Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state
- Thread starter Minusorange
- Start date
Have you ever typed his name into Google with the word debunked?
Of course not, what was a thinking.
As you said earlier, to great hilarity, you know mannnn you just can't tell us because even putting it on the internet is dangerous mannnn.
I guess all the people who put it on the internet are all dead now then?
You need to spend another 7 years reading about the opposite point of view now and come back and tell us your conclusions but careful to not to let slip what you know mannnn
So they had it rigged to blow....and then luckily for them 4 planes were hi-jacked on the day they planned to make it blow up and 2 crashed into a near by building so they had a lucky escape....but were somewhat annoyed they spent all that money on TNT from Walmart?
From a couldn't care less point of view i have watched this clip posted by Nate75 over and over and cannot understand how a 40 odd story building would fall straight down. I even held a ruler on my screen and it is almost perfectly straight down.
I know the fires could cause weakening etc but why would every single point of the building fail at the exact same time. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of beams and columns in there. Need to look into this more.
Man of Honour
Some new nonsense to debunk, so I won't be able to cut and paste.
You should stop skim-reading half a sentence from a report. It's making you look silly.
As the report clearly stated, there were several stages of collapse of part of the building with different rates of collapse at different times. Stage 1 lasted 1.75 seconds, stage 2 lasted 2.25 seconds (i.e. from 1.75 seconds after the beginning of the described period to 4.0 seconds after the beginning of the described period) and stage 3 lasted 1.4 seconds (i.e from 4.0 seconds after the beginning of the described period to 5.4 seconds after the beginning of the described period).
If you can't even be bothered to read the few lines of the report you quoted, why on earth are you pretending to know anything about the report? You haven't read the report. You haven't even read the few very short lines from it that you quoted. You're talking obvious nonsense and you're making yourself look silly. I know more about ancient Assyrian poetry than you know about the NIST report, let alone the whole event. I know nothing about ancient Assyrian poetry, but you know much less than nothing about the NiST report or the whole event because you "know" obvious falsehoods about it. You're on a par with someone who "knows" that the moon is made out of cheese and claiming to be an expert on the moon.
But at least you read that they did get it wrong and put it right in the final draft.
That is, of course, a lie. I have no hesitation in saying that you are lying because you have read me saying exactly the opposite. You've read that several times. Now it's time for me to cut and paste again:
I see that it's time to cut and paste again:
I'm just going to cut and paste the same text as many times as is necessary. No point retyping it.
Please read the NIST report. Either one - they don't contradict each other.
Quick summary - the collapse of the building was not in free fall. 2 seconds of the collapse of one part of the building was in free fall. Not a contradiction. Not an admission of being wrong. Claims that the faithful are making about the NIST reports are false.
Note the words " Not a contradiction. Not an admission of being wrong."
You're lying. It's as simple and as blunt as that.
My bad about the WTC7 CT explanation - apparently that was the alleged motive for the Pentagon hit (it was the part of the building housing their accounting department, which was apparently involved in the investigation of a $2.3 trillion blackhole in the Pentagon's budget).
Man of Honour
Not to me. Why not? Because there weren't dozens of experts studying the building and carefully laying precisely calculated explosives of the correct quantity, placement and shape. That takes weeks of study and days to accomplish and it's not hideable.
All tall buildings, especially in a dense urban area, are designed to collapse straight downwards in case of failure. It would be insanity to not do so. If you were in charge of planning permission, building standards and suchlike, would you authorise a building that would probably collapse sideways and wreck every building within hundreds of metres, dozens of buildings in a dense urban enviroment? Of course not, unless you're a nutter who likes massive destruction and death. You'd require buildings to be designed to collapse straight down as much as possible in as many circumstances as possible. The purpose of a controlled demolition is to make certain that happens, but it will probably happen regardless of the cause of failure.
A perfect example of how CT builds. Take a statement, avoid the detail and paint a picture. Not aimed at you, but this is fantastic example of the ill informed leading the ill informed to conclude stuff.
It is fairly easy to discount a conventional demolition job anyhow - even assuming they'd managed to stealth rig the building you can't hide the sequence of explosions used to bring it down.
^^^ this is typical CT behaviour... post a video: hey guys go watch this CT video.... no ability to actually post a claim, make an argument etc....
Don't be so condescending it was Israel and the j**s its not hard to figure out. But if you want to live in my little pony land then each to there own.
What? Are you really going to go for the old: "the jews" did 911 line???? FFS
At least the conspiraloon Mulder was careful to just be vague and then deflect or disappear when asked for any details re: what exactly he thought was suspicious... you've just gone full ******. Sorry but that is ridiculous - what is the basis for that claim?
I'm assuming there wasn't much evidence for this? Given this happened in the middle of the financial district I'm not going to be surprised if there is an accountancy firm in that building that happens to be contracted to the US govt, or indeed some govt entity involved in finance. However I'm going to assume that any CT is perhaps just going to be, at best, some loon extrapolating from an inconsequential fact like that if at all.
Buildings are designed to collapse in a progressive manner, that does not preclude them collapsing sideways. It’s all about the collapse being proportionate to the failure.
I think I've just proven I'm a poor substitute for a real and up-to-date CT'er on where they're at explanation/evidence wise (getting their explanation for targeting WTC7 mixed up with the alleged Pentagon motive). I'd be interested to hear as well, though I imagine most individuals invested in those ideas would be hesitant to reply to this thread given the flak some have received.
Or because there is no depth to their ‘investment’ perhaps? Fantasy for the sake of debate or because you believe a lie may have been told is still fantasy. As the years have gone on the vast swaithes of 9/11 ct has been emphatically debunked. What we are left with is a few left overs and a next generation trying to keep the debate going....with fantasy mainly.
I dunno, I've yet to see any of these CT types actually substantiate much - they seem to rely on "read this link/watch this CT video" and are seemingly not able to present a claim themselves beyond a very basic overview or answer questions relating to their claim.
There are some 'heavy weights' who stand by 9/11 as a conspiracy, though I think they generally substitute 'watch this video' for 'read this book'. Far too much effort for me personally as I already find the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy spurious going by what's reached my ears.
Man of Honour
Tall buildings in a densely built-up area are not going to pass sane planning permission unless they're designed to collapse downwards if they collapse. That doesn't preclude them collapsing sideways in some circumstances, but they're definitely going to be designed to collapse downwards if they collapse. If you were in charge, would you sign off on one that wasn't? If so, why?
I don't think he intentionally skim read it or is lying, he genuinely has a low reading comprehension level.
Agreed buildings are designed to collapse in a progressive manner should there be a structural failure, however under a catastrophic failure then it can be anyone's guess as to how the structure will collapse.
I'm not disagreeing with what you have said more with the way it was said. If a building designed not to collapse does collapse can you trust the design to ensure the building falls vertically?
In the NIST report iirc it mentions the internal structures had already started to collapse before the exterior walls did, due to the extra strength/stiffness of the exterior walls. You can see this with the structure on the top and in the middle of the roof start to sag and fall down before the exterior walls move. It's then not exactly a leap of faith to see how this would cause the building to fall down/inwards rather than topple over - (IANAEngineer)