9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
- Status
They decided to pull and watch it collapse = pull the firefighters out so no more died
Perhaps he was referring to pulling men out the building. where or when did they have time to set up explosives under heavy video surveillance, in a flame and smoked filled building.
Pulling It despite what loose change says is not used for conventional demolition. It is only used when cables are attached to a building. These cables are pulled to direct the fall. This method clearly was not used on WTC7.
Last edited:
Its a very odd way to use the term in context.
internet lacks tone. Take it with a hit of patronizing.
We are all going over stuff that we have done in much detail in the last 3 or 4 threads. Most of which is easily debunked, with just a quick search on the internet.
Did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?
I'm not buying any explanation, I've listened to what the guy's said and put together my own theory on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0
Just thought id throw that into the mix. Pretty convincing tbh. Not saying a missile hit the pentagon but it doesn't look like a plane did either
Just thought id throw that into the mix. Pretty convincing tbh. Not saying a missile hit the pentagon but it doesn't look like a plane did either
Wings would have been obliterated on impact. They're full of jet fuel and being slammed in to a reinforced concrete building at almost the speed of sound, they're not going to last.
The hole's only small because that's how the building was designed. It's in sections so that if one goes down the rest stands up. There's even gaps in the floor in places.
There's no point comparing it to the WTC impacts as the buildings are compeltely different.
It is only used in demolition for a perticuler job. Where cabels are attached to teh building that did not happen. So why do you think it relates to controlled demolition.
where are the explosions and damage on videos?
Nist calculate where the charge would need to be in there report and what damage this would cause. No such evidence in videos can be seen.
Not very convincing at all. You only get heat or flame damage when items are in a fire for long enough period a fraction of a second is not enough. Also some of those items are visible due to the collapse and well out of the way of any fire. Same reason you fight passports and other such items totally intacted in plane crashes.
Run a lit lighter over a piece of paper at a steady speed it does not catch fire.
Last edited:
I have been chatting friends in NY and I thought some may like to know this.
"Last week it became official! At least ten towns in New Hampshire will have the following question on the ballot at this spring’s town meetings"
"Shall New Hampshire’s Congressional Delegation be instructed to pursue a new and independent
investigation to address thoroughly all of the evidence and unanswered questions related to the events of September 11, 2001?"
Looks like Nist will have to give up there data after all. Or will papers go missing.
And you know the new pics of 9-11 that was posted on ocuk took a year to get as ABC took NIST to court to get them.
Wonder why nist did not want the pictures to go public?
It's not over till the fat lady sings
"Last week it became official! At least ten towns in New Hampshire will have the following question on the ballot at this spring’s town meetings"
"Shall New Hampshire’s Congressional Delegation be instructed to pursue a new and independent
investigation to address thoroughly all of the evidence and unanswered questions related to the events of September 11, 2001?"
Looks like Nist will have to give up there data after all. Or will papers go missing.
And you know the new pics of 9-11 that was posted on ocuk took a year to get as ABC took NIST to court to get them.
Wonder why nist did not want the pictures to go public?
It's not over till the fat lady sings
Nist have been trying to stop this for year's they tried every trick in the book
but now a independent review board(and MIT if they win the vote) will look at the data.
The other thing is why would Nist fight in court to stop ABC showing the new pictures for a year?
Why are Nist trying to stop the familys of 9-11 from having a independent review?
And what happens when nist are proven wrong?
Since when has any company American or English every given details out. There is nothing odd about that at all, pretty much all detail, pictures and everything shown in the news these days have had court orders, or freedom of information act. You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy, when it is extremely normal procedure.
Court cases I imagine, that wasn't the question though. What will you do if the report coincides with what NIST says.
I am and always have been open minded and will change my view, if there is evidence to back it up. Something the CT so far have not shown a thread of so far.
Court cases I imagine, that wasn't the question though. What will you do if the report coincides with what NIST says.
I am and always have been open minded and will change my view, if there is evidence to back it up. Something the CT so far have not shown a thread of so far.
Last edited:
And the firefighters, etc, who would have to be in on it for some reason. And the invisible people planting invisible explosives in the buildings in the preceeding days (a controlled demolition is a complicated job, not just a matter of lobbing explosives in the basement) and the missiles disguised as planes for some reason. And the silent explosions.
As I outline above, your conspiracy "theory" sounds utterly ridiculous. It does not sound at all probable. In fact, it sounds impossible.
I'll address the points you find improbable one at a time:
i) The hijacks. Prior to this, hijackings were done for specific purposes (e.g. release of prisoners) and did not involve killing all the passengers. Usually, the hijacking was resolved without any passengers dying. So a hijacking could be carried out with knives because the threat of immediate death is greater than the outside possibility of death later.
ii) The quality of the flying. It is not hard to fly a modern passenger plane at a very large target, espeicially in the air. It is also not hard to learn the controls beforehand - they are not secret and there were even simulators available at very low cost.
iii) The buildings weren't built to withstand a direct high-speed impact with a massive plane without massive damage. That would be impossible. They stood up to the impact as well as could be expected.
iv) They didn't crumble into dust at freefall speeds. Are you arguing that all the video is faked and all witnesses are lying? Of course, you'd expect a weakened structure on fire to collapse rapidly when hit directly from above by many, many thousands of tonnes of weight.
v) Are you referring to the tower that was hit by parts of the other towers when they fell? The "one that was not hit by anything" yet had a multi-storey hole in it where it was hit by falling debris from the other towers?
The one that requires thousands of people to be in on a conspiracy for the USA to attack itself using non-existent technology and relies on provably untrue statements. In other words, your one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,153
- Location
- Neptune
Or, crash an aeroplane in to an office/building and watch in amazement as the jet fuel seemingly bypasses usually highly flammable materials (wood, paper). And remember: fire/heat goes UP - how would the books, desks and other flammables get 'ignored' by the roaring fire beneath - and leave no smoke damage? I'm sure the laws of physics would have something to say about that!
The reason you find passports etc at the scenes of a plane crash isn't because they weren't in a fire long enough to burn, but because they were ejected from the plan on impact (or shortly after).
When a plane goes up in flames you simply cannot compare it to running a lighter over some paper.
And just a friendly reminder: your version of events are no more credible than anyone else's here yet you seem think they are for some reason. The only advantage you have is that the US government have fed this version to you, via the media, and you've happily lapped it up. There's simply too much going against the events of that day to suggest that what the US say is the be all and end all of it. Ignorance is bliss though, right?
I find the complete trust so many people have in the government a little scary. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying their report is untrue. But the fact remains that thousands of professionals and scientists believe that certain things either do not add up or have not been explained.
Given the enormity of the crime, surely it is our duty to support any attempt to clarify these matters. But instead, the population in general paint anyone who even mentions this as a disrespectful nut job.
Such strong, irrational responses don't just happen. Our inability to listen to anyone who doesn't "tow the line" is the result of constant use of buzzwords from the politicians and the media.
Regardless, I try to remain aware that all information I am "fed" (be it from official sources or someone shouting about a conspiracy) is not something I can verify or disprove either way. I simply don't have the knowledge or the experience to know.
Given the enormity of the crime, surely it is our duty to support any attempt to clarify these matters. But instead, the population in general paint anyone who even mentions this as a disrespectful nut job.
Such strong, irrational responses don't just happen. Our inability to listen to anyone who doesn't "tow the line" is the result of constant use of buzzwords from the politicians and the media.
Regardless, I try to remain aware that all information I am "fed" (be it from official sources or someone shouting about a conspiracy) is not something I can verify or disprove either way. I simply don't have the knowledge or the experience to know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
- Status