NAUgrad Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 YOU my friend need to do more research. You also need to have an open mind when doing so. I guarantee a fire did not bring that building down, especially in the manner it collapsed. That building was CLEARLY demo'd, and anyone that thinks otherwise has the mindset of a "cheese grater". Seriously man, you think a FIRE did that? Have you seen these fires from other buildings in which the structure of the building remained standing? http://www.septembercoup.com/gallery_windsor.htm http://www.thebigwobble.com/2010/11/huge-h...nabuilding.html Those are just 2 quick ones I found. There are countless others. Fires dont bring buildings down like that, sorry. Also, the fires in WTC1 and 2 were big, sure, but the fuel from the planes didnt last long. It exploded on impact, and whiule the building burned a while, the fuel was damn near gone on impact. ALSO, the fires in WTC1 and 2 were oxygen starved, hence keeping it from gaining a lot of momentum. So those fies were enough t bring down not 1, not 2, but 3 friggin buildings, yet the other fires I linked werent able to bring down anything despite clearly being MUCH MUCH worse? Yeah ok... Do more research, but with an open mind. Stop thinking our govt wouldnt do this. They dont gve a shhit about you, me, or anyone else. I actually did do some research on the 9/11 stuff. Very compelling argument about bldg 7 and it being demolished. Looks like it actually was. So what. Still doesn't prove that this was planned by the gov't. There are rumors that management called his insurance company to make sure it was covered right before the signal to blow the building was given. Again, so what. Doesn't prove it was done by the gov't. They then go into the theory that thermite was used. And the example was a picture of one support beam to say that this one support beam and the way it "broke" had to be thermite as the building collapsing won't cause support beams to look like that. What? So they are saying that there is on way that one support beam could look like that and therefore had to be thermite? That's a complete stretch. Additionally, if flight 93 was blown up it actually wouldn't surprise me as there was credible evidence that that plane could've gone after the white house or something else just as significant and had to be dealt with immediately. That's very plausible but still doesn't prove that the gov't orchestrated the events. I'll keep digging, but so far I'm not a believer just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seattle LawDawg Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 The phone companies killed JFK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I actually did do some research on the 9/11 stuff. Very compelling argument about bldg 7 and it being demolished. Looks like it actually was. So what. Still doesn't prove that this was planned by the gov't. There are rumors that management called his insurance company to make sure it was covered right before the signal to blow the building was given. Again, so what. Doesn't prove it was done by the gov't. They then go into the theory that thermite was used. And the example was a picture of one support beam to say that this one support beam and the way it "broke" had to be thermite as the building collapsing won't cause support beams to look like that. What? So they are saying that there is on way that one support beam could look like that and therefore had to be thermite? That's a complete stretch. Additionally, if flight 93 was blown up it actually wouldn't surprise me as there was credible evidence that that plane could've gone after the white house or something else just as significant and had to be dealt with immediately. That's very plausible but still doesn't prove that the gov't orchestrated the events. I'll keep digging, but so far I'm not a believer just yet. Put the govt. blame aside for a sec and answer this question: If the govt wasnt involved, and yet they tell us this big elaborate lie, why would they have to cover it up in the first place? The simple fact that you have questions about the official story is enough to want to investigate it more on your own. I highly recommend the videos I mentioned earlier. Again, all your questions will then be answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 If the govt wasnt involved, and yet they tell us this big elaborate lie, why would they have to cover it up in the first place? What? I imagine that any cover up would be because they'd be afraid of losing the 2004 election if people found out they'd murdered 3,000 people in order to start a war............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 What? I imagine that any cover up would be because they'd be afraid of losing the 2004 election if people found out they'd murdered 3,000 people in order to start a war............. Bottom line is the official story is in question. I dont think anyone pretends to know exactly what happened. I know I certainly dont. What I DO know is the official story is complete Bullshhit. The writing is on the wall, you just need to read it rather than have it read to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Building fire info here: http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-...s-not-collapse/ To any sane and rational observer, which of these buildings would have been the most likely to collapse? :raiseshand: umm, the one that had one third of its supporting structure completely wiped out by collapsing 100-story skyskrapers next door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 :raiseshand: umm, the one that had one third of its supporting structure completely wiped out by collapsing 100-story skyskrapers next door? 100% of the supporting structures would have to have been destroyed in order to bring it down the way it did. Have you ever even SEEN the video of it falling?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 umm, I don't know where you learned your "fundamental laws of physics", but I always thought that gravity caused falling things to accelerate. you know, -9.8m per second squared. I'm sure one of the glitterati taught me that, though Well, like I said, unless each floor gave out simultaneously (which would indicate a controlled demolition) then there would be a moment of deceleration when the top collapsed on a given floor. Remember each floor would offer at least some resistance in the event of a collapse unless ALL the floors were simultaneously pulled. If you were to construct a fake model of a building using plywood as each 'floor' and then drop a brick from high enough above that it would collapse all the 'floors' and then video tape this experiment so you could calculate velocity later on - you would see a momentary deceleration of that brick. In the case of WTC 7, there is no deceleration - the entire building collapses onto itself without ANY resistence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Bottom line is the official story is in question. I dont think anyone pretends to know exactly what happened. I know I certainly dont. What I DO know is the official story is complete Bullshhit. The writing is on the wall, you just need to read it rather than have it read to you. ^^This. Nobody knows what really happened but us 'conspiracy believers' do know that the official story is not the truth. A brief look through history will prove that governments lie to their people all the time so I'm not sure why so many are quick to believe what they are telling us. Nearly every time a document becomes un-classified you see the truth was masked during the time the document was created. It must be different in the now, right? Yeah, the government stopped pulling the wool over our eyes once we all became adults Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 ^^This. Nobody knows what really happened but us 'conspiracy believers' do know that the official story is not the truth. A brief look through history will prove that governments lie to their people all the time so I'm not sure why so many are quick to believe what they are telling us. Nearly every time a document becomes un-classified you see the truth was masked during the time the document was created. It must be different in the now, right? Yeah, the government stopped pulling the wool over our eyes once we all became adults You have yet to acknowledge the list I started. Cherry picking one or two things like the fact that WTC7 came straight down (that's gravity at work on a severely weakened structure, nothing more) to support some massive conspiracy theory is one thing - explaining how hundreds if not thousands of people became involved and subsequently remained silent is quite another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You have yet to acknowledge the list I started. Cherry picking one or two things like the fact that WTC7 came straight down (that's gravity at work on a severely weakened structure, nothing more) to support some massive conspiracy theory is one thing - explaining how hundreds if not thousands of people became involved and subsequently remained silent is quite another. who said anything about hundreds of thousands of people?....just saying.... you're using that fictitious number to support your argument just like Brent is "cherrypicking".....the funny part is that his "conspiracy theory" has more support than your assumption that "hundreds of thousands of people" were involved.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Well, like I said, unless each floor gave out simultaneously (which would indicate a controlled demolition) then there would be a moment of deceleration when the top collapsed on a given floor. Remember each floor would offer at least some resistance in the event of a collapse unless ALL the floors were simultaneously pulled. If you were to construct a fake model of a building using plywood as each 'floor' and then drop a brick from high enough above that it would collapse all the 'floors' and then video tape this experiment so you could calculate velocity later on - you would see a momentary deceleration of that brick. In the case of WTC 7, there is no deceleration - the entire building collapses onto itself without ANY resistence. Exactly, that's the one part this is the smoking gun for me Anybody care to explain how these buildings fell at freefall speeds (not sideways, mind you, but collapsed on top of their footprints) while meeting no resitance, no pancaking, just gravity? Go ask your local demolition expert if he thinks this is possible without using controlled demolition. It doesn't matter how heavy the building is, steel is steel, and even weakened steel doesn't jsut evaporate and give with 0 fight when facing pressure (and remember that not all of the beams or even most of them were weakened). You have yet to acknowledge the list I started. Cherry picking one or two things like the fact that WTC7 came straight down (that's gravity at work on a severely weakened structure, nothing more) to support some massive conspiracy theory is one thing - explaining how hundreds if not thousands of people became involved and subsequently remained silent is quite another. How many people really have to be in on it? There were a few people who did see a few mysterious guys "working on the tower" before hand. So now we're up to like 10 or 15 you have to surpress or threaten. The group of hijackers? Well, of course, but for all we know, they didn't have to be in on anything, just crazy enough to do it. A few folks in the CIA or Jewish secret forces or whoever actually planned it? Well yeah, but their job is to do despicable things for the "greater good", and I'm sure there is protocal agianst lower-downs knowing or being able to reveal much. Nobody in the mass media even has to be in on it. They gain access to military officials by being good soldiers and reporting the official story. Nothing too complex about their relationship with the military. All that's left is a few people who got wind of it that no one is taking seriously, and anyone with a legitimate claim has probably been threatened or killed. I know I'm going to be called a nut when I say this, but I think that's precisely what happened to the Anthrax fall-boy, right before he was to take the stand. He was found dead from "suicide". So who have I left out here? Not being sarcastic, just wondering how many people you think you really have to be truthful with to pull off a simple hijacking and demolition that no one would possibly believe you could be in on at the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 who said anything about hundreds of thousands of people?....just saying.... you're using that fictitious number to support your argument just like Brent is "cherrypicking".....the funny part is that his "conspiracy theory" has more support than your assumption that "hundreds of thousands of people" were involved.... He said hundreds if not thousands. Regardless, it's implausible to rationally conclude that many people are in on it and could have pulled it off. The fact that governments lie all the time doesn't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 He said hundreds if not thousands. Regardless, it's implausible to rationally conclude that many people are in on it and could have pulled it off. The fact that governments lie all the time doesn't change that. even hundreds is asinine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Well, like I said, unless each floor gave out simultaneously (which would indicate a controlled demolition) then there would be a moment of deceleration when the top collapsed on a given floor. Remember each floor would offer at least some resistance in the event of a collapse unless ALL the floors were simultaneously pulled. If you were to construct a fake model of a building using plywood as each 'floor' and then drop a brick from high enough above that it would collapse all the 'floors' and then video tape this experiment so you could calculate velocity later on - you would see a momentary deceleration of that brick. except in this case, each piece of "plywood" consists of thousands of tons of concrete and such. the mass of what was falling was growing with each floor. a constantly increasing mass propelled by the accelerating force of gravity...and you're looking for a deceleration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 He said hundreds if not thousands. Regardless, it's implausible to rationally conclude that many people are in on it and could have pulled it off. The fact that governments lie all the time doesn't change that. No. No it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 He said hundreds if not thousands. Regardless, it's implausible to rationally conclude that many people are in on it and could have pulled it off. The fact that governments lie all the time doesn't change that. a list of those who would have to be involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 except in this case, each piece of "plywood" consists of thousands of tons of concrete and such. the mass of what was falling was growing with each floor. a constantly increasing mass propelled by the accelerating force of gravity...and you're looking for a deceleration? Yes. Its called physics. Again, for the 100th time, watch the videos. They go in to detail about all this and answew pretty much every doubt/question you have. You obviously have not seen the WTC7 video. Jeez... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Yes. Its called physics. Again, for the 100th time, watch the videos. They go in to detail about all this and answew pretty much every doubt/question you have. You obviously have not seen the WTC7 video. Jeez... like this video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 except in this case, each piece of "plywood" consists of thousands of tons of concrete and such. the mass of what was falling was growing with each floor. a constantly increasing mass propelled by the accelerating force of gravity...and you're looking for a deceleration? No he's looking for resistance, which is what you'd expect from a steel-reinforced building that was orginally designed to withstand a plane-crash... It would take temperatures far hotter and much more than a few loose bolts and beams for the rest of the steel structure to give up 0 resistance... But I'm glad we can get away from the science talk, and just base this on Brent's loose example.... BTW, I stopped reading your article of those in on it when it said "The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they did"... Government incompetency is perhaps the biggest excuse ever used by our government. They have all these smart advisors and lobbyists, yet when it makes them look bad, they say they "failed". It's a total copout that I can't believe anyone buys into anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 a list of those who would have to be involved when they list things like engineers.....it's funny because there are so many people who aren't even looking for a conspiracy.... that list is a little...certifiable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 even hundreds is asinine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 No he's looking for resistance, which is what you'd expect from a steel-reinforced building that was orginally designed to withstand a plane-crash... It would take temperatures far hotter and much more than a few loose bolts and beams for the rest of the steel structure to give up 0 resistance... resistance held the building up for 8 hours, once a key pressure point buckled, it initiated a collapse. are all the scientists and civil engineers who looked at the evidence and concluded that fire and structural damage brought down wtc7 lying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 a list of those who would have to be involved Since that list was created, it MUST be accurate and correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It seems the overwhelming argument against the conspiracy theory seems to be the amount of people that would need to be involved. Okay, if that is what you are hanging your hat on, let me ask you this: Is it not possible that a small group of people planned a terrorist attack, our leaders had nothing to do with "planning" it but allowed it to happen? For whatever reasons they may have had? Is it not possible that our government knew full well this event was to occur but had misconceptions about the scope of the impending attack, and decided it was in their best interest to let this event take place as a prelude the war they desired, and the power grab for personal freedom they desired even more? You may choose to believe that our leaders would never do such a thing, but you cannot argue that it is not plausible. And lets say that since our leaders wrongly believed this impending attack would fall far short of catastrophic enough to shock the public into the change they desired, is it not possible that a small top secret coop exists that would have the ability to send a guided missile into the exact spot of the Pentagon that would lead to the least loss of life and property (ie: new construction not occupied). Minimal loss. Maximum public outrage over such an act. If the people that pulled off the tower hits were sharp enough to know the exact spot they needed to hit to bring down the tower, one would think they would have planned the Pentagon hit in a matter that would have caused the MOST loss. No? I mean they were talented enough to drive a huge plane into a building without even hitting the ground first. That takes some skill. Someone that skillful surely wouldn't waste that final act where so few lives would be taken. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm not as smart as some of you guys. I'm just a guy with an open mind wondering why people dismiss these theories and the people that purport them as though the whole concept is beyond belief. And those that choose to question are beyond help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.