Hum Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Rubbish for the masses ... :rolleyes: Hope that people are not this dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted July 9, 2008 Veteran Share Posted July 9, 2008 threads merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YBG Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 sad that people would rather trust someone else's judgment than their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brayan27 Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) now that I see this thread. wow, I can't believe its been 8 years now. I remember it like it was yesterday. the streets were empty, and I mean empty in the entire island, except for a few cars. and the F22s in the sky... about an hour after the attack, talk about being late. :rolleyes: $100Million+ costs a jet for "defensive" purposes. Edited July 10, 2008 by brayan27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Not demolished ? Bullfeathers :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YBG Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I think the big problem here is not that people can't believe that just maybe "terrorists" didn't do it.. they just don't believe they can be TRICKED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kezzzs Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 While I'm a firm believer of a conspiracy, and I also find the argument that a plane did not hit the pentagon extremely believable, I often wonder why they wouldn't have used a plane? I cannot see any logical explanation. To me, the fact that redecoration work was being done on that side of the pentagon seems one hell of a coincidence to me. As with the third tower, top government agencies working there, enough time for everyone to evacuate and the building collapses (however it collapsed is irrelevant, at the end of the day it collapsed). It just seems that one too many 'coincidences' happened that day. Also Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA back in the 90s and the last I heard, they haven't caught him (even though he's meant to be hooked up to some kind of life support machine). Some of his family also has ties to Bush. My my, what a small world we live in. The only people that 9/11 has benefited is politicians and oil executives. I'm not doing the Michael Moore approach and saying that Iraqi's were having a whale of a time before the 'Coalition of the Willing' showed up on their doorstep but I'm suggesting that everything has really only made the rich richer. My own small personal observation is that the CIA's Most Wanted list claims Osama Bin Laden is left handed yet every time I've seen a video of him, the microphone has always been in his right hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ID2 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I'm sure this is the first time I've heard about a 3rd tower! :blink: Where were you when all this was happening? Hiding? It was on the all the TV news shows. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalledChaos Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 How is that impossible? The other towers collapsed because of the fire too. In Madrid a few years ago a tower was set on fire and when the fire was 'over' they were afraid that the thing was going to collapse. They had to demolish the whole thing anyway, it didn't collapse. But then again, the firefighters extinguished the fire beforehand, and that doesnt seem to be the case here.I think I remember seeing some other tower collapse (besides the twin towers) on 9/11 on TV. But I thought it was because the two towers collapsing would bring down with them some of the buildings nearby. A "building hit by another building" kind of thing. Wow. Thats the first thing I thought of when I read your post. Fire does NOT bring down buildings.. EVER.. it's never happened. The fire in WTC7 was not enough to weaken the steel enough to bring it down the way it came down. The other 2 buildings came down because TWO ****ING PLANES HIT THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I don't really care that its never happened before, september 11 was a day full of rare cases. Now that aside, i'm assuming most of you believe they were all controlled demolitions by sombody(the government?), but they had a frickin plane fly into them, thats a pretty nice coverup if they were controlled demolitions. Don't you think whoever would have flown another plane into building 7 to try and cover up this controlled demolition? I doubt that if they(whoever "they" is) would be smart enough to pull all this off, and then provide no "cover story" for building 7... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Actually, what really happened is that FDR conspired with Churchill to drop the A-bomb on the WTC even though America was already going to surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted September 12, 2008 Veteran Share Posted September 12, 2008 Actually, what really happened is that FDR conspired with Churchill to drop the A-bomb on the WTC even though America was already going to surrender. Open your eyes people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I watched some videos on youtube a little while ago, and they show that bombs or explosives were used also to bring down the towers. I'm not sure of the validity though. Here they are: Proof Bombs were planted in the buildings More Proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lqv2015 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) Eh, it's been awhile since I've looking further into this whole thing. I might just start again. Edited October 16, 2008 by Lqv2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEx Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Multiple factors lead to the collapses. In the twin towers the jets hitting them did major damage. They damaged the protective coating on the steel. The conspiracy geeks will say that even so with the jet fuel, there was no way the temps could reach the melting point of steel, around 2100 F. I read somewhere they estimated the max temp at about 1500 F, so they base their flawed theory on that. Steel greatly weakens at just 800F to 900F, enough to cause failure. It does not have to reach even close to the melting point to fail. With the tons of weight on the beams that were reaching critical failure temperatures, they was no way they would not fail. Also, the elevator shaft up the middle of the building developed a venturi effect, increasing the temperatures at the fire sites. Think of that as a sort of a blow torch effect. Around that central location is where the main support for the towers was, not around the outer walls of the buildings. Those towers collapsing did great damage to many buildings nearby. Not all noticeable outwardly. Internal structures due to just the shocks and vibration, ala an earthquake, did damage to buildings. I'm surprised more buildings had not collapsed, as the smaller tower did. It was already weakened and also was burning. No surprise that it went down, to my thinking. One last thing...that land there was man made long ago by dumping fill into a swamp area. Those buildings were not built on bedrock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts