Originally posted by Emperor AshtarYou obviously don't know how a demolition works. Those who do however, don't agree that the WTC was brought down by planted explosives. Ever thought why that is? Well they have reason to suggest it:
Then can you explain why they fell like a building does during a demolition. According to the FEMA, the building went through a "Pancake Collapse". You mind posting the science behind that?
1. Squibs are visible on every floor starting from the bottom and moving upwards before the collapse
2. Loud simultaneos bangs are heard, not just one or two, but a shitload, especially for a 110 story building.
3. There is not just one hole, there are many holes, which are visible
4. Controlled demolitions do not cause that amount of smoke
Originally posted by lord xyz
You obviously don't know how a demolition works. Those who do however, don't agree that the WTC was brought down by planted explosives. Ever thought why that is? Well they have reason to suggest it:1. Squibs are visible on every floor starting from the bottom and moving upwards before the collapse
2. Loud simultaneos bangs are heard, not just one or two, but a shitload, especially for a 110 story building.
3. There is not just one hole, there are many holes, which are visible
4. Controlled demolitions do not cause that amount of smoke
1)And, that's a problem why, and considering the unique design of the towers it was mostl likely used to destroy the outer wall.
2)How is that a problem, last I checked bombs are loud.
3)Holes whwere, please be specific?
4)It was not only smoke, it was cement and steel that were blasted into Microns
EDIT: The thing is XYZ, I can claim it was control Demoltions, Mini Nukes, or a Freakin' Death ray for all it matters. The bottom line is that those theories that are put forth are alternatives to the the official story.The official Story is so full of holes and the investigation of 911 was so terrible that an alternative is needed. Fema at one point didn't even display the core correctly, and till now there is no explaination for the Structural Behavior of the collapse.
Also, about the dark dust rolling off of those few core columns, steel Most likely was the source of it.
When something is broken up into dust and then it comes off, it'll just linger in the air, but this stuff is just rolling off in great quantities and expanding upwards as if heated. Also, all fireproofing I've ever seen is white/light gray.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah people need to stop living in a fantasy world that the towers collapsed due to fire.Its funny how you can view videos of where demolition experts have set off explosives to blow up buildings and in all those videos they show the same thing that the buildings topple down in a freefall manner in the same EXACT way the towers fell.Yet people cant deal with it that they were lied to,that the towers fell due to explosives going off.Pitiful. 🙄thats hysterical on his flimsy point about architecture.That means nothing because it was the first time in history that a scyscraper collapsed due to fire even though the other towers were subjected to far more intense heat and burned for hours without collapsing.Not only that,you can also view pics of those buildings where bombs were set off to bring down the buildings and the place looks like a war zone,you view pics of skyscrapers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes,those buildings remained intact and collapsed sideways,yet the in new york,you view all the photos of the towers collapse,in just like the photos of buildings that blown up,new york looks like a war zone as well unlike the towers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes.some people just dont want to learn the truth though.
well looks like I got to post this again since it was ignored earlier.AGAIN all you got to do to come to the conclusion that bombs were set off is just look at buildings were they DID set off bombs in buildings to bring them down such as when they destroyed the kingdome where the seatte seahawks used to play to build a new stadium.In instances like that,the place looked like a war zone afterwards.Look at pics of buildings in california that collapsed due to earthquakes and they toppled over sideways like the trade centers should have.Instead New York looked like a war zone afterwards the same way sites do when buildings are set off by bombs not to mention the towers fell in the same freefall manner buildings do when explosives are set off like the kingdome did . 🙄
Originally posted by Mr Parker
well looks like I got to post this again since it was ignored earlier.AGAIN all you got to do to come to the conclusion that bombs were set off is just look at buildings were they DID set off bombs in buildings to bring them down such as when they destroyed the kingdome where the seatte seahawks used to play to build a new stadium.In instances like that,the place looked like a war zone afterwards.Look at pics of buildings in california that collapsed due to earthquakes and they toppled over sideways like the trade centers should have.Instead New York looked like a war zone afterwards the same way sites do when buildings are set off by bombs not to mention the towers fell in the same freefall manner buildings do when explosives are set off like the kingdome did . 🙄
Oh, so instead of responding to me refutation of this exact post, you just post it again?
Interesting.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
1) It was not just fire that caused the collapse, you have a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph into the side of the building. Certainly you consider that when arguing about the forces that caused the collapse? Oh wait, you didn't. Apparently it's not important enough.2)Call my opinions pitiful all you want, if it makes you feel better. Just fyi, I could care less what you think. This from the guy who is always criticizing others for resorting to insults?
3) An Earthquake did not bring down the towers, a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph slamming into the side of the tower and the subsequent burning of the jet fuel did. Don't compare apples to oranges, please.
4) A warzone? Elaborate please. What did you expect, exactly? Two neat piles of debris? Of course the area is going to look like a warzone. Two towers each over 1,000 feet tall collapsing can do that to an area, especially a congested area like a city.
5) Enough with your "people don't want to learn the truth" crap. It's your opinion, nothing else. Because I don't think like you doesn't mean I'm wrong; I have my opinions.
1.The designer of the building Leslie Robertson was on tape initially saying the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a jetliner.Later on months down the road he changed his story for Nova-obviously the government got to him.
2.likewise,I could care less what you think either so were even.
3.My point I brought up on point one still stands.Ple if you do any research you will find that that the experts have said the heat from the jet fuel was not intense enough to melt the structures.
4.thats dodging the issue that the buildings that normally collapse like those towers in san fran for instance dont look like a war zone.however again it IS normal for a place where bombs were set off to look like a war zone.there should not have been HUGE craters in the underground underneath the buildings for one thing if it was just a collapse due to the fires. 🙄 thats just logic and common sense and they should have toppled over sideways if it was going to collapse,it should not have fallen in a freefall manner in seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are used. 🙄 those arent my words,those are the words of the experts.
5.if you have looked at that video by alex jones 9-11 the road to tyranny and you are still defending the official version with these absurd points then your living in denial like many others are.
Originally posted by lord xyz
He doesn't understand how to debate.
No thats you that doesnt.I am not the one that ignores sources that prove that Clinton is evil and corrupted and shows you where you can order those documentary tapes that prove this and then never even bother to do so and just repeat the same damn thing over and over again asking me where I get my sources. 🙄 Nuclear Winter hit the nail right on the head about you,you never do any research when someone challenges you to check out their sources. I just didnt address his points because normally he engages in insults in his posts so I have had him on my ignore list for a long time.I chose to address them this time because for once he wasnt throwing insults at me when he couldnt counter my points.
Originally posted by Mr Parker1. It was designed to withstand a 707 crashing into the building due to loss of control or vision, not a 767 -- which is much bigger [mass and volume] -- used as a missle to crash directly into the building. Where is evidence of a story changing?
1.The designer of the building Leslie Robertson was on tape initially saying the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a jetliner.Later on months down the road he changed his story for Nova-obviously the government got to him.2.likewise,I could care less what you think either so were even.
3.My point I brought up on point one still stands.Ple if you do any research you will find that that the experts have said the heat from the jet fuel was not intense enough to melt the structures.
4.thats dodging the issue that the buildings that normally collapse like those towers in san fran for instance dont look like a war zone.however again it IS normal for a place where bombs were set off to look like a war zone.there should not have been HUGE craters in the underground underneath the buildings for one thing if it was just a collapse due to the fires. 🙄 thats just logic and common sense and they should have toppled over sideways if it was going to collapse,it should not have fallen in a freefall manner in seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are used. 🙄 those arent my words,those are the words of the experts.
5.if you have looked at that video by alex jones 9-11 the road to tyranny and you are still defending the official version with these absurd points then your living in denial like many others are.
2. Not too be arsey, but isn't it "couldn't care less"?
3. For ****s sake, will you please listen to a credible source?
NO ONE SAID IT MELTED!! THE STORY WAS IT [color=maroon]SOFTENED AT UNEVEN TEMPERATURES CAUSING THE STEEL TO GIVE WAY.[/color]
The film "The truth and lies of 9/11" even admits that.
4. The key word here is collapse. The fact that the 2 towers are 110 stories and not like normal towers, kinda destroys any example you have.
5. You're the one living in denial. You won't even accept you heard the official story wrong!
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. 🙄 it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. 🙄 and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. 🙄 it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. 🙄 and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.
And you are ignoring that many more experts have gone on record saying that it was never designed to take the impact of sucha large plane and that the freefall theory is bullsh*t.
Originally posted by Mr Parker1. 767
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. 🙄 it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. 🙄 and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.
Originally posted by Mr Parker"No thats you that doesnt."? 😕
No thats you that doesnt.I am not the one that ignores sources that prove that Clinton is evil and corrupted and shows you where you can order those documentary tapes that prove this and then never even bother to do so and just repeat the same damn thing over and over again asking me where I get my sources. 🙄 Nuclear Winter hit the nail right on the head about you,you never do any research when someone challenges you to check out their sources. I just didnt address his points because normally he engages in insults in his posts so I have had him on my ignore list for a long time.I chose to address them this time because for once he wasnt throwing insults at me when he couldnt counter my points.
When you say insults, do you mean those we say after we've debunked what you've said, or the ones that aren't addressed to anyone personally, but just humour?