I love how you highlighted that I didn't refute all of your claims, instead of providing sources and evidence for the ones that I did refute.
Without evidence, you might as well be making this up.
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
I love how you highlighted that I didn't refute all of your claims, instead of providing sources and evidence for the ones that I did refute.
Without evidence, you might as well be making this up.
and none opf them where hit by a plane and as such where not missing parts of teh core strength but still collapsed.
thay are still building taht failed due to heat. even wtc1+2 are vestly diffrent in design ti wtc7. Also how about the top 11 floors of the hotel? they are very similar.
So are you saying it was a demolition? which is almost totally ruled out to the building falling from the top down. Cement that with the total lack of any substantial evidence for explosives or peperation works.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,356
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
breaking news
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,278
- Location
- Neptune
I suggest you be a bit more respectful in your choice of words. You seem quite happy to sit there calling people liars when, in fact, their opinion is just as valid as yours. Saying someone is a liar, providing 'evidence' against what they've said, only to then have those opinions quite poetically trashed...and not so much as a hint of an apology. You're like a fly round **** when it comes to threads like these - all too quick to insult/discredit someone else's opinions and yet all you're doing is regurgitating facts/figures fed to you by the media and government websites.
I think it's great people question what the media and government throw out as the truth - in fact I would encourage people do this. What isn't so great is people like you - close-minded, rude and far too quick to try and discredit someone and call them a liar. Pretty weak minded is how you come across.
Last edited:
All that rules out is it being a conventional demolition... theres absolutely no hard evidence that rules out the possibility of unconventional demolition techniques, stop being so narrow minded.
you keep saying that, but it doesn't. I rules out explosion below the impact point.
so weak minded I actually read lots of different information and make my own mind up, rather than believing one article.
You don't need big explosions to break some beams, I'm sure theres tons of ways this could be done just as an example, logistics aside, customised plasma cutters, EFPs, etc.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Bear with me a second here, I'm not an expert on demolition by any means but if this unconventional method that you keep referring to is so effective (as seen by the WTC supposedly achieving freefall speeds) then why isn't it used more widely i.e. it becomes the conventional? Like I say I know little about demolition but in most industries you find the most effective techniques tend to become standard frequently provided they can be implemented at a reasonable cost.
Or to put it another way, it seems like a heck of a lot of effort to go to - ploughing a couple of jetliners into the WTC Towers when you could simply use these unconventional techniques to achieve the same result with much less hassle.
it's not about big explosions. if beams were cut below the impact point. the building would fall from that point. It doesn't it falls from the impact point down. There is no where that the building starts to fall before it should, as such you can pretty mcuh rule out explosives below the impact point of he plane.
I'm not saying it was a conspiracy and purposefully demolished - I'm just saying that I don't think there is hard evidence that rules out unconventional techniques - conventional techniques tend to be the best way to bring a building down inside its own footprint with minimal risk and colleteral damage - if it was a conspiracy they are hardly likely to use conventional methods being a bit obvious and all.
It falls from about 2-3 stories down from the impact point.
on one of the towers can't remeber which one. The top of the tower starts to lean before the collapse. It goes from the impact point.
So you saying they new which floor the plains would hit and only planted explosives there? then had someone watch the building and only detonate them, once the top of the building started leaning over?
Thats a lot of assumption... if we assume a conspiracy it would be trivial to remote/auto pilot a plane into a specifc floor of the building and rig the floors around that... although if it was a conspiracy just sending the planes into the towers would have been a big enough impact without bringing the building down.
Anyhow thats beside my point, I don't think theres enough solid fact to deny the possibility of an alternative explanation and to be so closed minded imo is dangerous... there only took me 4 edits to get that out how I meant it
Last edited:
but then they couldn't calculate the way it would fall, which explosives and cables would be damaged. along with the extreme lack of evidence of explosives or alternatives.
and they still would know that the top of the tower was going to start to lean, before it collapsed.
More evidence for all the doubters out there....
The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) openly admitted the United States needed another "Pearl Harbour" as "an opportunity to capitalize on" and enact their plans. I've used quotes as this is what is explicitly written, there's hard evidence for you. Bear in mind PNAC had many prominent members including Donald Rumsfeld who was defence secretary at the time and Paul Wolfowitz, who is now President of the World Bank.
The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) openly admitted the United States needed another "Pearl Harbour" as "an opportunity to capitalize on" and enact their plans. I've used quotes as this is what is explicitly written, there's hard evidence for you. Bear in mind PNAC had many prominent members including Donald Rumsfeld who was defence secretary at the time and Paul Wolfowitz, who is now President of the World Bank.
hard evidence? it's not a plan and it's not explosive residue or photos of explosives/cutting gear in place. or any number of other things. I try and stay out of the whole the government might of let it happened as it's impossible to get facts. It's better to stick with what we know and what hard evidence we can gather about the fall of the towers.
Okay, let's try another angle.
Al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Osama Bin Laden is on tape saying that he did it. There is written and aural evidence that Al-Qaeda committed the atrocity. Furthermore, we know that the hijackers themselves had developed the skills (flight training, etc.) which were necessary to carry it out, and that they were linked to Al-Qaeda.
How does that fit in with your conspiracy theory?
Al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Osama Bin Laden is on tape saying that he did it. There is written and aural evidence that Al-Qaeda committed the atrocity. Furthermore, we know that the hijackers themselves had developed the skills (flight training, etc.) which were necessary to carry it out, and that they were linked to Al-Qaeda.
How does that fit in with your conspiracy theory?
Don't you ever get bored of dismissing every single point raised as insignificant? On its own yes, this could be nothing, but added to everything else and its just so obvious. Can you imagine the reaction in this country if the Defence Minister was openly a member of a group that was actively seeking a major terrorist attack in order to enact their plans? It's an open admission from the Defense Secretary that "the agenda" is more important than American lives. Hard proof on its own that 9/11 was an inside job, no, another part of the jigsaw of evidence that has convinced so many, yes.
A little leap of faith there. It is not hard evidence at all and yes I do get bored. But I try to stick to quantifiable things. not assumptions.
what is all this "but added to everything else" ?