If no explosives were used to cause the towers to collapse how is it that building 7 fell without sustaining an impact from a plane or suffering the effects of burning fuel?
the funny thing about the explosives theory is that everything i read about it talks about how the buildings' collapse started at the top and pancaked down, yet they talk about explosions and whatnot at the base of the building. you can't have it both ways.
if there was a demolition in conjunction with the plane attacks, who was responsible? The US government in cahoots with Al Qaeda? Do you honestly believe the whole organization is controlled by the US government? What was the purpose of the US government orchestrating the death of thousands of its own citizens?
the whole jet fuel theory is even harder to believe than the demolition... first of all, you can see most [if not all] of the fuel burn up upon impact in a ball of fire. second, if it really did melt the metal frame of the building... it wouldn't have fallen stright down... it would lean to a side... and a huge chunk of the building would fall off... not the whole thing. MAYBE [and i repeat MAYBE] if the impact had been on a lower floor... but there wasnt enough weight on top to make the whole thing collapse. ok, so the fact that 1 tower collapsed like that is practically a miracle (by the way did i mention that the first tower to fall is the one that had been burning for less time)... now, that fact that the 2nd tour collapsed as well IS BEYOND A MIRCALE. we're talking about a country that assasinated it's own president decades ago, people... don't believe the hype!
i'd really like to know what your credentials are that you can be so confident about making such claims.
What I find interesting is, when someone questions what is considered "truth", they are automomatically slapped with the label of "conspiracy theorist" (which, as we all know, equates to "crazy", "nut job", "kook", etc.).
See what I mean?
For the record, that was a blanket comment I made not directed to this topic.
I honestly don't know what to make of 9/11. There are definite questions that have yet to be answered and I think it's pretty narrow minded to dismiss anyone questioning such as crazy.
look up the word "conspiracy" in a dictionary. If someone believes the US government was working with Al Qaeda to kill thousands of Americans, that is by definition a conspiracy.
the funny thing about the explosives theory is that everything i read about it talks about how the buildings' collapse started at the top and pancaked down, yet they talk about explosions and whatnot at the base of the building. you can't have it both ways.
of course the explosions would have to start from the bottom... causing the top to fall down first... this is the law of gravity. if you wanna chop down an entire tree, you start at the bottom.
i don't think you read what i wrote. of course the building will fall, but if you place explosives in the bottom of a building and blow them up the top floors aren't suddenly going to start dropping down one on top of another. The top of the building will remain intact until each floor begins hitting the ground. The tree analogy doesn't completely fit here but if you chop down a tree the top of the tree doesn't suddenly start collapsing in on itself.
oh and crossings, regarding them "leaning to the side", here is a picture of the south tower as it began to collapse. looks like it "leans to the side" to me.
and here is an image of the north tower as it collapses.
again, if you watch a controlled demolition of a building, when they blow up the base the top floors remain intact, they don't suddenly start collapsing on each other. that's basic physics, if you take out the bottom of a building the top isn't going to fall faster than the rest.
now if you want to argue that there were explosives planted way up in the top floors of the towers, that makes a bit more sense from a physics standpoint, but logistically it would be much more difficult to pull off (and i don't think that's what most "explosives" theorists believe).
I just looked at a couple of these and I just can't wrap my head around some of the things they say. But it's all good. Who am I to say they are Nut jobs. Everyone has their opinion. It's just to bad that to many people start to take the things said and base them as facts.
ha. are any of you physicists architects or planners??
I think it's important to question things.......... but
I think it's foul to make a mockery of the death of thousands of people. To this day people outside of NYC seem a lot more willing to do this.... hmmm. Just an observation.
Like the Kennedy assassination, we will probably never know with 100% certainty. I am pretty confident the government did not orchestrate the WTC collapse. I am not confident that someone, somewhere didn't know something beforehand though
I find it real odd (and somewhat depressing) that people would rather believe that their own government did this than Islamic fascists.
ha. are any of you physicists architects or planners??
I think it's important to question things.......... but
I think it's foul to make a mockery of the death of thousands of people. To this day people outside of NYC seem a lot more willing to do this.... hmmm. Just an observation.
Like the Kennedy assassination, we will probably never know with 100% certainty. I am pretty confident the government did not orchestrate the WTC collapse. I am not confident that someone, somewhere didn't know something beforehand though
I find it real odd (and somewhat depressing) that people would rather believe that their own government did this than Islamic fascists.
Respect to anyone and everyone that suffered because of the events that occured on 9-11.
Some of you guys hear the word conspiracy and like to draw your own conclusions of what people think and stand for. That is wrong.
A position that the government was involved in the controlled demolision of the WTC is not one that ANY ONE would choose, especially if their goal was to make money. Those of you who believe so like to include negligable extremists when discussing a much larger group of individuals.
Here are some personal points I would like to make:
1. My claims do not go past the provable, and that is that the 3 WTC buildings came down on 9-11 because of a controlled demolition. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. The buildings fell in their own footprint. This is not possible unless it was a controlled demolition.
3. Buildings are prewired for their immenant demolision all of the time. It takes a matter of days to bring in the actual explosives used to bring the building down.
4. There was steel in the basements and lower floors of the towers just as hot as at the top. Why?
5. The fires were not hot enough to melt or bend steel. A small amount of jet fuel or as someone claimed in this thread, paper, does not make those temps high enough.
6. The buildings free fell. If the pancake theory is true, one floor fell on another causing that floor to fall and so on there is resistance. It doesn't matter how much. THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE when the towers fell. Controlled demolition.
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
Again respect to all those touched by these horrible events.
Respect to anyone and everyone that suffered because of the events that occured on 9-11.
Some of you guys hear the word conspiracy and like to draw your own conclusions of what people think and stand for. That is wrong.
A position that the government was involved in the controlled demolision of the WTC is not one that ANY ONE would choose, especially if their goal was to make money. Those of you who believe so like to include negligable extremists when discussing a much larger group of individuals.
Here are some personal points I would like to make:
1. My claims do not go past the provable, and that is that the 3 WTC buildings came down on 9-11 because of a controlled demolition. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. The buildings fell in their own footprint. This is not possible unless it was a controlled demolition.
3. Buildings are prewired for their immenant demolision all of the time. It takes a matter of days to bring in the actual explosives used to bring the building down.
4. There was steel in the basements and lower floors of the towers just as hot as at the top. Why?
5. The fires were not hot enough to melt or bend steel. A small amount of jet fuel or as someone claimed in this thread, paper, does not make those temps high enough.
6. The buildings free fell. If the pancake theory is true, one floor fell on another causing that floor to fall and so on there is resistance. It doesn't matter how much. THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE when the towers fell. Controlled demolition.
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
Again respect to all those touched by these horrible events.
Rob
Just thought I'd come back for a quick visit to say that if you subscribe to this you are a complete ass. Every one of your points is just so much conclusory bullshit.
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
as you shouldn't, because you have no idea what you're talking about. any time anything within our atmosphere falls it's "free fall". If you shot the World Trade Center out of a cannon, the second it left the cannon it would be in a state of "free fall".
You say they fell "in their own footprint". I just posted a picture of the south tower falling, and it clearly toppled over to the side. Are you just ignoring the facts or do you think the Associated Press is IN ON IT???
You say the controlled demolition theory is "provable". And you're right, it is provable, like if someone had some PROOF that that's what happened. But no one does, they just have theories. And wild ones at that.
Can we please skip this one and get to the conspiracy theory about the Weather Machines that were used to create Hurricane Katrina....this 9/11 conspiracy doesn't have a good racism angle.
any time anything within our atmosphere falls it's "free fall". If you shot the World Trade Center out of a cannon, the second it left the cannon it would be in a state of "free fall".
You say they fell "in their own footprint". I just posted a picture of the south tower falling, and it clearly toppled over to the side. Are you just ignoring the facts or do you think the Associated Press is IN ON IT???
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
as you shouldn't, because you have no idea what you're talking about. any time anything within our atmosphere falls it's "free fall". If you shot the World Trade Center out of a cannon, the second it left the cannon it would be in a state of "free fall".
Freefall is 'the motion of an unrestrained or unpropelled body in a gavitational field'. As the WTC collapsed one floor would have fallen onto another floor causing that to collapse and so on. This would have restrained or cushioned the fall slowing it down meaning it technically wasn't in freefall. You're arguing about a technicality though. The debate is about the speed the bulding fell. Did it fall faster than it should have done? And if yes, why?
Can we please skip this one and get to the conspiracy theory about the Weather Machines that were used to create Hurricane Katrina....this 9/11 conspiracy doesn't have a good racism angle.
ha. are any of you physicists architects or planners??
I think it's important to question things.......... but
I think it's foul to make a mockery of the death of thousands of people. To this day people outside of NYC seem a lot more willing to do this.... hmmm. Just an observation.
Like the Kennedy assassination, we will probably never know with 100% certainty. I am pretty confident the government did not orchestrate the WTC collapse. I am not confident that someone, somewhere didn't know something beforehand though
I find it real odd (and somewhat depressing) that people would rather believe that their own government did this than Islamic fascists.
So you're saying it's okay to question just don't question 911? I'd be living a lie if I bought the official story. If you disagree then that's fine but people have to be honest and people have to speak their minds. Especially now. Look at the post-911 world, look at what has happened because of that attack, two wars, tens of thousands of dead human beings, tens of thousands more permanantly injured, a massive loss of freedoms, a massive increase in surveillance. None of us are happy with the world that the attacks created so if there's any doubt at all in the official story it needs to be investigated. And an lot of people are doubting the official story right now.
Do a way better job, than any site trying to prove a conspiracy IMO. But then, maybe it's all just blah blah blah...
More Lizzard people plz.
Or has there ever been any good record Conspiracies? I mean, besides the one I posted of the Queen really being a lizzard and holding a copy of Skull Snaps...
Comments
if there was a demolition in conjunction with the plane attacks, who was responsible? The US government in cahoots with Al Qaeda? Do you honestly believe the whole organization is controlled by the US government? What was the purpose of the US government orchestrating the death of thousands of its own citizens?
i'd really like to know what your credentials are that you can be so confident about making such claims.
look up the word "conspiracy" in a dictionary. If someone believes the US government was working with Al Qaeda to kill thousands of Americans, that is by definition a conspiracy.
of course the explosions would have to start from the bottom... causing the top to fall down first... this is the law of gravity. if you wanna chop down an entire tree, you start at the bottom.
just ask him
and here is an image of the north tower as it collapses.
again, if you watch a controlled demolition of a building, when they blow up the base the top floors remain intact, they don't suddenly start collapsing on each other. that's basic physics, if you take out the bottom of a building the top isn't going to fall faster than the rest.
now if you want to argue that there were explosives planted way up in the top floors of the towers, that makes a bit more sense from a physics standpoint, but logistically it would be much more difficult to pull off (and i don't think that's what most "explosives" theorists believe).
out
side
thought
for
conspiracy
strut
I just looked at a couple of these and I just can't wrap my head around some of the things they say.
But it's all good. Who am I to say they are Nut jobs. Everyone has their opinion. It's just to bad that to many people start to take the things said and base them as facts.
But thx for the links
I think it's important to question things.......... but
I think it's foul to make a mockery of the death of thousands of people. To this day people outside of NYC seem a lot more willing to do this.... hmmm. Just an observation.
Like the Kennedy assassination, we will probably never know with 100% certainty. I am pretty confident the government did not orchestrate the WTC collapse. I am not confident that someone, somewhere didn't know something beforehand though
I find it real odd (and somewhat depressing) that people would rather believe that their own government did this than Islamic fascists.
Agree pretty much 100%
Some of you guys hear the word conspiracy and like to draw your own conclusions of what people think and stand for. That is wrong.
A position that the government was involved in the controlled demolision of the WTC is not one that ANY ONE would choose, especially if their goal was to make money. Those of you who believe so like to include negligable extremists when discussing a much larger group of individuals.
Here are some personal points I would like to make:
1. My claims do not go past the provable, and that is that the 3 WTC buildings came down on 9-11 because of a controlled demolition. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. The buildings fell in their own footprint. This is not possible unless it was a controlled demolition.
3. Buildings are prewired for their immenant demolision all of the time. It takes a matter of days to bring in the actual explosives used to bring the building down.
4. There was steel in the basements and lower floors of the towers just as hot as at the top. Why?
5. The fires were not hot enough to melt or bend steel. A small amount of jet fuel or as someone claimed in this thread, paper, does not make those temps high enough.
6. The buildings free fell. If the pancake theory is true, one floor fell on another causing that floor to fall and so on there is resistance. It doesn't matter how much. THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE when the towers fell. Controlled demolition.
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
Again respect to all those touched by these horrible events.
Rob
Just thought I'd come back for a quick visit to say that if you subscribe to this you are a complete ass. Every one of your points is just so much conclusory bullshit.
see you all next week.
as you shouldn't, because you have no idea what you're talking about. any time anything within our atmosphere falls it's "free fall". If you shot the World Trade Center out of a cannon, the second it left the cannon it would be in a state of "free fall".
You say they fell "in their own footprint". I just posted a picture of the south tower falling, and it clearly toppled over to the side. Are you just ignoring the facts or do you think the Associated Press is IN ON IT???
You say the controlled demolition theory is "provable". And you're right, it is provable, like if someone had some PROOF that that's what happened. But no one does, they just have theories. And wild ones at that.
I knew it. Fatback works at the Pentagon.
General Fatback
Look! I Have Pictures TOOOOO! Disprove ME!!
wtc 7
Freefall is 'the motion of an unrestrained or unpropelled body in a gavitational field'. As the WTC collapsed one floor would have fallen onto another floor causing that to collapse and so on. This would have restrained or cushioned the fall slowing it down meaning it technically wasn't in freefall. You're arguing about a technicality though. The debate is about the speed the bulding fell. Did it fall faster than it should have done? And if yes, why?
[/racistOJgraemlin]
---
So you're saying it's okay to question just don't question 911? I'd be living a lie if I bought the official story. If you disagree then that's fine but people have to be honest and people have to speak their minds. Especially now. Look at the post-911 world, look at what has happened because of that attack, two wars, tens of thousands of dead human beings, tens of thousands more permanantly injured, a massive loss of freedoms, a massive increase in surveillance. None of us are happy with the world that the attacks created so if there's any doubt at all in the official story it needs to be investigated. And an lot of people are doubting the official story right now.
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
Do a way better job, than any site trying to prove a conspiracy IMO. But then, maybe it's all just blah blah blah...
More Lizzard people plz.
Or has there ever been any good record Conspiracies? I mean, besides the one I posted of the Queen really being a lizzard and holding a copy of Skull Snaps...
joke.
this is why people dont listen to the left anymore, they hype everything up so much that when something important really happens, nobody cares.
But..what do you guys think of chem trails?(fresh in my mind because I just heard it being discussed on morning radio)