in, they are paid to rig and blow up the buildings ready for a new complex to be built and anyone who mentions it, will face the consequences, so up to now, nobody knows what the whole plot involves other than what they are told at the time and will have to put two and two together later...but think about this.
Imagine you were a demo expert and you were given that job on the understanding that you get paid handsomely as long as you don't open your mouth, letting on about the demo to anyone, so you agree, as it's your job, the pays excellent and so what, to you , you're just downing some big skyscrapers and clearing a complex for rebuilding of up to date ones.
Conjecture once more.
Many people can be asleep but people are not stupid and can see that there is a lot wrong with this. The problem is, dis info is always put into it as well to get people arguing against each other so most people don't know whether they are batting or bowling.
These set ups might appear amateurish in their making but they are well thought out in advance and contingency plans are always in place to shut those up who are awake to what's going on, that's why you get TV programs made about conspiracy theories and the reason they do this, is to pretend to go along with the conspiracy , yet they totally twist it away from what really happened to what some people think happened and then create the debunking version to really screw you up.
To see past all that, you have to see past the manipulation of the media side steps of issues to ones which they promote, for example, the media will come out with, " conspiracy theorists may have a point in this terrorist attack being known about because they cite NORAD's inability to respond as a proof that they knew what was about to happen."
You see how that throws people off what really happened?
You see, this gives the full mindset to planes being really hijacked and NORAD let it happen, so your mind cannot comprehend the building being controlled demolition, as planes obviously did it and you know this happened because you saw those planes hit the building didn't you? On TV.
On TV.
Let me explain something to you.
Rhetoric that does not address the substance of your theory. You are just using it as an emotional appeal.
Hollow Aluminium planes, do not melt into buildings like that, with nose, fuselage, wing tips, tail fins, in fact, everything pieces of it melting into a steel framed skyscraper as well as through floors and leaving a cartoon hole of it's shape in the building.
No evidence, sounds like something you have been spoonfed.
So there is your analysis. Nothing you have said is substantiated and the one thing you claimed that I can actually check, that pancake collapses cannot happen without explosives, turns out to be eminently wrong.
-
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
-
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
Don't be lazy. On the link I provided there are multiple examples.
-
Google the phrase Steel Pasticity
I know you are not a structural engineer, and generally fail to understand most things that are even slightly technical in nature; but that should help you understand how steel frames can collapse.
Ill give you a starter tip, the steel doesnt melt ;)
-
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
Don't be lazy. On the link I provided there are multiple examples.
Let me try and clarify what I mean.
Steel framed buildings.
-
On February 12, 2005, the 28 story Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building. The tower had a reinforced concrete inner-core surrounded by a traditional webbed steel-frame outer-perimeter. Between floors 16 and 17 was a 7 foot thick, reinforced concrete transfer floor, designed to act as a bulkhead and to support the steel framework of the upper 11 stories. An office fire began on the 21st floor and after 5 hours, the concrete inner-core could no longer support the melting steel outer-framework. The upper 11 stories collapsed down to street level with remnants of the upper 3 floors collapsing down on to the transfer floor. No one was killed. The building was a composite steel-frame and steel-reinforced concrete design.[1
sicko
-
Google the phrase Steel Pasticity
I know you are not a structural engineer, and generally fail to understand most things that are even slightly technical in nature; but that should help you understand how steel frames can collapse.
Ill give you a starter tip, the steel doesnt melt ;)
I'll give you a tip. The twin towers had a steel central core of 47 columns of which steel trusses were attached which spanned to the outer structure wall structure.
If a pancake collapse were to happen, the worst case would be the outer walls collapsing but the inner 47 massive steel columns would be left standing and would not collapse like a pack of cards.
-
you forgetting the big airplane that crashed into the building. do us a favor
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down
until you find a building that matches all these criteria then you have no comparison.
-
The Winsdor tower in Madrid burned for about 18 hours.
The twin towers burned for not much over an hour and only in isolated areas.
The twin towers both collapse into their own basements and the Windsor tower stays strong after 18 hours and the crane on top is still standing to prove it.
Windsor Tower VS World Trade Center (http://#)
-
This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor
-
Building 7 of the complex. Collapse or controlled demolition?
4409 -- (Unseen Footage) Tower 7 blasted into rubble from NEW angle! (http://#)
-
sceptic proved wrong so moves on to world trade center 7.
-
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
Don't be lazy. On the link I provided there are multiple examples.
Let me try and clarify what I mean.
Steel framed buildings.
Don't condescend to me when you are not willing or capable of reading the site I linked you to:
(From the Wikipedia entry on progressive (aka pancake) collapse. The original source is "The Structure of Ronan Point and other Taylor Woodrow-Anglian Buildings", 1985, ISBN 0-85125-342-3)
"On November 1, 1966, the 7 story University of Aberdeen Zoology Department building in Aberdeen, Scotland suffered a total collapse while under construction. The collapse was attributed to poor girder welds that were weakened by metal fatigue. The metal fatigue was induced by oscillating lateral forces on the structure (primarily wind). 5 people were killed and 3 others were injured. The building was a steel-frame design and the first known example of the total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building.[2]" (emphasis my own)
-
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
Don't be lazy. On the link I provided there are multiple examples.
Let me try and clarify what I mean.
Steel framed buildings.
Don't condescend to me when you are not willing or capable of reading the site I linked you to:
(From the Wikipedia entry on progressive (aka pancake) collapse. The original source is "The Structure of Ronan Point and other Taylor Woodrow-Anglian Buildings", 1985, ISBN 0-85125-342-3)
"On November 1, 1966, the 7 story University of Aberdeen Zoology Department building in Aberdeen, Scotland suffered a total collapse while under construction. The collapse was attributed to poor girder welds that were weakened by metal fatigue. The metal fatigue was induced by oscillating lateral forces on the structure (primarily wind). 5 people were killed and 3 others were injured. The building was a steel-frame design and the first known example of the total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building.[2]" (emphasis my own)
Bring something stronger to the table.
-
lol sceptic has no rebuttal.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
-
awww sceptics just ignoring the 28 story building posted in the same link. good old sceptic just ignoring evidence that shows him to be wrong.
28 story Windsor Tower in Madrid
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
-
3 huge steel constructed buildings all collapsing into their own basements, 2 within just under 2 hours and one later in the day, all on the same complex. What are the odds of near perfect collapses of just one, never mind 3?
What are the odds of 4 (four) planes being hijacked on the same morning by terrorists armed with craft knifes and managing to over power and disable the crew of each plane, whilst also disabling tracking on every plane and the terrorists managing to turn the planes around and navigate them into their targets, without any outside help?
Also, what are the odds of all terrorists being identified within days , even though they were supposedly using fake passports.
What are the odds of finding a fully intact passport of one of the supposed hijackers, in the street after the plane he was supposedly flying went into the tower?
What are the odds of a plane melting like butter from nose to tail, into a steel building without one piece of it falling from the supposed impact zone, despite the fact it would have to navigate through the steel grid of the building, plus the floor structure?
That's just a few things to ponder.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
-
What are the odds of a plane melting like butter from nose to tail, into a steel building without one piece of it falling from the supposed impact zone, despite the fact it would have to navigate through the steel grid of the building, plus the floor structure?
lots of pictures of aircraft debris from after the impact literd all over the streets suronding the tiwers. and melting like butter? is that a scientific discription?
http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html (http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html)
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
-
http://wn.com/progressive_collapse_proven_wmv_v9 (http://wn.com/progressive_collapse_proven_wmv_v9)
they even have a video!!!!!! guess what that looks like?
collapsed straight down in on itself just like all 3 world trade center towers, and this one wasn't 110 story tall suffering a massive impact event and hugely destabalising and weakening fires to its steel structure.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
-
On February 12, 2005, the 28 story Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building. The tower had a reinforced concrete inner-core surrounded by a traditional webbed steel-frame outer-perimeter. Between floors 16 and 17 was a 7 foot thick, reinforced concrete transfer floor, designed to act as a bulkhead and to support the steel framework of the upper 11 stories. An office fire began on the 21st floor and after 5 hours, the concrete inner-core could no longer support the melting steel outer-framework. The upper 11 stories collapsed down to street level with remnants of the upper 3 floors collapsing down on to the transfer floor. No one was killed. The building was a composite steel-frame and steel-reinforced concrete design.[1
http://wn.com/progressive_collapse_proven_wmv_v9 (http://wn.com/progressive_collapse_proven_wmv_v9)
they even have a video!!!!!! guess what that looks like?
collapsed straight down in on itself just like all 3 world trade center towers, and this one wasn't 110 story tall suffering a massive impact event and hugely destabalising and weakening fires to its steel structure.
their you go
are you going to move the posts again?
-
Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its strength.
Winds at skyscraper heights cause buildings to sway constantly.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that's collapsed without demolition.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that's collapsed without demolition.
I already showed you, quoted above a building that collapsed without demolition.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that's collapsed without demolition.
I already showed you, quoted above a building that collapsed without demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that has collapsed straight down without the use of demolition.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that's collapsed without demolition.
I already showed you, quoted above a building that collapsed without demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that has collapsed straight down without the use of demolition.
The building mentioned above collapsed in to its own footprint. How long are you going to keep up this charade?
-
sceptimatic's debate tactic: Show me the exact same thing with another building but without me thinking its a conspiracy.
-
You asked for this:
Show me the pancake collapse of any steel framed building, "ever" in the entire world, apart from the 3 that dropped on 9/11.
I did exactly that. There is little else to say. I took up your challenge and firmly answered it with verifiable sources. Your theory is unsubstantiated, conjectural fabrication. Please come back when you have a leg to stand on.
Ok, I'll leave you to smugly claim I'm debunked. Good for you, now I hope this makes you feel better, because earlier on you wanted this topic, "you started" to be locked.
Tell the world about the bad welders of a 7 storey building that you debunked my thoughts with. ;)
Your excuses do not hide the fact that you challenged me to disprove you, I did, you asked for evidence I had already provided, and then as if the ignomy of the situation were not bad enough, told me that the evidence needed to refer to a steel-framed building, which it did in several places. Then, perhaps put of embarrassment for being outed as not even having read the evidence I submitted, who knows for sure, you have the gall to tell me to do better. Very good. I am not claiming you are debunked, it is written down on record for others to judge for themselves. I am going to look in to why Building 7 collapsed because I have always been curious. You can be sure that I will not assume its wrong from the outset and will substantiate any claims I make. I wish you would do the same.
Well get on with it then. Next time show me a steel framed building that suffered a pancake collapse. The operative word is pancake.
You are just embarrassing yourself. Pancake collapse is a colloquialism for a progressive collapse.
Then show me this progressive top to bottom collapse of a steel framed building. Just show me one, apart from the 3 on 9/11.
So desperate you have to move the goal posts. From the same page!
"On December 19, 1985, the 22 story[3] commercial office building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, currently known as the Wedbush Building,[4] experienced a partial collapse of the structure. Construction crews were offloading recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th floor via crane when a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on to the current stockpile below, which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors, finally coming to rest in the parking garage. 3 people were killed. The building was a steel-frame design.[5]"
Show me a steel framed building collapsing without the use of demolition.
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that's collapsed without demolition.
I already showed you, quoted above a building that collapsed without demolition.
Show me a steel framed building that has collapsed straight down without the use of demolition.
The building mentioned above collapsed in to its own footprint. How long are you going to keep up this charade?
Show me the video of the "steel" framed building that collapses without the use of demolition.
-
You are not a structural engineer, so why should any of your warped logic make more sense then those that are trained in structural engineering? Or even an Architect?
Both of those professions know a whole lot more about structural matters than you ever will septic - OR is that all magic too, cos you fail to understand even the simplist matters relating to virtually anything?
-
Sceptimatic, can you show me a video of a jet crashing into a skyscraper that doesn't result in the building collapsing?
-
Sceptimatic, can you show me a video of a jet crashing into a skyscraper that doesn't result in the building collapsing?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.Can you explain yourself.
-
I cannot provide video of the Wedbush building collapse. I am sure there is some sort of visual record out there. Now that you know you are wrong you should find it to be sure. I am going to play with my son.
-
I cannot provide video of the Wedbush building collapse. I am sure there is some sort of visual record out there. Now that you know you are wrong you should find it to be sure. I am going to play with my son.
Ok, fair enough, you cannot find the video.
-
Here is a demolition expert's opinion of WTC7.
Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11 (http://#)
-
I believe the buildings were basically empty. I think is was a perfect psyop that worked in 3 ways, maybe more.
On behalf of those of us who actually lost friends and family on 9/11, fuck you.
names please? if you are telling the truth ..then these people should be on the ssdi
R.I.P those poor 911 vicSIMS
-
From Time magazine "There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "
Sceptimatic is uneasy about the fact that a handful of people could hijack a plane and take down a few buildings. It had to be a huge plan, carried out by tons of people! Life just isn't chaotic and unbalanced like they try and tell us, eh Sceptic? ;D
-
Flat orange:
Life isn't chaotic, it's just made to look that way. A purpose to fit whatever agenda is needed, so use scare tactics, emotion and chaos and a sense of insecurity arises from the majority of people who now believe there's a terrorist waiting to do this, that and the other.
It keeps you in fear and makes you agree to things like wars, paying more tax to up security, allowing your rights to be taken away, all in the name of protection.
The simple fact is, not one plane was hijacked that day, not one.
The world trade centre 1/2 and 7 buildings were controlled demolition, no doubt about it and if you can't see that then I suggest you do a bit of digging.
-
Sceptimatic is uneasy about the fact that a handful of people could hijack a plane and take down a few buildings. It had to be a huge plan, carried out by tons of people! Life just isn't chaotic and unbalanced like they try and tell us, eh Sceptic? ;D
As I recall, there was a fairly sophisticated network of hijackers, some of which needed several months of professional training in order to fly the planes well enough to be able to reach and hit their targets. 9/11 wasn't done on a whim. It took quite a lot of training, planning and coordination.
-
Sceptimatic is uneasy about the fact that a handful of people could hijack a plane and take down a few buildings. It had to be a huge plan, carried out by tons of people! Life just isn't chaotic and unbalanced like they try and tell us, eh Sceptic? ;D
As I recall, there was a fairly sophisticated network of hijackers, some of which needed several months of professional training in order to fly the planes well enough to be able to reach and hit their targets. 9/11 wasn't done on a whim. It took quite a lot of training, planning and coordination.
Okay, I didn't mean... ah never mind...
-
Here is a demolition expert's opinion of WTC7.
Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11 (http://#)
Did you watch the video idiot(flat orange).
-
Here is a demolition expert's opinion of WTC7.
Dutch Controlled Demolition expert 9/11 (http://#)
Did you watch the video idiot(flat orange).
Why would I watch it? And why are you calling me an idiot?
I'm not interested in any stances on either side. I posted a quote on the psychology of conspiracy-believers. I think there is a certain mindset you have to be to grab on to this stuff. Youtube videos are not my idea of researching evidence.
I do think we have a semi-corrupt government but I think all the conspiracy theorists are ignoring real problems because psychologically it's easier to watch youtube videos and come up with explanations on your own than to face what problems we really face today.
-
You seem to believe whatever the brainwashers tell you. You don't seem to be open to new evidence. It feels safer just to keep your eyes closed.
-
Ignore hoppy, he's a half-hearted character troll.
-
Bush said, he was waiting to go into the elementary school when he saw that the plane had hit the tower, he said, obviously the TV was on and he thought, it must be one bad pilot, as he used to fly himself.
The thing is, the first so called plane to hit the towers wasn't shown until the following day when the Naudet brothers released their film of it, as they happened to be doing a documentary on the NY fire fighters on that very day. ::)
-
Guys, 9/11 never actually happened. Like, at all.
-
Guys, 9/11 never actually happened. Like, at all.
The towers actually never existed. The government simply fabricated the footage and tricked everyone into thinking that the buildings were once there
-
It's true. After all, you never saw them, being eleven years old and all. They were supposedly destroyed before you were born! How convenient!
-
Scepi: 9/11 was lie.
Other guy: (insert someone they knew) died OR the fact that THREE THOUSAND other people died.
Scepi: No that doesn't count! I will ignore you if you try to use debate-winning evidence against me!
-
Scepi: 9/11 was lie.
Other guy: (insert someone they knew) died OR the fact that THREE THOUSAND other people died.
Scepi: No that doesn't count! I will ignore you if you try to use debate-winning evidence against me!
Not at all and you know it.
People who are hell bent on sticking rigidly to the official story, always use the emotional aspect to try to kill off the argument.
Any person that thinks 9/11 is unquestionably accurate in how it panned out are either totally comatose or are simply a shill.
There are hundreds of questions about that day and lots of fake footage channelled to us and I'm sure many people have questions about it that they feel aren't adequately answered.
Building 1/2 and 7..controlled demolition.
Hijackers carrying craft knives, over powering 4 planes on the same day and all successful.
Hijackers managing to navigate planes into buildings, blind.
No fighter aircraft scrambled.
Pentagon hit in the only place where renovation work was being undertaken.
All hijackers identified, even though many had fake passports.
Cell phone calls being made which would have been impossible.
There's hundreds of bits about that day but the thing is, there are many dis-info sites that are put out to scramble peoples brains and have them all running up a blind alley, yet they appear to be looking for the truth from an immediate viewpoint, yet are actually diverting away what really happened and putting in an alternative theory just to throw people off the scent.
There's a lot about 9/11 that many people would never contemplate and that's fair enough. It just means that any dis-info given out in future, no matter what it is, will be gratefully gobbled up as the truth by many, simply because they refuse to question anything.
-
Building 1/2 and 7..controlled demolition.
Speculation.
Hijackers carrying craft knives, over powering 4 planes on the same day and all successful.
Rule one of hostage situations: Do what the hostage taker says. Knives can kill and unless everyone jumps the guys at once before they get into the cockpit, it's not going to help. And once they DO get into the cockpit, they control the plane. No amount of fighting or bravery is going to get them to relinquish control without it crashing. So if the hostage takers say "we're flying this plane to Cuba", you do nothing and hope to survive. Otherwise, you won't.
Hijackers managing to navigate planes into buildings, blind.
So the plane had no windows and radar? Or are you suggesting that the hijackers were blind?
No fighter aircraft scrambled.
"I want all fighters scrambled. Shoot down any commercial jet that looks like it'll hit a building".
Yeah, that'll work brilliantly.... ::)
Pentagon hit in the only place where renovation work was being undertaken.
There are 5 sides. 1 side had renovation work being done.(West side) Since the plane they hijacked was heading west originally, the plane would have hit on one of the west facing sides. This makes the most sense since it gives them time to turn the plane around but not enough time for anyone to realize what is going on before they impact.
Also, there's a video.
Plane Hits The Pentagon (http://#)
All hijackers identified, even though many had fake passports.
This isn't overly difficult. You get the names and ID copies of everyone who got a ticket, scan the face image, and see if it comes up on your database. Which it likely did since the men got pilot licenses. Then you just had to cross reference those guys with known accomplices. Done.
Cell phone calls being made which would have been impossible.
False. Of all the evidence you posted, cell phone use on a plane the most possible.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html (http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html)
At 35KM (or 21 miles) of open air, a cell signal can easily be sent and received.
-
Dave, back in 2001 cell phone infrastructure was not like it is today. There was an airline that started advertising a couple of years after 911 that you could use your cell phone high up. It was a new selliing point for them. Dave have listened to some of the cell phone voice recordings from 911, some are so fake it is crazy.
-
Building 1/2 and 7..controlled demolition.
Speculation.Not speculation at all.
Hijackers carrying craft knives, over powering 4 planes on the same day and all successful.
Rule one of hostage situations: Do what the hostage taker says. Knives can kill and unless everyone jumps the guys at once before they get into the cockpit, it's not going to help. And once they DO get into the cockpit, they control the plane. No amount of fighting or bravery is going to get them to relinquish control without it crashing. So if the hostage takers say "we're flying this plane to Cuba", you do nothing and hope to survive. Otherwise, you won't.Pilots are trained and also, some of the pilots were said to be war veterans. If this was the case...no way would terrorists armed with craft knives have been able to over power them in a cramped cockpit, not on 4 planes.
Hijackers managing to navigate planes into buildings, blind.
So the plane had no windows and radar? Or are you suggesting that the hijackers were blind?We are talking about a plane not a car with road signs.
No fighter aircraft scrambled.
"I want all fighters scrambled. Shoot down any commercial jet that looks like it'll hit a building".
Yeah, that'll work brilliantly.... ::)Four planes were supposedly hijacked. When a plane is hijacked in the air there are codes etc and the pilots would have activated those but even so, once radio contact was not answered, fighters would have been scrambled...nothing to do with hitting buildings or the potential of and you know it.
Pentagon hit in the only place where renovation work was being undertaken.
There are 5 sides. 1 side had renovation work being done.(West side) Since the plane they hijacked was heading west originally, the plane would have hit on one of the west facing sides. This makes the most sense since it gives them time to turn the plane around but not enough time for anyone to realize what is going on before they impact.The plane allegedly done a 180 degree turn to supposedly hit the only side getting renovated. And that video is a a waste of space.
Also, there's a video.
Plane Hits The Pentagon (http://#)
All hijackers identified, even though many had fake passports.
This isn't overly difficult. You get the names and ID copies of everyone who got a ticket, scan the face image, and see if it comes up on your database. Which it likely did since the men got pilot licenses. Then you just had to cross reference those guys with known accomplices. Done.Oh give over.
Cell phone calls being made which would have been impossible.
False. Of all the evidence you posted, cell phone use on a plane the most possible.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html (http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html)
At 35KM (or 21 miles) of open air, a cell signal can easily be sent and received. What utter rubbish. It's hard enough getting cell signals on the ground in certain areas where I live, even now.
-
Dave, back in 2001 cell phone infrastructure was not like it is today. There was an airline that started advertising a couple of years after 911 that you could use your cell phone high up. It was a new selliing point for them. Dave have listened to some of the cell phone voice recordings from 911, some are so fake it is crazy.
As long as you have a tower, you can send a microwave signal. The major infrastructure changes occurred to increase towers on the ground since ground to tower is harder than air to tower due to the buildings, hills, trees, people, etc... in the way.
However, it seems that most calls were from Airfones anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone)
Building 1/2 and 7..controlled demolition.
Speculation.
Not speculation at all.
So you are not only an expert demolition but also inspected the building shortly before it fell? Or are you using an appeal to authority to "not speculate"?
Hijackers carrying craft knives, over powering 4 planes on the same day and all successful.
Rule one of hostage situations: Do what the hostage taker says. Knives can kill and unless everyone jumps the guys at once before they get into the cockpit, it's not going to help. And once they DO get into the cockpit, they control the plane. No amount of fighting or bravery is going to get them to relinquish control without it crashing. So if the hostage takers say "we're flying this plane to Cuba", you do nothing and hope to survive. Otherwise, you won't.
Pilots are trained and also, some of the pilots were said to be war veterans. If this was the case...no way would terrorists armed with craft knives have been able to over power them in a cramped cockpit, not on 4 planes.
Yes, they are trained. They are likely trained the same way bank tellers are: Do what the crazy person says so long as he doesn't hurt anyone.
Being a war vet is irrelevant. Let's say there are two men. One has a knife pointed at you and the other is 50 ft behind him with a knife at someone's throat. Please tell me how you would be able to disarm the first man without the second man killing the random person?
Remember, you don't need to over power anyone to take control, you just need a good enough threat.
Hijackers managing to navigate planes into buildings, blind.
So the plane had no windows and radar? Or are you suggesting that the hijackers were blind?
We are talking about a plane not a car with road signs.
The twin towers, being the tallest buildings in NYC at the time, isn't exactly a difficult target to see. And if pilots can see a landing strip (which is always below them BTW) then they can easily make out two tall buildings when they fly at about 5,000 feet.
No fighter aircraft scrambled.
"I want all fighters scrambled. Shoot down any commercial jet that looks like it'll hit a building".
Yeah, that'll work brilliantly.... ::)
Four planes were supposedly hijacked. When a plane is hijacked in the air there are codes etc and the pilots would have activated those but even so, once radio contact was not answered, fighters would have been scrambled...nothing to do with hitting buildings or the potential of and you know it.
Why yes they are. Assuming the pilot talks to air traffic control. However, pre-911, the official response was to wait until the hijackers landed or delivered demands. Neither of these things happened. Scrambling fighters would only serve to antagonize them, risking the lives of hostages.
One does not threaten hostage takers with death if they want the hostages alive.
Pentagon hit in the only place where renovation work was being undertaken.
There are 5 sides. 1 side had renovation work being done.(West side) Since the plane they hijacked was heading west originally, the plane would have hit on one of the west facing sides. This makes the most sense since it gives them time to turn the plane around but not enough time for anyone to realize what is going on before they impact.
The plane allegedly done a 180 degree turn to supposedly hit the only side getting renovated. And that video is a a waste of space.
Yes... it does a 180. Exactly where would you expect them to hijack the plane from? It was close, it was leaving at a time that was compatible with their time table, and a 180 can easily be explained as "We need to return to airport due to a problem" if they had to.
All hijackers identified, even though many had fake passports.
This isn't overly difficult. You get the names and ID copies of everyone who got a ticket, scan the face image, and see if it comes up on your database. Which it likely did since the men got pilot licenses. Then you just had to cross reference those guys with known accomplices. Done.
Oh give over.
... huh? Do you mean give up?
Cell phone calls being made which would have been impossible.
False. Of all the evidence you posted, cell phone use on a plane the most possible.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html (http://www.ehow.com/about_4691675_what-range-cell-phone.html)
At 35KM (or 21 miles) of open air, a cell signal can easily be sent and received.
What utter rubbish. It's hard enough getting cell signals on the ground in certain areas where I live, even now.
Yes. See, there are these things called trees that get in the way. Buildings too.
Air, however, is devoid of these things. There's nothing to block the signal.
Also, they used airfones. Same principal though.
-
Ok Dave, are you telling me that you don't think there is anything odd about 9/11 or are you simply playing devils advocate?
I can accept coincidences and I can accept a small number of them that push the boundaries of being a coincidence...but I do not accept all the things that supposedly happened that day as being anything like coincidence.
-
Ok Dave, are you telling me that you don't think there is anything odd about 9/11 or are you simply playing devils advocate?
I can accept coincidences and I can accept a small number of them that push the boundaries of being a coincidence...but I do not accept all the things that supposedly happened that day as being anything like coincidence.
Do I think that it's possible to hijack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into buildings in one day?
Absolutely. Especially since no one has done it before.
Even post 911, a guy crashed a plane into an IRS building in texas. Are you saying that was a conspiracy too?
-
Ok Dave, are you telling me that you don't think there is anything odd about 9/11 or are you simply playing devils advocate?
I can accept coincidences and I can accept a small number of them that push the boundaries of being a coincidence...but I do not accept all the things that supposedly happened that day as being anything like coincidence.
Do I think that it's possible to hijack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into buildings in one day?
Absolutely. Especially since no one has done it before.
Even post 911, a guy crashed a plane into an IRS building in texas. Are you saying that was a conspiracy too?
I'm not interested in the IRS building.
I'll ask you one last time.
Do you not find anything about 9/11 suspicious in what we were told happened or is it all above board?
-
Ok Dave, are you telling me that you don't think there is anything odd about 9/11 or are you simply playing devils advocate?
I can accept coincidences and I can accept a small number of them that push the boundaries of being a coincidence...but I do not accept all the things that supposedly happened that day as being anything like coincidence.
Do I think that it's possible to hijack 4 planes and crash 3 of them into buildings in one day?
Absolutely. Especially since no one has done it before.
Even post 911, a guy crashed a plane into an IRS building in texas. Are you saying that was a conspiracy too?
I'm not interested in the IRS building.
I'll ask you one last time.
Do you not find anything about 9/11 suspicious in what we were told happened or is it all above board?
The end data? The final historical document? No. Nothing suspicious.
-
This whole argument is very ignorant. If you can really say that the towers were empty on 9/11 then how do you explain the people jumping out of windows. Also if 3000 employees were told not to come to work they would be able to say that the building was empty on the day of the attack. I know there were reasons for the government to want to start a war against the middle east, but I do not believe they would kill innocent people to start a war. I saw the towers fall. I know people who lost loved ones. Really stop calling people liars even when they are telling the full truth. Everyone in New York City can say that this was a real event. People lost their lives and you have the audacity to say it never happened. Damn that is low.
-
I think this guy like to stir up arguments. Even the Dumb ass flat earthers don't believe him. I guess the Gov. likes to make up terrorist attacks and go to war just to cover up taking down a few buildings. And everybody on the ground when the planes hit is just keeping quiet.
-
I think this guy like to stir up arguments. Even the Dumb ass flat earthers don't believe him. I guess the Gov. likes to make up terrorist attacks and go to war just to cover up taking down a few buildings. And everybody on the ground when the planes hit is just keeping quiet.
You so funny and Smart.
-
...Not at all and you know it...
*Sigh* No I don't know it because I'm not a complete idiot who takes any youtube video as gospel, and I actually back up my points.
People who are hell bent on sticking rigidly to the official story, always use the emotional aspect to try to kill off the argument.
NO, it's not emotional. Stop trying to avoid the damn subject. THREE THOUSAND people died that day. There's even a damn memorial with their names. Are you going to ignore that too? These baseless claims are getting really old really quick.
"But man open your eyes and just LOO-"
STFU,
Evidence
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
-
All people who are furiously arguing their point of nothing untoward happening and it all happened how it was said will get no response from me.
Anyone who is interested in working out what was real and what wasn't about that day, I have all the time in the world for.
Anyone using emotion to try to scupper the debate will be blanked and anyone professing to know someone who was right there and saw this and that will also be blanked.
The buildings were empty and were remotely controlled demolition.
The buildings were cleared over time, not just in a few weeks etc.
The buildings were a money loser, full of asbestos and the bill to clear them of it would run into a billion dollars or something like that....they were outdated, a white elephant and companies were vacating in droves.
People always believe that things cannot be done under the noses of the public but it can be done and is always getting done.
There is nothing stopping those buildings being stripped as people are still using them over time and it would be a methodical stripping of various floors that could have been going on for a few years until slowly but surely virtually everything is all but stripped out, right under peoples noses who are flitting about and around the area, none the wiser...and why should they suspect anything, anyway.
On that day, I would imagine that many many people will have seen the buildings explode and many would be wondering just what happened, yet some would have not seen planes, if they happened to be looking up that day, which is not as easy as people seem to think if you are close enough.
So picture the scene.
The building explodes and people are wondering what happened, then a few well planted stogges are on the streets.
1st person: Wow, that building just exploded.
Stooge: No, no, a big plane hit it.
1st person: I didn't see no plane, it just exploded.
Stooge: Oh I saw it, it was a big plane, like a commercial airplane, wow , I can't believe it.
1st person: ( scratching head..."but I didn't see a plane, or anything")...wow are you sure you saw the plane.
Stooge: 100% sure, you couldn't miss it.
Now think of all this happening around New York, with people all scratching their heads and the word spreading like wild fire about planes hitting and then confirmation not much later on the news of a plane hitting the building.
Now it's confirmed...and those people who saw nothing, are now scratching their heads and wondering how they missed it and only the very very strong minded will call foul play on it, yet ridicule can deal with people like this.
If you don't think the masses can be fooled, then you are a fool yourself.
-
Don't forget that the owner of WTC collected big time on the insurance policy. He collected double because there where 2 attacks.
-
Don't forget that the owner of WTC collected big time on the insurance policy. He collected double because there where 2 attacks.
Yep! and remember world trade centre 7... Sliverstein said, " I remember getting a call from the fire department commander saying.......you know...'we might not be able to contain this building' and I said, " we have had such great loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is PULL IT and we made that decision to PULL and then we WATCHED the building COLLAPSE."
-
You're right. I mean, how could anyone miss a plane going into a building. It's not like we can't see through buildings right?
-
You seem to have forgotten that peoples eyes were glued to the towers after the first explosion, and saw a second plane fly right into it...
-
You seem to have forgotten that peoples eyes were glued to the towers after the first explosion, and saw a second plane fly right into it...
How it was portrayed on the news is not how it likely was at the time and many people on the streets at that time would have been sight obscured by the tall buildings all around.
Sure, many would have seen the building explode but they wouldn't have been concentrated on that second tower, so when the second tower explodes, they will have seen it simply just explode until people started saying, "oh it was a plane"...then the news confirms it.
There's some really clever video people on here and photographers I believe, so whoever you are, why don't you take a look at the footage of that day and the pictures given out and you will clearly see it's terribly put together.
-
Nobody really died. Vicsims.
-
SEPTEMBER CLUES - full version (http://#)
06 - What Planes? (http://#)
07 - The Key (http://#)
911 Taboo - No Plane Theory - Ghengis6199 - Breaking The Matrix (http://#)
9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrors (short version) (http://#)
-
911 AMATEUR part1 (http://#)
911 AMATEUR part2 (http://#)
911 AMATEUR part3NEW (http://#)
-
...Not at all and you know it...
*Sigh* No I don't know it because I'm not a complete idiot who takes any youtube video as gospel, and I actually back up my points.
People who are hell bent on sticking rigidly to the official story, always use the emotional aspect to try to kill off the argument.
NO, it's not emotional. Stop trying to avoid the damn subject. THREE THOUSAND people died that day. There's even a damn memorial with their names. Are you going to ignore that too? These baseless claims are getting really old really quick.
"But man open your eyes and just LOO-"
STFU,
Evidence
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
even better than a memorial with just names, cnn and voices of 911 have 'full', though oddly contradictory, memorial sites with a very interesting assemblage of pictures of the 'deceased'.
of the various figures currently claimed as the total number, all are below 3,000, and far below the 12/09/01 20,000++.
does the ability of television to affect your emotions so profoundly concern you?
is the establishment of government and media in your mind a benign, impartial delivery mechanism of balanced information?
or are they altruistic, perhaps?
or something else?
-
Give it up, this building did not collapse due to demolition.
Well how did it collapse?
Because I find it hard to believe it collapsed from the top down.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm)
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm)
The € 1 000 000:- Heiwa Challenges 1 & 2
(seriously proposed and paid for by Anders Björkman, M.Sc.)
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm)
Unless you math guys can show me otherwise..