You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: September 11 2001
Are you serious? How exactly do you know what a commercial jet would or wouldn't do when it crashes into a steel skyscraper? Based on all the studies of times this has happened in history?
Planes hit both buildings. People saw it. Private video exists capturing it. The gov't isn't capable of faking it; if they were, there would have been plenty of WMD in Iraq. The gov't isn't capable of covering a conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, all the "evidence" you've supplied has been doctored to appear to support a theory that nothing supports so people like you would believe it. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because there is one shred of proof or common sense that says you're right. That's okay, but stop stating these crazy things as though they are facts.
Yeah, this is getting crazy. I honesty never knew of this conspiracy theory that the planes didn't exist. That is pushing the limits. But, like Buzz said, people are going to believe what they want to believe. Nobody's opinions are being swayed in the slightest with any of this "evidence".
This has been entertaining, to say the least.
Re: September 11 2001
Intercourse wrote:The planes didn't bring the buildings down. The fuel fires weakened badly fire proofed steel girders which buckled and the buildings own huge size and weight brought it down upon itself.
I work in the design of highrise bldgs and yes this essentially what happened imo....will elaborate later
so yeah crash didn't knock bldg down, not by itself anyway...raging fire and poor fire stopping and fire protection of the structure...eventually the fire just destroys the integrity of the concrete or steel or whatever it may be
in building codes they have fire resistance ratings where the building is supposed to be able to withstand fire for a predetermined length of time say 2 hours in a building that large...long enough to evacuate the building, after which time things begin to fail, not sure when the trade towers were designed but anything prior to the 1970's had minimal rules...its really only since 1990 (or maybe the mid 80's) that things really began to get regulated at least in in Ontario, Canada
in the case of this building in particular a middle floor (or floors structural integrity was compromised by a huge heavy fast moving object destroying presumably a large section of the structure...that coupled with the fire caused the floor or floors to eventually collapse...and the impact of those floors hitting the floor below basically caused a pancake effect knocking the building straight down...one floor at a time, since this bldg was all office use it likely had little to no fire separations over any one floor plate
sure it did look like a demo team was on site to strategically take the building down with explosives...but also 1000's of tons of weight crashing down all at once i'm sure will cause bad things to happen to the most well designed bldg 
in the end, like buzz said, people are gonna wanna believe what they wanna believe
this is my opinion of what happened
Re: September 11 2001
I skipped these pages, but someone thinks the planes didn't exist?
ROFL!!!!!
Conspiracy theories can be quite rude and offensive to people that lived through these disasters. Disasters so major it's perhaps hard to accept the fact that *this* and *this* happened. I took offense when someone put up a silly conspiracy theory on 22/7. It's sore topics.
Anyway, I don't get why someone haven't put up a 9/11 theory putting aliens into the frame as collebarators or responsible. At least it would contain spaceships.
And I love spacehips.
Re: September 11 2001
polluxlm wrote:And yes, where are all the amateur footage? Surely there must have been more than 5 guys with cameras around New York harbour in 2001. Yet those videos are all we have, and they're all inconsistent and fake. Whatever real footage exists probably got snatched by the authorities when however had them turned them in for a buck or whatever.
I've seen a lot of amateur footage, and it looks quite the same as the stuff that was broadcast on the news. There was an entire 2 hour program put together that consisted of nothing but amateur video, and reaction in real time. It was the most compelling and haunting footage and reaction that I've seen from any of the 9/11 stuff, and I think I've seen it all. I forget the name of it, but it definitely exists.
I seen that mate, was on the History Channel, it was compelling stuff alright.
102 Minutes That Changed America.
Re: September 11 2001
Don't care about any videos or hypotheticals posed from either side in this argument.
All I know is that there were several laws of physics "broken" that day and I don't believe for a second that the official story is true.
Three steel structures don't pancake collapse from fire and passenger jets don't fly 10 feet above the ground at 500 mph before crashing into the abandoned wing of the Pentagon.
The official story is ridiculous and anyone who believes it happened that way is naive.
Re: September 11 2001
Don't care about any videos or hypotheticals posed from either side in this argument.
All I know is that there were several laws of physics "broken" that day and I don't believe for a second that the official story is true.
Three steel structures don't pancake collapse from fire and passenger jets don't fly 10 feet above the ground at 500 mph before crashing into the abandoned wing of the Pentagon.
The official story is ridiculous and anyone who believes it happened that way is naive.
Says a person that offers no alternate theories or proof that what happened couldn't have happened. Neemo knows skyscrapers better than any of us, so if he says it's certainly possible that it happened that way, I'll take his word over people offering nothing.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: September 11 2001
I say again...nothing collapsed from the fire alone, the towers collapsed because they were each hit with a 900,000 lbs object travelling around 500km damaging weight bearing support beams. Once part of the building starts to collapse the kinetic energy was around a kiloton of force....and steel does not withstand that.
Meanwhile Building 7 enjoyed not only an uncontrolled fire burning for hours in a building designed well before modern safety standards...but was also likely damaged by god knows what falling from the destruction of the towers, again a kiloton of force, and the additional potential damage to foundational structures in the area from something the size of the towers coming down.
There is no law of physics violated as the link I provided earlier in the thread demonstrates.
Re: September 11 2001
Don't care about any videos or hypotheticals posed from either side in this argument.
All I know is that there were several laws of physics "broken" that day and I don't believe for a second that the official story is true.
Three steel structures don't pancake collapse from fire and passenger jets don't fly 10 feet above the ground at 500 mph before crashing into the abandoned wing of the Pentagon.
The official story is ridiculous and anyone who believes it happened that way is naive.
Says a guy with a moving weed GIF avatar.
Hardly a good start.
