Originally posted by jaden101This, this, this and holy shit this. Is it just me or is this fact always ignored when the "fire does not collapse buildings" conspiracy comes up.
point 1:...for a start...it wasn't just a fire...it had an impact of a 200+ ton airliner crashing into it at 400+ mph...the forces exerted by the impact are collosal
Originally posted by DeanoAre you an engineer? Have you ever witnessed buildings that tall collapse under the exact same circumstances? Do you even know at what speed they fell? By the way some random 'engineer' saying it was a controlled explosion on a 9/11 conspiracy video just wont do.
doesnt explain the building collapsing at free fall speed
Originally posted by Deano
doesnt explain the building collapsing at free fall speed
freefall is 9 seconds...most of the building took upwards of 15 seconds...some took 24 seconds...
always good to look at the evidence 1st Deano...
and even if it were "near free fall"...which only the outer sections of the building were...which you'd expect as the outer parts of the building had no resistance...it's still not actual freefall speed...thus negating your argument completely....
i suggest you dont bring up "evidence" which has been completely and utterly destroyed by simple...observation
not to mention that this 9 second figure is actually relating to if someone dropped a ball from the top of the building...it would take 9-11 seconds to reach the ground (irony right there eh?)
i've already posted a link to a video showing pieces of the actual structurally important parts of the building (the core) taking in excess of 20 seconds to collapse...that's 15 seconds more than freefall....and this is the areas that would actually have to be destroyed for a controlled demolition to take place...not where these alleged "squibs" come from...namely...the windows...since did demolition engineers plant explosives on windows in order to demolish a building?....oh that's right...never
Originally posted by Deano
i just dont believe bin laden did it. if he and his cronies did do it, then they were helped and allowed toanyone who thinks otherwise needs there head examined
belief is an entirely different matter...just don't go bringing up "evidence" that's been blown out the water too many times to even think it's plausible
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, Pearl Harbour was done by the japanese, but Roosevelt still allowed it, just like Cheney and Myers let the planes hit the towers.
I can't speak for everyone here, but in my case I just stay cautious. Hopfully my own intuition is enough to see past the lies and manipulation, either from the government or the truthers.
Originally posted by Deano
i just dont believe bin laden did it. if he and his cronies did do it, then they were helped and allowed toanyone who thinks otherwise needs there head examined
I agree...
I can't exactly "prove it", but something tells me that the government HAD to either know about or have some hand in 9/11...
Originally posted by Deano
i just dont believe bin laden did it. if he and his cronies did do it, then they were helped and allowed toanyone who thinks otherwise needs there head examined
yes........because militant, extremist mid-east Muslims have not been known to hijack planes and blow them up for the past 40 years. That stereotype just materialized from nothing........they didn't hijack and blow up numerous other planes previously.
Originally posted by Evil DeadWouldn't all those previous attempts make defense really high? Oh wait, it did. The attacks still happened.
yes........because militant, extremist mid-east Muslims have not been known to hijack planes and blow them up for the past 40 years. That stereotype just materialized from nothing........they didn't hijack and blow up numerous other planes previously.
Originally posted by Deano
i just dont believe bin laden did it. if he and his cronies did do it, then they were helped and allowed toanyone who thinks otherwise needs there head examined
exactly.when you got a controversy going like this cause there are countless numbers demolition experts saying those towers could not have fallen straight down like that at the same freefall speed towers do fall down due to explosives,and we DO have countless of experts saying that,its so obvious those towers came done due to explosives.not to mention that you also have firefighters calling the investigation a half baked farce in fire enginnering magazine saying-I know the difference between a mere collapse of a building and an explosion and those were explosives that went off.
Originally posted by Bat DudeHey, Deano occasionally makes good points. The fact is that I have no alignment on this conspiracy anti-conspiracy battle, and will defend whatever I personally believe to be truth. For example, I have thoroughly proven a plane hit the pentagon, yet I still believe it was a conspiracy, like all other intelligent conspiracy theorists.
Is lord xyz DEFENDING Deano? Has hell frozen over or something?
If conspiracy theorist is red, and anti-conspiracy theorist is blue, I'm green.