seriously america!?

[AzCivic]

any links to these clips? when I was watching what happened I didn't notice a series of explosions running down the building before it collapsed but I'd like to see what you're talking about.

[GT40FIED]

Can do... but please note that some of these sites are ones I do not frequent. Google is your friend, but it can take you to weird places.

http://prisonplanet.com/multimedia_p...7andbombs.html
Videos towards the bottom

http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A006...g_curious.html
Still shot of what looks like a cutter charge as the building collapses

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org...victimsmed.jpg
Clearly the heat was hot enough to melt steel...but not people.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM....down.soon.wmv
Firemen acknowledging that WTC 7 is about to come down

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Paper from a physics professor at BYU asserting there was thermate in the building. Clearly, he is also a kook.

I know I've seen better pictures than these, but I just did 5 minutes of searching. I'm sure I'll find the ones I saw before sometime tomorrow.

[AzCivic]

looking at this vid: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg

you see this moment:

showing obviously that the collapse began at the exact point of the fire. Those are some spectacular explosives that can go off and have the building collapse intantaneously AND survive however long in a hot ass fire. The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.

[AzCivic]

oh and these explosives are so good they can go off and not be heard on phones in the same building they go off in. amazing.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.

I suppose that's why cognitive dissonance is such a wonderful thing.

And I really don't know what you're refering to about the explosions not being heard in the building. There are numerous videos and sounds clips where their easily heard out on the street.

[AzCivic]

face it. you're wrong, why is that so hard for you to understand? you're sitting here saying that the building was rigged with explosives that didn't go off when impacted by a boeing jet or being submitted to a long hot fire.

don't know what I'm talking about!? THIS!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbssOdruPQ

yeah they're real easy to hear, lol.

[GT40FIED]

Why would the explosives have gone off if they weren't near the crash site? All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas. And even if they were located near the point of impact, I can think of quite a few scenarios where they could still have survived to be set off later.

As for that tape, I don't know about you, but right near the end of it I hear something that doesn't belong. Besides, put in front of that video it lacks significant context. No one has any idea when that tape was made and it's based purely on the assumption that it was the second that the tower came down. While that's a pretty fair assumption, it's not exactly definitive. Hell...for all I know the sound you hear in the background IS explosives going off and not the tower collapsing at all. I guess without any frame of reference, we'll never know.

[Wren57]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas.

When structural integrity of a building is compromised, the first part of the building to crumble is usually the interior, as the exterior is extremely rigid for obvious reasons. The windows blowing out are resultant upon the interior floors falling onto each other and causing high-pressure situations... so the pressure escapes through the windows.

If this is a massive conspiracy and there were planted charges, don't you think someone would be smart enough to NOT place charges where they would obviously be blowing out windows and shit? Don't you think they'd, oh, I dunno, put the charges on weight-supporting beams on the interior instead of just in exterior rooms. It doesn't add up.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

Why would the explosives have gone off if they weren't near the crash site? All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas. And even if they were located near the point of impact, I can think of quite a few scenarios where they could still have survived to be set off later.

As for that tape, I don't know about you, but right near the end of it I hear something that doesn't belong. Besides, put in front of that video it lacks significant context. No one has any idea when that tape was made and it's based purely on the assumption that it was the second that the tower came down. While that's a pretty fair assumption, it's not exactly definitive. Hell...for all I know the sound you hear in the background IS explosives going off and not the tower collapsing at all. I guess without any frame of reference, we'll never know.

oh god give it up. you're just talking out your ass now.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by Wren57

When structural integrity of a building is compromised, the first part of the building to crumble is usually the interior, as the exterior is extremely rigid for obvious reasons. The windows blowing out are resultant upon the interior floors falling onto each other and causing high-pressure situations... so the pressure escapes through the windows.

If this is a massive conspiracy and there were planted charges, don't you think someone would be smart enough to NOT place charges where they would obviously be blowing out windows and shit? Don't you think they'd, oh, I dunno, put the charges on weight-supporting beams on the interior instead of just in exterior rooms. It doesn't add up.

Ok...so you just said that explosions cause high pressure zones that would escape through the windows...but they wouldn't obviously blow the windows out? Don't you think the size of an explosion strong enough to take out a supporting beam the size of those used in either tower would have to be rather large? Large enough to...say...escape an interior area that isn't reenforced at least enough to blow the windows out? And none of this explains the prescence of thermate in the building.

And good rebutle Rob. No really...I've totally changed my mind now. Excellent work.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

And good rebutle Rob. No really...I've totally changed my mind now. Excellent work.

here's a new conspiracy: The wtc still stands! Using sophisticated cloaking, hologram, and teleportation technology the gov't was able to make everyone think the towers were attacked. All the people (and the buildings themselves) who were on the planes and in the buildings are safely living out their lives on an island along with elvis, JFK, Tupac, and Kurt cobain! Belive me, I sit on the internet searching for anything that goes against what the gov't (or common sense) says, and we all KNOW the internet DOES NOT LIE! Still don't believe me? Let me go find a pic real quick and show you a minute detail that doesn't prove a damn thing, brb.

[GT40FIED]

I'm not sure why, but I hadn't expected such an asinine response. That sounded like a mix of science fitction, L. Ron Hubbard, and a dose of World Weekly News thrown in for good measure. As much as I love all arguments childish, that was pretty sad. "0h n0z! I d0n't b3liEve it s0 It mu$t b3 teh f@ls0rz!". Seriously...if you had an argument you would've presented it. Your "common sense" approach doesn't fly because it lacks sense and you obviously can't counter anything I've posted with anything truely concrete. Holy shit man...at least Wren tried.

[AzCivic]

sorry, it just amazes me that someone who can sound so smart can be swayed into believing anything as long as it shows the gov't is out to get us.

I've presented arguments but you pretty much just ignore them...tell me how explosives can survive being crashed into by a jumbo jet and sit in an inferno without going off? They had to have been on that floor, that pic/vid I posted shows the collapse beginning at that exact point. The pic also shows that the top part of the tower did lean as it fell, but not enough for you I guess. So not only did these explosives survive a plane crash and subsuquent fire, but they also were able to go off and bring the building down at exactly the same time, AND they went off starting at the impact point in order to make the top part of the tower lean as it fell.

And I guess 911 call centers have no idea what time they receive a call? The first time I heard it it was just audio, I had to do a search real quick and found it w/ that video, sorry if that somehow makes it hard for you to hear the building collapsing with out explosives going off first.

Your open mindedness seems to go out the windw when the issue of the gov't not being out to get you is at hand.

[AzCivic]

here are a couple of websites that you might enjoy, read up on "free falling buildings" and "pull" and whatever other conspiracy about 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[ChrisCantSkate]

i liked that one with the math to back what the argument was, showing how the laws of physics can explane it, not what someone thinks they might know about how skyscrapers collapse with a jet full of fuel burning inside of it. i didnt read the second site cause im lazy and i dont believe there was a huge conspiracy against the american people from the gov't. that was a good point you made however about the plane not setting off explosives from the impact. yeah c4 is inert to fire, but there was alot of everything going on real fast in the building where a spark or shock could have easily done it in. and initial collapse being in the same area, like we should expect with a plane hitting it makes me not beleive conspiracy was to blame. it would be near impossible to pick the floor you want to hit with the plane, sine they came in very fast in a big jet

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

sorry, it just amazes me that someone who can sound so smart can be swayed into believing anything as long as it shows the gov't is out to get us.

I've presented arguments but you pretty much just ignore them...tell me how explosives can survive being crashed into by a jumbo jet and sit in an inferno without going off? They had to have been on that floor, that pic/vid I posted shows the collapse beginning at that exact point. The pic also shows that the top part of the tower did lean as it fell, but not enough for you I guess. So not only did these explosives survive a plane crash and subsuquent fire, but they also were able to go off and bring the building down at exactly the same time, AND they went off starting at the impact point in order to make the top part of the tower lean as it fell.

And I guess 911 call centers have no idea what time they receive a call? The first time I heard it it was just audio, I had to do a search real quick and found it w/ that video, sorry if that somehow makes it hard for you to hear the building collapsing with out explosives going off first.

Your open mindedness seems to go out the windw when the issue of the gov't not being out to get you is at hand.

You know Rob...I really think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. It doesn't have anything to do with the government being "out to get us". That's ridiculous because without the people, what would they govern. I do, however, think that this administration wants a lot more power than it has and has gone to some amazing lengths to get it (see: PATRIOT Act). There's a big difference between not trusting the government and thinking they're out to get little 'ole me. It just so happens that, in this instance, that distrust doesn't make it hard for me to believe that they're capable of terrible things.

As for your explosives at crash sight theory, what doesn't make sense there? As Chris pointed out, certain explosives are inert in fire. And even if they weren't, if you went ahead and planned that far in advance, how hard would it be to put some insulation around the shit?

And I think you missed my point about that call. Without any hard data to back it up, it loses any context. I mean...if you listen to the audio only, it's much easier to draw your own conclusions. However, if you put the audio over a video and time it just right so that everything happens the way YOU think it should then it takes on a whole new meaning. I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way...I'm saying that without proper conext the audio is useless.

Oh...and I'm still waiting on an explanation for the prescence of thermate.

[AzCivic]

well thank goodness you don't think they're out to get you, just the thousands who died in the towers..

so not only do they resist fire they also resist the impact of a boeing jet?

presence of thermite or the by products of thermite? did you know all the ingredients for a thermite reaction were already in the wtc, like aluminum from the aircraft, rust, gypsum, and concrete? so yes there might've been thermite reactions.

so which is it? were explosives used to take down the building or were strategically placed packages of thermite used?

oh and it was a B25 that hit the empire state building (not a B52) which is around 1/10th the weight of a boeing 767, and with about a tenth the fuel as well and a speed of probably half that of the boeing jets. 1/10th the weight, 1/10 the fuel and half the speed probably means much less damage.

[GT40FIED]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? "Well...the ingredients were there, so that explains that". That's like saying "well...there's a huge mess is my kitchen, but I had baking soda and vinegar and they could react together so that must have been it". That's not even to mention that to create a proper reaction between the components of thermite or thermate all of the ingredients have to be extremely finely ground. Merely having chunks of the ingredients around won't work.

And does it really matter what kind of plane hit the Empire State building? Whether it was a B25 or a B52, you're talking about a large plane that crashed into a building built in the 1930s and not at all built to withstand such an impact. Both towers were over-engineered to withstand a hit from an extremely large commercial airliner. Not only is the Empire State building still standing, but you'd never know it was hit by anything, let alone a large military plane.

You know it just occured to me that I've gone through all of this and haven't even mentioned the Pentagon. Haha. I could do this forever.

[AzCivic]

no its like saying if I took a few ingredients in my kitchen and emptied them on the floor and 2 of them happened to be baking soda and vinegar would i get a reaction...probably. chunks? molten aluminum is a liquid, and thats enough. but keep your mind shut to this though, there are many more conspiracies for you to go fill it with.

lets see, YES it does matter, one is a small plane relative to the other and boeing commercial jets. Oh because you say it doesn't (with your EXTENSIVE knowledge on the subject) then you must be right.

Don't you have some conspiracy forums to go spend time on? Your lame, I'm right cause I say so, arguments are getting annoying.

EDIT: oh looky here : * Molten metal in contact with water/moisture or other metal oxides (e.g., rust). Moisture entrapped by molten metal can be explosive. Contact of molten aluminum with other metal oxides can initiate a thermite reaction.

from here(which has nothing to do with 9/11): http://www.alcoa.com/alcoahomes/obje...S/MSDS1028.pdf

hmm, rust...nope NONE of that in a building made of metal.

[AzCivic]

then last but not least. WHY go through all the trouble and the possible detection to bring the towers down? the 4 planes crashing, 2 into the wtc, 1 into the pentagon, and 1 in a field just isn't enough for the gov't, and isn't enough for americans to get royally pissed. nope making sure those 2 towers fell was key. so where was the plane that crashed in a field going? we should scour its propable targets for either explosives or thermite devices.

why stop with the buildings falling? why not add in some biological or nuclear mess to REALLY get the point across. hell then we could go to war with anyone we wanted. nah, lets keep it low key and get those mother f'ers in afghanistan.

[GT40FIED]

Well you and I had better hope there wasn't a bunch of rust just sitting around in those buildings. I'm sure you know what happens when a load bearing structure starts to rust. Then again...that's why UL grade steel is resistant to such things.

As for the second post, I'll refer you back to your question about planting WMDs just to make things look better. Why did we make it worse? Did we need to? It was the only thing on TV for 3 solid days...literally. It galvanized people together into fighting a war that didn't need to be fought in a way the world had never seen before and will hopefully never see again. It had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan because, if you'll remember back to the start of all of this (which may take a few days and possibly require some napping), Afghanistan was just a precursor to Iraq. That's when we found "links" between Al Qaeda and Iraq that, for lack of a better term, didn't exist. To borrow a line from a movie, the buildings are symbols, as is the act of destroying them. You don't need to make it all fancy with the bells and whistles and whatnot. Plus, if you take into account the sheep factor that is so rampant in this country, it's a no brainer.

[AzCivic]

lol, did you see the wreckage of the wtc? you didn't see ANY rusted metal?

oh ok, thanks for that explanation, you said it, it must be right...

[Wren57]

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:



flying at 200mph and carrying maybe 300 gallons of fuel

equals



this, flying at 450-500mph loaded down with tons of jet fuel for a cross-country flight

Oh, but the picture of the 737 is smaller, so surely that means the gov't is up to something...

[Wren57]

737:
~145,000lbs, 530mph cruising speed
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737...f_600tech.html

B25:
33,510 lb, 230mph cruising speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25

Now, if I remember correctly...

Momentum = mass * velocity

So for the b25, momentum = 7707300

For the 737, momentum = 76850000

Thats just about 10x the momentum of a b25, not to mention the larger size and larger load of jetfuel onboard. Your facts didn't add up yesterday, don't today, and won't tomorrow. Sorry, welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by Wren57

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:

Actually, I'm pretty sure I touched on the techincal issues. Even if I didn't touch on them to the extent that would've shut you up, quite a few posts back I linked to a paper written by a physics professor at BYU who is, I'm sorry to say, largely better equipped to draw a conclusion than any of you or myself for that matter.

I'm also pretty sure I never insisted that explosives were placed at the level of the impact. Actually, if you'd read more carefully, you'd notice that was the argument Rob was making. I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. I really need to find the first photos I saw of cutter charges...they were a lot better than what I found in a 5 minute google search since they're very clear and nowhere near the impact zone.

And again Wren...reading comprehension. The only reason I touched back on motive is because...you guessed it...it was a direct reply to what Rob posted. We can all talk motive, means, and opportunity until we're blue in the face. I can think of half a dozen viable motives off the topof my head, but that doesn't really matter.

What I find ridiculously amusing about all of this is that you're both so hell bent on proving me wrong (which you can't because these are just theories and no member of the public will ever really know one way or another) that you're scowering the internet for sites with points that counterpoint what I've posted. That in and of itself is sort of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory. Ironic, huh? "0h n0z! What we're posting is logical!!1! LOLZ!" Wrong...you're just as "crazy" as me. That, and the fact that you constantly (and mockingly) chanted "if it's on the internet it must be true". Yet all of the information posted is from INTERNET sites just as biased in opinion as anything I could pull up. That's some wicked circular logic right there. It must be bullshit...unless it supports your views, huh? Way to be a hypocrit. Oh...and please, don't ever reference Wikipedia. You know they fail people in college if they site Wikipedia as a source of information on a paper? If that doesn't tell you something about the reputation the site has in the academic community, I don't know what does.

[AzCivic]

actually that professor helped a project on cold fusion, his partners were labeled as frauds. whats the saying about the company you keep? never mind ALL the other scientists that worked on the invesitgation, nope this guy got some sample sent to him by john and jane doe who have no idea how to handle evidence. one sample was supposedly just pulled out of the dirt at the memorial but thats not really important i guess, he's a professor!

his own colleagues down the hall from him don't even agree with him:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering"

again you ignore the fact that a small thermite reaction could've taken place, I even show proof that molten aluminum could react with rust. nah there's absolutely no rust on the metal of the wtc in wreckage photos right?

so the building begins collapsing at the point of impact buy you don't think the explosives weren't on that level? and wow, you think they had it down so good that they knew what FLOORS they were gonna hit/cause damage to and knew not to put explosives there.

and then yet again, you ramble on and on about nothing that has to do with the facts...

wikipedia out, conspiracy websites a O.K! gotcha, i'll keep that in mind from now on.

[AzCivic]

you said the towers were designed to take the impact. Now i have to go check the vids but they did! how long did they stand afterward? an hour or so, maybe more for one of them.

sounds like they did take the impact, its the hit combined with the huge ass fireball thats a bitch though. can you show me the study of the effects of an inferno on the structure of a building that has been hit with a commercial jet? and then show me how engineers took those findings and applied extra safety measures to the wtc to handle that situation? I'd like to see it.

EDIT: where are the explosions!!!!!!!!!!???????? it obvious the building just collapses. watch closely now at the point it collapses, don't just play it and say "hey its pretty loud when the building is falling, it must be explosions"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=WTC&pl=true

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by Wren57

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*

I must admit I'm getting quite bored with the whole argument. but now its obvious what's far more likely based on the info presented. steve can't even stay with one conspiracy (thermite or explosives) let alone provide facts to back it up.

[KwikR6]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.

I agree with you. In fire fighting school, we learned about the construction of the buildings and what those airplanes did to the structural stability of them once they hit the buildings and what the air plain fuel does to metal.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

you said the towers were designed to take the impact. Now i have to go check the vids but they did! how long did they stand afterward? an hour or so, maybe more for one of them.

sounds like they did take the impact, its the hit combined with the huge ass fireball thats a bitch though. can you show me the study of the effects of an inferno on the structure of a building that has been hit with a commercial jet? and then show me how engineers took those findings and applied extra safety measures to the wtc to handle that situation? I'd like to see it.

EDIT: where are the explosions!!!!!!!!!!???????? it obvious the building just collapses. watch closely now at the point it collapses, don't just play it and say "hey its pretty loud when the building is falling, it must be explosions"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=WTC&pl=true

Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse. But hey...if you don't wanna believe the guys who built the damn thing, that's your call. You can't seriously think that the fire had much of anything to do with it. Even if it had been some huge inferno fueled by tons of jet fuel (it wasn't...the vast majority of the fuel exploded on the outside), that steel is built to withstand 2,000 degree temps for 6 hours without softening with a melting point much higher than that. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene...it burns at 1,800 degrees. But the buildings came down in about an hour followed a few hours later by a building that had sustained little to no damage at all. Seems like simple math to me. I'm also not sure why the two ideas I've presented can't be synonymous. But no...it has to be either/or, can't be both.

And lemme tell you...that's one interesting video. Here's a few others.

Clearly, CNN is crazy, too (oh...and "coup de grace" means a blow of mercy...a killing stroke. There's your language/culture lesson for the day)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...rey.beatty.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv

A split screen view. Notice the inset camera (a stationary one) get slightly jilted about 5 second before smoke appears at the BASE of the building (WTC 1) in the main shot

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM....explosion.wmv

This woman, an eyewitness survivor, is also clearly insane. Explosions in the lobby? The hell you say!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM..._firehouse.wmv

These firefighters (who happen to be eyewitnesses)...also clearly insane

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...arol.marin.wmv

This bitch is also obviously coo-coo bananas (listen to what she says about the "fireball" about 13 seconds in)

I think you get the idea.

[ChrisCantSkate]

this is an experiment not easly reconstructed in lab situations to test it. so its real hard to say that despite the fact there was the needed ingredients for thermite and in the random chaos from the crash that it couldnt happen. thermite isnt hard to make, any fool at home could do it, and the mixing of melted metal that melt at lower temps, int he range we're initially dealing with.... along with the needed ingredients its very possible. we have no idea what structure dmg the plane did. whos to say their rating was right? theres 5000 different possibilities of what happened maybe a beam was dented, had unnatural stress not in line with how its supposta take a load, then it snaped.. made a bang and fell. maybe probobly not but maybe. i'd believe that over thermite explosives in the building. and while we're on the subject, even if there is a huge thermite wtc conspiracy thermite dosnt explode, making that "earthquake" reading a variable you can spin to make it seem like an explosion, when in truth either way, the noise was probobly the sound of either beams snapping the first bit of building collapse or anything... i could thing of quite a few ways the building would send a sesmic wave moments before it started falling that dont involve a explosion. but then again, we're gonna think whatever we want for our own argument, right?

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by ChrisCantSkate

this is an experiment not easly reconstructed in lab situations to test it. so its real hard to say that despite the fact there was the needed ingredients for thermite and in the random chaos from the crash that it couldnt happen. thermite isnt hard to make, any fool at home could do it, and the mixing of melted metal that melt at lower temps, int he range we're initially dealing with.... along with the needed ingredients its very possible. we have no idea what structure dmg the plane did. whos to say their rating was right? theres 5000 different possibilities of what happened maybe a beam was dented, had unnatural stress not in line with how its supposta take a load, then it snaped.. made a bang and fell. maybe probobly not but maybe. i'd believe that over thermite explosives in the building. and while we're on the subject, even if there is a huge thermite wtc conspiracy thermite dosnt explode, making that "earthquake" reading a variable you can spin to make it seem like an explosion, when in truth either way, the noise was probobly the sound of either beams snapping the first bit of building collapse or anything... i could thing of quite a few ways the building would send a sesmic wave moments before it started falling that dont involve a explosion. but then again, we're gonna think whatever we want for our own argument, right?

Well...it's true that different factors could've triggered whatever jiggled that camera, what would account for the smoke seen at the base of the building. I suppose it could've been falling debris, but I don't see anything falling at all...let alone anything big enough to cause that kind of smoke. Also, that camera appears to be some distance away from the tower. I doubt something as simple as falling debris (which was minimal at that point) would've been enougn to jar it around like that. Plus most of those eyewitness reports are talking about an explosion at street level or lower (i.e. a "fireball" going up rather than coming down).

So the conclusion I would draw from that is under the circumstances you have a building that would have survived a plane crash that is essentially brought down from the inside out. You take a building whose structure has been weakened by an impact, but is still intact, and destroy it's main support columns at a foundation level (and likely elsewhere along the way up) and it just can't hold itself up anymore.

[AzCivic]

steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.

steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse.

i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.

it did survive the hit.

what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.

cohesive statement? because I don't rattle on and on with bullshit not really pertaining to the facts I lack some kind of skill. stfu.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

Well...it's true that different factors could've triggered whatever jiggled that camera, what would account for the smoke seen at the base of the building. I suppose it could've been falling debris, but I don't see anything falling at all...let alone anything big enough to cause that kind of smoke. Also, that camera appears to be some distance away from the tower. I doubt something as simple as falling debris (which was minimal at that point) would've been enougn to jar it around like that. Plus most of those eyewitness reports are talking about an explosion at street level or lower (i.e. a "fireball" going up rather than coming down).

So the conclusion I would draw from that is under the circumstances you have a building that would have survived a plane crash that is essentially brought down from the inside out. You take a building whose structure has been weakened by an impact, but is still intact, and destroy it's main support columns at a foundation level (and likely elsewhere along the way up) and it just can't hold itself up anymore.

i thought these booms and shakings were documented on sesmographs, not what some camera pointing at the towers saw. the buildings are under hundreds of thousdays of pounds of force and when it initially gives way all that energy is released. you cant just have it destroyed, it has to be released as something. steve your in left feild now think about what your really arguing. not everything is behind the same smoke screen

[CD5Passion]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.

steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)



i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.

it did survive the hit.

what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.

that isn't steves new conspiracy theory that is a theory that has been circulating our country and probably every other country..there were a lot of factors that don't ake sense and don't add up. if you can ever find it watch a film called "loose change" it's a great watch and explains many key discreptencies dealing with 9/11.

and intersting factoid.
in the Bin laden confession tape look at the details
bin laden is seen writing a note using his right hand and is wearing a gold ring

Osama Bin Laden was left handed and in islamic law it is illegal for one to wear such jewelry. dont beleive me? go watch the bin laden confession tape..plus the Osama Bin Laden in that confession tape looks absolutly nothing like Bin Laden



ABCD - All osama Bin Laden
E -....not Osama Bin Laden..looks nothing like osama Bin laden

Notice the real Bin ladens face is long and has very prominent cheek bones...where are those features on the Confession Bin Laden?...not there..and not Bin laden...so if it wasn't Bin Laden...then who confessed?....could it be?!...GASP...someone paid off to do it?

you can only refuse to beleive so much, there is a point where you can become ignorant and naive

[ChrisCantSkate]

oh and the smoke... same idea as a car on dirt road. you have an object moving through the air and the current it creates spirals up the loose debree. well the WTCs had store basement parking garages from what i recall, thts 70 feet of BUILDING falling, broken concrete is very dusty when its being pulverized by millions of tons of force.

[Wren57]

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

[CD5Passion]

Originally Posted by Wren57

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

funny you say that, I just finished catching up.

so instead of insulting me, did you read the facts? yes i mean facts about the bin laden confession tapes because I saw them and common sense tells me it is a hoax.

beleive it or not I have much more important things on my mind (like preparing because my girlfriend is most probably pregnant with my child), so I beleive that me reading all of this has anything to do with my integrity.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by Wren57

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

this is where steve rambles on and on about how it HAD to be like this, more wasn't necessary and less wouldn't have been enough because he knows these things. supposedly all just so we could go into Iraq.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by CD5Passion

beleive it or not I have much more important things on my mind (like preparing because my girlfriend is most probably pregnant with my child), so I beleive that me reading all of this has anything to do with my integrity.

I suggest you worry about that, cause this argument is over. the evidence has been put out, now the 7 or so people who will view this thread can make an informed decision.