|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295666' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:49 PM'][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.jpg[/img] other buildings that fell: [i]Numerous other buildings in the WTC and surrounding it were damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. [b]5 WTC[/b] suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include[b] St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church[/b], [b]Marriott Hotel (3 WTC)[/b], [b]South Plaza (4 WTC)[/b], and [b]U.S. Customs (6 WTC)[/b]. [b]World Financial Center buildings 4, 5, 6, and 7, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires[/b]. [b]The Bankers Trust Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse[/b], as did [b]90 West Street[/b]. [b]30 West Broadway[/b] [b]was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC[/b]. The Deutsche Bank Building, though left standing, is currently being demolished because of water and mold damage, and severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse[/i] its not like WTC 7 fell out of nowhere, and everything else was left standing... and the bankers trust building and verizon building had, and were also in odd places... the church was totally covered b/c of building 2, but it managed to get knocked down too...[/quote] Did you actually provide me with new info instead of just calling me a loser? damn. (j/k) How's about a link? I'm still unsure of that explanation however, only b/c there are several angles of video taken of #7 (amazingly, atleast one includes a pan and zoon at precisely a moment before collapse), and none of them have semed to show any damage to the building from what I've seen. But as I've said all along, I'm willing to learn if anyone can show me new info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Does anyone know who is in control of the NIST, like who really is in control of it? Because they are supposed to come out with their findings at some point in 2006 so i was wondering if it would be an accurate account or a distortion of it, much like the Popular Mechanics article that attempted to debunk 9/11 conspiracies (truths). Benjamin Chertoff is the senior researcher at PM and the American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of [b]Michael Chertoff[/b], the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295666' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:49 PM'][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.jpg[/img] other buildings that fell: [i]Numerous other buildings in the WTC and surrounding it were damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. [b]5 WTC[/b] suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include[b] St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church[/b], [b]Marriott Hotel (3 WTC)[/b], [b]South Plaza (4 WTC)[/b], and [b]U.S. Customs (6 WTC)[/b]. [b]World Financial Center buildings 4, 5, 6, and 7, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires[/b]. [b]The Bankers Trust Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse[/b], as did [b]90 West Street[/b]. [b]30 West Broadway[/b] [b]was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC[/b]. The Deutsche Bank Building, though left standing, is currently being demolished because of water and mold damage, and severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse[/i] its not like WTC 7 fell out of nowhere, and everything else was left standing... and the bankers trust building and verizon building had, and were also in odd places... the church was totally covered b/c of building 2, but it managed to get knocked down too...[/quote] Rick. Please take a look at this: [url="http://www.reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_8.wmv"]http://www.reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_8.wmv[/url] A little over 2 minutes in you see #7 standing, with 5 and 6 standing in the background... <edit>Part 2 of this video is also of interest... [url="http://www.reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_8b.wmv</edit>"]http://www.reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_p...mv 3:39 in you see #7 in rubble, with 5 and 6 standing in the foreground...</edit>://http://www.reopen911.org/video/Reop.....</edit>[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='Abu-Zayd' post='295253' date='Jul 17 2006, 09:17 PM']Does this site you listed explain how these men survived their hijacked planes' "instant incineration" and then the fall of the towers? [img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alnami.jpg[/img][img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alshehri.jpg[/img][img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alomari.jpg[/img][img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alghamdi.jpg[/img][img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/almihdhar.jpg[/img] STILL ALIVE: AL NAMI AL SHEHRI AL OMARI AL GHAMDI AL GHAMDI AL-MIHDHAR[/quote] This is new to me. So what you're saying is that these men were supposedly on the planes when they hit the towers? It would be impossible that they are still alive but who has said they were on the planes? Did somebody say they were behind the attacks, or has there actually been evidence offered that they were on the planes? If you can show that the Bush Administration is blaming these men as the pilots of the planes and that they are actually still alive, then you have a very strong argument here, if not then it is just another of those holes. Maybe when R epublicans are out of power somebody will start to find some solid answers. It happened with Vietnam. Once the perpetrators of the crimes are out of office the real truth starts to come out, slowly but surely. It will be a long time before we know the truth behind 9/11 but as long as people continue to ask questions it will come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295673' date='Jul 18 2006, 12:00 PM']Did you actually provide me with new info instead of just calling me a loser? damn. (j/k) [/quote] i'm bad about that sometimes on this subject... my bad its mainly b/c i have said all of this in previous posts, and i feel that saying it was massad or israel, or our gov't w/out any proof, it is extremely wrong... asking for proof is different than saying "bush did it" or whatever... we both still have our obvious biases of what happened, but if we're honest w/ each other, we can come to an honest conclusion of what probably happened... [quote]How's about a link?[/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center"]wikipedia[/url] this is where i got the info... admitidly, the citiation is not there, so i can't point towards a definate site of what fell and what didn't... but the info SEEMS ok... but, i'm too lazy to find more sources, that might be more reliable... remember, i don't buy the building 7 story either... i'm just trying to provide more sunshine on the subject... [quote]I'm still unsure of that explanation however, only b/c there are several angles of video taken of #7 (amazingly, atleast one includes a pan and zoon at precisely a moment before collapse), and none of them have semed to show any damage to the building from what I've seen. But as I've said all along, I'm willing to learn if anyone can show me new info...[/quote] the #7 building looks like a true controlled demolition... the only one of the buildings taht i've seen, that looks like one, to be honest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295702' date='Jul 18 2006, 05:41 PM']remember, i don't buy the building 7 story either... i'm just trying to provide more sunshine on the subject... the #7 building looks like a true controlled demolition... the only one of the buildings taht i've seen, that looks like one, to be honest...[/quote] Just curious, why don't you see a similar freefall, etc with #s 1 & 2? My old man in a big time Repub kool-aid drinker and FoxNews watcher, and even he thinks that they appear to be demolitions. Not that that means a damn thing On a lighter note, I'm now watching a DVD of the Bengals kicking the Raisins ass from last year. Who mothereffin Dey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' post='295692' date='Jul 18 2006, 05:36 PM']This is new to me. So what you're saying is that these men were supposedly on the planes when they hit the towers? It would be impossible that they are still alive but who has said they were on the planes? Did somebody say they were behind the attacks, or has there actually been evidence offered that they were on the planes? If you can show that the Bush Administration is blaming these men as the pilots of the planes and that they are actually still alive, then you have a very strong argument here, if not then it is just another of those holes.[/quote] You got it. Unfortunately, I don't think it makes much differrence which party is in power. If the Dems truly stood for anything different, they would be pushing this info for us, and demand a further investigation. For a quick reference on these goodies, the two sites I referred to at the beginning of the thread are worth a look. I won't claim to believe that they are gospel truth (I don't think anyone can claim that with so much info being classified, and with the building remains being sold off before they could be inspected) but they are a good starting point for someone who wants to openly consider whether or not we have been given an adequate explanation of what actually happened on that horrible day. That's as much as I can hope anyone will do. I don't ask anyone to agree with me. Just take an honest look and decide for yourself before simply accepting what you are told to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295227' date='Jul 17 2006, 08:40 PM']The BS about #7, the only steel framed building in history (unless you can name another) that has simply collapsed form a small fire. [b]Do you believe that the Spanish are somehow more technologically advanced in their building techniques[/b]? How else do you explain that the Madrid high rise burns all night without collapse in a true inferno, but #7 simply falls down, from its core outward (just like a controlled demo) from a limited blaze? Have you seen these pics? [url="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html"]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html[/url][/quote] Do you believe Americans are on the forfront of all technologies? The Spanish may very well be better and more advanced than America in many ways other than building. America has been skimping on funding for development of new technologies for decades, we are no longer the inventive powerhouses we were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In fact, most of our new technologies, no matter the field, now come from overseas. And people that build skyscrapers build them all over the world. There are no "American" or "Spanish" skyscraper builders. They may be American or Spanish in nationality but they operate worldwide. And it is possible, nay defenite, that technology has improved since the towers were built. This website proves nothing really. The fire was on the top floors of a building shorter than WTC 7. 6 floors did collapse. The bottom of the structure seemed to still be in relatively good shape so the 6 floor collapse didn't provide enough weight to bring down the rest. Since there is not much info on WTC 7 it is hard to determine where the fires were. If they were at the top only, then yes it looks a little suspicious, but if there was a fire on one of the lower floors it is very possible that it weakend the base of the structure and it couldn't support it's own weight any longer. Also, when a demo guy implodes a skyscraper they basically blow out all of the main supports and gravity pulls the building in on itself. With the WTC buildings the fire acted as the TNT and melted the main supports letting gravity pull the building in on itself. The only way for those towers to not fall straight down would have been for those supports to melt at different rates causing the building to fall off to one side. However, entire levels of the WTC 1&2 were ablaze and the sectins above them were heavy enough that when they fell onto the lower halves instead of sliding off to the side, which it seems like you might think they would normally do, they continued their straight downward path bringing the rest of the structure with them. Really doesn't sound too implausable to me. I don't care how strong you think steel is it can't withstand that kind of weight, heat, and downward force. And if I do recall WTC 1 did fall at a slightly crooked angle. You make it sound as if there was this neat little pile where the towers used to be and that simply was not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' post='295692' date='Jul 18 2006, 12:36 PM']This is new to me. So what you're saying is that these men were supposedly on the planes when they hit the towers? It would be impossible that they are still alive but who has said they were on the planes? Did somebody say they were behind the attacks, or has there actually been evidence offered that they were on the planes? If you can show that the Bush Administration is blaming these men as the pilots of the planes and that they are actually still alive, then you have a very strong argument here, if not then it is just another of those holes. Maybe when R epublicans are out of power somebody will start to find some solid answers. It happened with Vietnam. Once the perpetrators of the crimes are out of office the real truth starts to come out, slowly but surely. It will be a long time before we know the truth behind 9/11 but as long as people continue to ask questions it will come out.[/quote] no, its not true.. do the fact checking yourself... google is your friend... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Ahmed_al-Nami.png[/img] ^ the only "proof" is someone coming forward in saudi arabia, and saying that his identy was stolen (had same name as alleged hijacker)... this is far from proof that he is alive... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/WAlshehri.JPG[/img] & [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Wail_alshehri.jpg[/img] ^ bbc originally reported him and his brother alive... this was b/c a guy came forward and said that his sons are names that, and they didn't do it... however, they did find their real dad [url="http://web.archive.org/web/20020929001039/www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=9424&ArY=2001&ArM=9&ArD=17"]here[/url], and he said that he hadn't seen either son in over 10 months (before 9/11/01)... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Abdulaziz_al-Omari.png[/img] ^ the pic he showed: [img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alomari.jpg[/img] is who the US gov't said at first... they quickly changed that and apoligized to that man... the pic i showed above is teh man that did it... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulaziz_Alomari"]according to wikipedia[/url] and teh 9/11 commission, the identity of this man was verified by interviews w/ family members in saudi arabia... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Ahmed_al-Ghamdi.jpg[/img] ^ don't even know why he is on this list... where is there proof he isn't dead? as far as i can tell, there is no proof whatsoever, that says that any of these guys are alive... but i wouldn't put it past our intel that we got some of the guys wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295710' date='Jul 18 2006, 12:53 PM']Just curious, why don't you see a similar freefall, etc with #s 1 & 2? My old man in a big time Repub kool-aid drinker and FoxNews watcher, and even he thinks that they appear to be demolitions. Not that that means a damn thing On a lighter note, I'm now watching a DVD of the Bengals kicking the Raisins ass from last year. Who mothereffin Dey![/quote] in the building w/ the antenna, you can see where the building gives imo... it is right where the planes hit... i posted the video somewhere on this thread... but building 7 seems too..... perfect, i guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' post='295716' date='Jul 18 2006, 06:04 PM']Do you believe Americans are on the forfront of all technologies? The Spanish may very well be better and more advanced than America in many ways other than building. America has been skimping on funding for development of new technologies for decades, we are no longer the inventive powerhouses we were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In fact, most of our new technologies, no matter the field, now come from overseas. And people that build skyscrapers build them all over the world. There are no "American" or "Spanish" skyscraper builders. They may be American or Spanish in nationality but they operate worldwide. And it is possible, nay defenite, that technology has improved since the towers were built. This website proves nothing really. The fire was on the top floors of a building shorter than WTC 7. 6 floors did collapse. The bottom of the structure seemed to still be in relatively good shape so the 6 floor collapse didn't provide enough weight to bring down the rest. Since there is not much info on WTC 7 it is hard to determine where the fires were. If they were at the top only, then yes it looks a little suspicious, but if there was a fire on one of the lower floors it is very possible that it weakend the base of the structure and it couldn't support it's own weight any longer. Also, when a demo guy implodes a skyscraper they basically blow out all of the main supports and gravity pulls the building in on itself. With the WTC buildings the fire acted as the TNT and melted the main supports letting gravity pull the building in on itself. The only way for those towers to not fall straight down would have been for those supports to melt at different rates causing the building to fall off to one side. However, entire levels of the WTC 1&2 were ablaze and the sectins above them were heavy enough that when they fell onto the lower halves instead of sliding off to the side, which it seems like you might think they would normally do, they continued their straight downward path bringing the rest of the structure with them. Really doesn't sound too implausable to me. I don't care how strong you think steel is it can't withstand that kind of weight, heat, and downward force. And if I do recall WTC 1 did fall at a slightly crooked angle. You make it sound as if there was this neat little pile where the towers used to be and that simply was not the case.[/quote] You are correct. Pics of the Madrid fire prove nothing alone. But other than #7, I've yet to hear of another steel-frame building that has ever collapsed (supposedly) due to fire alone. Did you happen to get a chance to check out the #7 vids I referred to rick? some of the steel from #7 looks to be a solid 1 foot by 2 foot by however long piece of steel. it would take one mother of a fire to cause such steel to melt. And the beams in that video don't appear to be melted at all. (though I will immediately concede that doesn't mean that there were not other beams which perhaps did show such damage...) As for how the towers fell, think for a moment of a tree. When one falls in the forest (whether it makes a sound or not ) it does not collapse *through* its own mass as the towers did. It falls sideways, taking out anything beneath it. These buidings were about a quarter of a mile high. If they'd fallen in similar fashion, the result would have been crushing everything in a given direction for at least a portion of that disatance, if not all of it. but instead they fell pretty much straight down. The only other steel frame buildings to collapse so were controlled demolitions to my knowlege. yes, the very top of one of the towers seems to tilt a bit to one side at the instant the collapse began, but ultimately, the mass of the building came pretty much straight down, through its own mass, while falling at a rate that would suggest a freefall (falling at the rate of gravity, without having to fight through the steel and concrete which comprised the floor beneath). Just seems a bit far-fetched to me. But again, I will listen to any new info to be provided that can help me to have an informed opinion. I sure as hell would sleep better at night if I could believe that we'd been told the whole truth on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295719' date='Jul 18 2006, 06:06 PM']no, its not true.. do the fact checking yourself... google is your friend... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Ahmed_al-Nami.png[/img] ^ the only "proof" is someone coming forward in saudi arabia, and saying that his identy was stolen (had same name as alleged hijacker)... this is far from proof that he is alive... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/WAlshehri.JPG[/img] & [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Wail_alshehri.jpg[/img] ^ bbc originally reported him and his brother alive... this was b/c a guy came forward and said that his sons are names that, and they didn't do it... however, they did find their real dad [url="http://web.archive.org/web/20020929001039/www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=9424&ArY=2001&ArM=9&ArD=17"]here[/url], and he said that he hadn't seen either son in over 10 months (before 9/11/01)... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Abdulaziz_al-Omari.png[/img] ^ the pic he showed: [img]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/alomari.jpg[/img] is who the US gov't said at first... they quickly changed that and apoligized to that man... the pic i showed above is teh man that did it... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulaziz_Alomari"]according to wikipedia[/url] and teh 9/11 commission, the identity of this man was verified by interviews w/ family members in saudi arabia... [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Ahmed_al-Ghamdi.jpg[/img] ^ don't even know why he is on this list... where is there proof he isn't dead? as far as i can tell, there is no proof whatsoever, that says that any of these guys are alive... but i wouldn't put it past our intel that we got some of the guys wrong....[/quote] To be honest, I don't really know what to make of the identities of the highjackers either way. I only meant to confirm the argument being madeby AZs post. I don't know that I can buy anything in terms of their identities, etc. It's too easy to make up either way, too impossible to prove or disprove. But as for the pics of Atta, etc that are reportedly taken of the guys before they boarded the planes, to me they mean nothing. If they had instead shown pics of Rick and I, would that have in itself made us terrorists? Nope. It would only have confirmed that at one point in time we had passed through the airport... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 WhodeyUk...if they found pictures of you or rick in the aiport right before you boarded the plane that crashed into the wtc, and if they looked into your history and found that you had taken flight lessons of only how to fly it not how to land it, and if you had hate letters to the US in your car would that "make you a terrorist"...i would say so myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Another question for you conspriacy theory believers...I understand why you guys think they would want to frame the Arabs so they could start wars with them, seize oil, further back israel and all that shit...but do you honestly think the leaders of our country that you believe are in on this would wanna go through all the post 9/11 problems with the economy and all that other shit. It just doesnt seem to me that PNAC or whoever did this would want to cause all this trouble just to help screw over some arabs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295773' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:07 PM']Another question for you conspriacy theory believers...I understand why you guys think they would want to frame the Arabs so they could start wars with them, seize oil, further back israel and all that shit...but do you honestly think the leaders of our country that you believe are in on this would wanna go through all the post 9/11 problems with the economy and all that other shit. It just doesnt seem to me that PNAC or whoever did this would want to cause all this trouble just to help screw over some arabs...[/quote] I don't claim knowledge of motives or people involved. Only that I think the official story is crap. Or at best, incomplete. My point on the airport pics is this. They were shown to us, sure. But how can you know for certain when and where they were taken. Or who truly is in them? You cannot. You have to take the gov't word for it. Without the caption (true or false) they are simply pics of men passing through the airport. And since I tend to think that the rest of the story is inadequate, these pics alone do not deserve an greater benefit of the doubt than ony other piece of evidence that has been provided by the official story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 this is what im talking about, civilized discussion on both sides. I think we have a first at go-bengals.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='whodey319' post='295788' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:31 PM']this is what im talking about, civilized discussion on both sides. I think we have a first at go-bengals.com [/quote] I'm glad I'm not the only one enjoying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295794' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:41 PM']I'm glad I'm not the only one enjoying it. [/quote] this shows it can be done zionist pigs must die ahhhhhh!!!!! sheep!!! assholes!!!!! just so everyone remembers where we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295732' date='Jul 18 2006, 01:21 PM']As for how the towers fell, think for a moment of a tree. yes, the very top of one of the towers seems to tilt a bit to one side at the instant the collapse began, but ultimately, the mass of the building came pretty much straight down, through its own mass, while falling at a rate that would suggest a freefall (falling at the rate of gravity, without having to fight through the steel and concrete which comprised the floor beneath). I sure as hell would sleep better at night if I could believe that we'd been told the whole truth on this matter.[/quote] First, a tree is one solid object. A skyscraper is a structure comprised of millions of parts with most of it's volume taken up by air in the empty spots inside (rooms, hallways etc..) so the comparison is flawed. Second, yes the towers fell very fast but we have no way to determine whether it was free fall because there is nothing in the video falling unhindered next to the towers. It also depends what part of the tower you're looking at. The towers seem to fall much faster if you're focusing on the top rather than the middle. I'm sure a physicist or mathmetichian could figure it out using complex formulas but at what point does the freefall start? As soon as the first movement or only after enough weight has built up to completely overwhelm the lower floors? I guess I'm just trying to further show that the speed at which the towers fell is a very pourous argument because even though to the naked eye it looks like a demolition it may differ at some very key points that can't be seen. Third, I totally agree that we're being lied to, have been for years, will be for many more years to come. It makes me sick to think about everything that goes on the persuit of [s]democracy[/s] money, and that's just what we know about. Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism and I love the luxuries provided to Americans, and I drive a car, which runs on gas, so I am partly responsible but if Bush had said- "Ok, Americadians, those mean old Arabs have all the oil and they want to control it themselves to furtherize their economicles. We can't let that happen or our gas prices will go bigger. We can either bomb the greedy bastards or give up our cars and STDs for electrical crappers. Probly got a little race car wheel controller, tee hee. What u all wanna do?" I'd have gotten an elictrical crapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Just a question for those of you that think it was a controlled demo that made the towers fall...what would be the point? The plane hit the towers and they probably woulda collapsed one way or another, or even if they didnt why would it matter? What would be the point of making a controlled demo to add to the conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295814' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:54 PM']Just a question for those of you that think it was a controlled demo that made the towers fall...what would be the point? The plane hit the towers and they probably woulda collapsed one way or another, or even if they didnt why would it matter? What would be the point of making a controlled demo to add to the conspiracy?[/quote] The buildings were so much taller than the usual when they were built, they were actually designed to withstand the impact of large airliner hitting them. Yeah, they were designed to withstand a 707 I think as opposed to a 767, but I've read that the mass/force of the older 707 was actually greater than the modern day replacement 767 which actually hit the towers. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand this force, yet yielded to gravity anyway. As for why to demolish them, I have two theories. And yes, I freely admit they are theories. The first is that 911 did indeed serve as a second pearl harbor. In the first in '41, the US gov't had complete foreknowlege of the attack (having cracked the Japanese secret communication codes), but turned a blind eye (other than removing their most valueable ships (aircraft carriers) from the ports beforehand) in order to have a justification for joining WWII (b/c the US was an isolationsist country at this point. the populace wanted nothing of a second world war. kinda like no one wanted a second gulf war come to think of it...) In this case, 911 provided justification for invading Iraq, etc. Do some googling on the Northwoods documents to see that the CIA/intelligence neocons had proposed feigning terroism as as excuse to invade cuba in the 60's. Pehaps it took 40 years for this strategy to finally be put to use. As a seconday reason, Larry Silverstien had conveniently just insured/reinsured/etc the WTC buildings for billions right before the attacks. Someone conveniently collected some serious cash from this, as disgusting as it sounds. Pretty damn convenient if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295814' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:54 PM']Just a question for those of you that think it was a controlled demo that made the towers fall...what would be the point? The plane hit the towers and they probably woulda collapsed one way or another, or even if they didnt why would it matter? What would be the point of making a controlled demo to add to the conspiracy?[/quote] not to mention the amount of explosives that would have to be planted in that place in total secrecy in order for it to happen. If you have ever watched one of those demolition shows on TV it takes weeks or full work days for them to prepare a 10 story building because they have to drill into the supports and place explosives exactly where needed on every floor. Pleae explain how this could be done at a place like the world trade center without the thousands and thousands of people there not noticing anthing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295773' date='Jul 18 2006, 12:07 PM']Another question for you conspriacy theory believers...I understand why you guys think they would want to frame the Arabs so they could start wars with them, seize oil, further back israel and all that shit...but do you honestly think the leaders of our country that you believe are in on this would wanna go through all the post 9/11 problems with the economy and all that other shit. It just doesnt seem to me that PNAC or whoever did this would want to cause all this trouble just to help screw over some arabs...[/quote] Sure there were certainly economic problems for the vast majority of the control, but think about the companies members of the PNAC are a part of. Halliburton, Carlisle Group, etc. all made billions beyond billions for this war. But to understand why they wanted the building demolished watch the Loose Change video that is one of the pinned topics of discussion for this section. It gives you a lot of information and how everything fits together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' post='295808' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:51 PM']First, a tree is one solid object. A skyscraper is a structure comprised of millions of parts with most of it's volume taken up by air in the empty spots inside (rooms, hallways etc..) so the comparison is flawed. Second, yes the towers fell very fast but we have no way to determine whether it was free fall because there is nothing in the video falling unhindered next to the towers. It also depends what part of the tower you're looking at. The towers seem to fall much faster if you're focusing on the top rather than the middle. I'm sure a physicist or mathmetichian could figure it out using complex formulas but at what point does the freefall start? As soon as the first movement or only after enough weight has built up to completely overwhelm the lower floors? I guess I'm just trying to further show that the speed at which the towers fell is a very pourous argument because even though to the naked eye it looks like a demolition it may differ at some very key points that can't be seen. Third, I totally agree that we're being lied to, have been for years, will be for many more years to come. It makes me sick to think about everything that goes on the persuit of [s]democracy[/s] money, and that's just what we know about. Don't get me wrong, I believe in capitalism and I love the luxuries provided to Americans, and I drive a car, which runs on gas, so I am partly responsible but if Bush had said- "Ok, Americadians, those mean old Arabs have all the oil and they want to control it themselves to furtherize their economicles. We can't let that happen or our gas prices will go bigger. We can either bomb the greedy bastards or give up our cars and STDs for electrical crappers. Probly got a little race car wheel controller, tee hee. What u all wanna do?" I'd have gotten an elictrical crapper.[/quote] Yes, I know a skyscraper is not a tree. Just trying to illustrate a point about the difference between freefall v falling through other objects which clearly have a mass of their own to be accounted for. Perhaps not the best analongy, but I am an historian, not a scientist Actually, basic physics can determine at what rate the buildings would fall in a freefall situation, as opposed to having to break through floor after floor of steel/concrete/etc. Check out the second link in my original reply to Honkey in this thread for further info. As for being lied to, I unfortunately have to concur here. Agan, I cannot/willnot claim to know all of the facts, my only claim is to disagree that the official account as a complete and accurate one. And I completely disagree with the concept that I am supposed to simply accept it b/c I am told to. I cannot play ostrich and bury my head in the sand and pretend to unsee what I have seen with my own eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='whodey319' post='295834' date='Jul 18 2006, 08:23 PM']not to mention the amount of explosives that would have to be planted in that place in total secrecy in order for it to happen. If you have ever watched one of those demolition shows on TV it takes weeks or full work days for them to prepare a 10 story building because they have to drill into the supports and place explosives exactly where needed on every floor. Pleae explain how this could be done at a place like the world trade center without the thousands and thousands of people there not noticing anthing.[/quote] You're onto something. How can Larry Silverstien claim that #7 was demolished by the NYFD *during the tumultuous events of 911* because of fire/loss of life? Completely implausible. And completely unaddressed by the 911 commission. The simply offer no explanation. As to the twin towers, my only guess (and i freely admit it is nothing more than that) perhaps the necessary munitions were planted duing the reconstruction required after the initial bombing of the building in '96? Again, I do not claim to have all answers, only an educated skepticism. Several firefighters in the vicinity have claimed to have herad explosions occur immediately prior to the collapse of the towers. Perhaps this is accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.