BBC 911 conspiracy?

Malt_Vinegar · 5 Aug 2007 at 13:52

During 911, the buildings did collapse at freefall speed, an impossability if the buildings fell under their own weight.

These factors are all covered in the video i posted above.

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 13:57

Tefal said:
Surely office workers would notice a full demo team drilling holes in pillars an placeing explosives over the course of a few days :/

the wtc buildings were closed 3 months prior to sep 11, and they were closed for about 1 week for ' maintenance. '

and guess who was in charge of the whole WTC sites security?

jeb bush. george w bushes little brother.

churned · 5 Aug 2007 at 13:58

Dogoid said:
you would have to be some ignorant baffoon to still argue the contrary.

Or have a mortal fear of being uncool and having people think you wear a tinfoil hat :rolleyes:

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:04

i don't know whats worse,

to instantly dismiss something, or instantly believe something.

i have not come to the conclusion that i have reg 911 by doing nothing.

i held of for ages until the evidence was just too much to ignore.

i am certain as i can be that the official story provided by the american government IS A LIE.

and i am certain that they were also involved.

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:07

Dogoid said:
free fall speed is when there is no resistance at all.

the official explanation for the collapse was of the 'pancake' collapse, were by the weight of the collapsing floor above had such an impact on the floor below that IT began to collapse.

you would not have got free fall speed if that was the case, because that obviously had resistance, which rules out free fall speed. no question.

disregarding 911 for a sec, just look at the science.

you would have to be some ignorant baffoon to still argue the contrary.

So it fell at free fall speed because of no resistance? Surely the floors being crushed one by one as the building fell would provide *some* resistance?

churned · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:13

Dogoid said:
and i am certain that they were also involved.

You can't technically be certain on that, even if it were the truth that it was an inside job, 9/11 truthers automatically put people who value street cred and popularity right off the idea (basically nearly everyone), whether it be a spot on or totally bogus conclusion.

The sad truth is an investigation would be definitely impossible with the mixture of truther crazies and people who want to look cool on the internet by saying anything to disregard actual facts, whether the facts they present be as stupid or more stupid than the claims they are attacking, and yes good grammar does not change validity of an opinion.

Stolly · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:17

Dogoid said:
the wtc buildings were closed 3 months prior to sep 11, and they were closed for about 1 week for ' maintenance. '

and guess who was in charge of the whole WTC sites security?

jeb bush. george w bushes little brother.

ALL of them ?

What did the tens of thousands of employees do for a week ? What about the companies based there ? They would have lost billions.

I'm sceptical of this until someone posts some proof.

Hold on a second, wasn't Jeb Bush the governor of Florida at the time ?

You telling me he took a week off to be security man at ALL the WTC buildings ?

hahahahahaha

Radiation · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:23

Does anyone here believe conspiracies never happen or that organisations within a government couldn't be corrupt or worse to pull something like this off, really isn't there enough questionable stuff surrounding 911 that you can't deny its suspicious at the very least?

I understand many could believe but don't want to out of fear but its worse to simply let such questions go unanswered, despite what many say there is evidence for a conspiracy but thats not to say theres not a lot of dumb theories surrounding something as big as this as you would expect, the sad thing is theres a number of things that really do point to the strong possibility of the deliberate demolition of those buildings.

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:24

iCraig said:
So it fell at free fall speed because of no resistance? Surely the floors being crushed one by one as the building fell would provide *some* resistance?

the lower floors were vaporized by explosives {THERMATE } offering no resistance.

Stolly · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:27

Dogoid said:
the lower floors were vaporized by explosives {THERMATE } offering no resistance.

LOL

churned · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:29

Moses99p said:
roflmuffins, its such a pathetic cop out to say people don't express belief for conspiracies because its not cool.

Sort your life out.

What do you mean pathetic?

There are plenty of people who have no idea about it but they still play it safe based on popular belief and simply take the mick.

Along with that you have people that believe there is no way in hell there could be any corruption among the good guys...

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:30

Dogoid said:
the lower floors were vaporized by explosives {THERMATE } offering no resistance.

Pardon? The buildings were "demolished" then, so to speak? :confused:

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:34

iCraig said:
Pardon? The buildings were "demolished" so to speak?

they certainly never collapsed due to fire. and if they did, they would be the first EVER steel structured building that did.

both wtc towers and wt7 were demolished using explosives.

churned · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:34

There's no point making any conclusions on this, there isn't enough evidence to back up either side of the argument, apparent holes in the explanation don't technically prove anything and the U.S. government's explanation does not technically prove anything...

churned · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:37

Moses99p said:
IMO you are effectively trying to present yourself as being on the moral highground,

"oh, i am reasonable and consider the facts. All you doubters are just sticking your heads in the sand"

I'm not effectively trying anything, I am considering the facts on both sides of the argument and yes people are taking sides, neutrality on the subject is not illegal, is it?

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:39

churned said:
and the U.S. government's explanation does not technically prove anything...

but it should, thats the problem, its the governments explanation which is the messiest explanation in the history of bad explanations.

it wouldn't be so bad if they could lie a good lie. they failed bad in having a really good lie to tell to the public on sep 12.

but no, they went and told the box cutter story.

and all went down hill from there for them.

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:39

Dogoid said:
they certainly never collapsed due to fire. and if they did, they would be the first EVER steel structured building that did.

What happened before the fire? What caused the fire? Hmm, a 767 ploughing into them at full speed? That couldn't of had anything to do with damaging the building could it?

Dogoid said:
both wtc towers and wt7 were demolished using explosives.

It makes no sense to plough planes into them then does it?

If it was a cover-up to blame terrorists, just blow the buildings up and say terrorists infiltrated the building over a period of weeks, planted hidden explosives in the buildings' weak spots and then blew them up on the morning of 9/11.

Why do a song and dance faking hijackings and crashing planes into them when there's a much easier way. You're barking mad mate.

tomanders91 · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:40

"this is too bigger mystery for us, im afraid were gonna have to call in... THE HARDLY BOYS"

(the south park episode about the 9/11 conspiracy if you dont get it

)

Dogoid · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:42

iCraig said:
What happened before the fire? What caused the fire? Hmm, a 767 ploughing into them at full speed? That couldn't of had anything to do with damaging the building could it?

the two towers were specifically designed to withstand not 1 passenger plane crashing into it, but 5 from different angles at the same time.

not me who claims this , but the architect who designed the buildings.

Jokester · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:44

Dogoid said:
the two towers were specifically designed to withstand not 1 plane crashing into it, but 5 from different angles at the same time.

not me who claims this , but the architect who designed the buildings.

Actually, they were designed to withstand the impact of one jetliner, which they did actually withstand. Just they never considered the impact of the following fire.

Jokester