9/11 crap again, what do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
oulton said:
Yes they do, as I have explained.
Click to expand...

Lol, you haven't explained anything. You've stated it.

Want to comment on where I said these "explosions" are the reverse of what you see in CD. Or are up you unable to and hence you've ignored it.

When you look into it in detail, there ar so many inaccuracies between what you see and what CD look like.
 
I am currently researching a possible link between paranoia and illiteracy. My hypothesis is that an inability to articulate oneself correctly leads to an increase in paranoia and ultimately the formulation and promulgation of conspiracy theories. Would anyone object to my citing this thread in my paper?
 
diamount said:
RT is owned by the Russian government. So the best course of action is not to believe anyone with an agenda. That includes our own media outlets.
Click to expand...

This and I advise people to check out the BBC's Conspiracy Road trip on 9/11 it has an answer for most of the theories already been said in this thread.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
I am currently researching a possible link between paranoia and illiteracy. My hypothesis is that an inability to articulate oneself correctly leads to an increase in paranoia and ultimately the formulation and promulgation of conspiracy theories. Would anyone object to my citing this thread in my paper?
Click to expand...

Please do.
I'm currently researching the possible link between arrogant w****** and what motivates their need for internet high fives.
Perhaps we could compare notes? You'd have to do my spell checking for me of course.
 
I have read a lot on this subject and I mean a lot and the worst thing the truth movement ever did was to convince themselves that the buildings were brought down with explosives and a missile hit the pentagon. This is almost exclusively the discussion that goes back and forward now and is a total waste of time. I have seen nothing at all that convinces me the building damage was caused by anything other than 3 hijacked passenger planes.

However there is some fascinating documented information out there that points to 9/11 being one of the worst failures and subsequent cover ups in political history, or that certain interested parties guided the situation to happen. Please look into Able Danger and who was put in control of air force war game exercises just prior to 9/11. The sacking of the Pakistani ISI chief and where the FBI traced the money that was wire transferred to Mohammed Atta came from.

There is a cover up, the question is were the officials just covering their asses or were they hiding something a bit more sinister.
 
Rhodri said:
He's right though, you've not explained anything, or presented any evidence apart from claiming thousands of structural engineers claim it to be a CD.
Click to expand...

Neither has he, so what is your point?

My argument is that a controlled demolition follows the exact same collapse sequence as seen in the twin tower collapse.

Also that the fire could not possibly have burned hot enough to melt the steel lattice, I refute the arguement made that the secondary fire could have

And thirdly that the building didn't simply buckle gradually. the collapse was instantaneous.
 
oulton said:
Neither has he, so what is your point?

My argument is that a controlled demolition follows the exact same collapse sequence as seen in the twin tower collapse.

Also that the fire could not possibly have burned hot enough to melt the steel lattice, I refute the arguement made that the secondary fire could have

And thirdly that the building didn't simply buckle gradually. the collapse was instantaneous.
Click to expand...

Again I have pinted out several things.
the "explosions" happened in reverse, to what you see in CD.
The steel didn't melt, your the only one saying it didn't. Or need to be.
Then on top of that the sequence isn't even the same. With the roof terrace falling first, then the top damaged bit leaning, non of this is normal sequence for CD.

So yes I've stated a loot of points for you to go look into. I haven't just stated at all. I've given you some points you can look into.

Stating the sequence is the same isn't telling us anything. You faiil to point out the obvious floors in this as well. What do you think a CD sequence is then how does this compare to the video.
 
MikeTheNative said:
Russian government's agenda is to discredit USA in the face of Military action in Syria. The BBC is not run by the government and is meant to be impartial.
Click to expand...

Wow, you actually believe that. :eek:

The BBC is the most bias pile of turd on British TV, RT's agenda is to upset USA, correct. But at the same time the information they put forward is the type of thing kept out of the British and American media.

A lot of the time they have a bias towards p****** of merica, but the information they put forward is generally sound.
 
oulton said:
My argument is that a controlled demolition follows the exact same collapse sequence as seen in the twin tower collapse.
Click to expand...

Does it? Normally CD has an explosion first then the building collapses.

oulton said:
Also that the fire could not possibly have burned hot enough to melt the steel lattice, I refute the arguement made that the secondary fire could have
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "hot enough to weaken steel to affect its load capacity" and "hot enough to melt steel"

oulton said:
And thirdly that the building didn't simply buckle gradually. the collapse was instantaneous.
Click to expand...

No it didn't, it's obvious from the footage the top bit fell onto the bottom bit.
 
Steel at room temperature: 100% Strength

Steel at -50F: 111% Strength

Steel at 500F: 91% Strength

Steel at 900F: 76% Strength

Steel at 1100F: 69% Strength

Steel at 1350F: 44% Strength

Steel at >1700F: <10% Strength.

See a correlation Here??

Ever seen a black smith pounding out steel at 850 degrees? Why does this work?

The confined temperature in the WTC was about 1100 to 1500F.

Oops
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom