9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
- Status
*adds another 100-200 people who work in these reports to the list that need to be bribed or killed...
Again that's a lie,
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
well four missiles, three controlled demolitions and norad and the media being hacked.
sounds a hell of a lot likely and probable than a bunch of tea towel headed people taking over four planes with box cutters, doing near impossible flying meanevours to hit 3 out of four targets and then the buildings which were built to withstand multiple plane impacts, crumble into dust at FREE FALL SPEED (the speed of mavity), then at 5pm in the afternoon a building that was not hit by anything becomes the third building in history to collapse at free fall speed.
oh yea which one is silly again ?
you ever heard of decompartmentalisation ?
the cover up operation was as big as the operation on the day itself, they had to collect all the video and pictures that showed missiles and fake the planes on tv.
you ask any questions, i have plausible answers, i have spent a lot of time on this and when you come a long and make such basic arguments, makes me shake my head.
sounds a hell of a lot likely and probable than a bunch of tea towel headed people taking over four planes with box cutters, doing near impossible flying meanevours to hit 3 out of four targets and then the buildings which were built to withstand multiple plane impacts, crumble into dust at FREE FALL SPEED (the speed of mavity), then at 5pm in the afternoon a building that was not hit by anything becomes the third building in history to collapse at free fall speed.
oh yea which one is silly again ?
you ever heard of decompartmentalisation ?
the cover up operation was as big as the operation on the day itself, they had to collect all the video and pictures that showed missiles and fake the planes on tv.
you ask any questions, i have plausible answers, i have spent a lot of time on this and when you come a long and make such basic arguments, makes me shake my head.
the buildings were designed to take the impact of a small plane at low speeds that had gotten lost during landing.
Not a massive jet line at full throttle.
It's like wearing body armour designed to stop a pistol round against a anti material rifle.
Also where did these missiles hit?
Are you saying that no planes it the towers but missiles did?
Not a massive jet line at full throttle.
It's like wearing body armour designed to stop a pistol round against a anti material rifle.
Also where did these missiles hit?
Are you saying that no planes it the towers but missiles did?
These missiles were not seen, but we have loads of video evidence of planes hitting the towers.
A missile could not cut down street lamps with a span the same width as a plane, or clip and move a 10 ton generator before it hit the pentagon.
Again you know nothing and say it like fact.
I don't believe in any dark sinister conspiracy surrounding tower 7 coming down - but I do believe that it would not have collapsed like it had left to its own devices - whether it was for health and safety reason or it would make it easier in the long run I dunno and why they felt the need to cover it up I don't know - but Americans do have some weird patriotic values.
Look how even sillier you are making yourselves look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Please watch this video, it has an excellent review in this very thread
Brilliant video, should be a forum rule to watch it before posting
So you think that in the middle of massive fire several crews of engineers ran in their started stripping concrete and laying hundreds of meters of cables to carefully set of a controlled demolition?
Something that normally takes weeks (and even longer for the calculations) done in a few minutes in a burning building and toxic atmosphere?
Your posting is silly.
mavity has a speed?
The speed of mavity is the speed of light (or just below) iirc
If you're right then how did we even see them fall at that speed?
If you're right then how did we even see them fall at that speed?
I'm more concerned that we survived the impact of several thousand tones of steel and concrete hitting the earth at that speed
I know how the logistics look.
But I still find a number of aspects unlikely for a completely uncontrolled demolition.
I don't really want to start a mass debate about it again - but I was on vent (VOIP) with a gaming clan with NYC members on the day it happened - when things kicked off we were playing quake 3 and stayed on to talk with them for the rest of the day... and a number of things were reported about tower 7 in the news - that couldn't have been guessed at ahead of time - ahead of realtime events - one of our guys had a clear view from his apartment.
I'm more concerned that we survived the impact of several thousand tones of steel and concrete hitting the earth at that speed
Invisible forcefields to contain the impact
Aaaah... of course! Quake 3 gamers, the fountain of all knowledge who always tell the absolute truth and would never embelish the facts
And you're going to store what was it, half a million tons of steel where exactly to check it all out?
Or are you going to try and just get samples of the material as it's being cleared up for testing? (I'd guess the latter, as there is very little point in wasting huge amounts of time, and the money to test every bit of the materials).
One is a huge waste of time, money, and manpower,not to mention take decades, during which time the remains will need to be stored somewhere that they won't degrade if the tests are to be valid*. The other is fairly simple, can be done effectively by a relatively small team to identify the materials that might be of interest, then stored and tested.
They know why it happened, they knew when it was built what could cause it to happen, hence they went to the effort and cost of building it with a lot of redundancy in the supporting structure** and fire retardant materials - what they didn't expect was for an aircraft considerably bigger than any around at the time of construction to be flown into it, removing most of the redundancy that had been planned/built in, and for the foam insulation to be in such a poor state*** (IIRC it was being redone as inspections had highlighted it as a risk in case of a fire, regardless of the cause/anything impacting the building).
Computer modelling, and physical modelling all show the outcome being the same under the circumstances given what was visibly seen to have happened, and what was known about both the buildings and the aircraft (design/construction etc)...
Conspiracy Theorists tend to have a field day as most of them don't seem able to understand engineering, mathematics, physics, or architecture (given it's relatively simple to work out the rate at which the building fell if you know it's height, and the start/stop of it's fall as an example).
Instead it's easier (and somehow more comforting) for them to think it's a huge well organised, highly secret government conspiracy involving thousands, than a combination of a fairly small number of fanatics, incompetence by various government agencies, and poor maintenance in a commercial building (a buildings owner being slow to make sure it's maintained to the original design specs for fire safety in hard to reach, expensive to maintain areas, never!)
*I don't think there is anywhere in the world with enough storage in a controlled environment for that...
**Or as much as was practical given the other design considerations.
***IIRC a study by an architecture student/post grad on one of the towers before 9/11 showed that much of the foam insulation to protect the girders from the heat of a fire, had been applied very poorly in construction, to the point what it was pretty much useless (not enough, or gaps), in some areas.
You may have been on some sort of VOIP but I doubt it was vent, unless of course you were also doing some dodgy time travelling.
And the simpler explanation of "a hell of a lot of confusion and quite a few reporters wouldn't be able to tell you what WTC7 looked like if it fell on top of them" didn't occur? Instead we need to work out some sort of impossible demolition mission instead.
People on here seem to lack common sense. It even quotes enginners saying in the article that tower 7 would not fall down like that - if fires had ripped through the building it would gradually fall down in pieces.
Watch the video on the bbc article - the building falls down all together and has disappeared within 10 seconds. Then if you go watch a controlled explosion on a building it looks exactly the same!
There is absolutely no way that building would fall as symmetrically as it did if fire was the cause!
Watch the video on the bbc article - the building falls down all together and has disappeared within 10 seconds. Then if you go watch a controlled explosion on a building it looks exactly the same!
There is absolutely no way that building would fall as symmetrically as it did if fire was the cause!
- Status