This still makes me angry.

Oklahomahawk said:
The only 9/11 conspiracy theory that has ever made ANY sense to me was the one I read about how some folks were working in areas around the foundation pillars (this was a crony deal for a buddy of W's) in and around the elevator shafts. Then when the planes hit the buildings they set off pre-placed explosives that helped in bringing the towers down. This was of course covered up so that the Dems wouldn't say W was either in on it or at least complacent in it. I don't believe W had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 thing but since we all know he, like every president before him and the only president after him was up to his arse in crony contracts I at least cede the possibility that this may have been part of the problem. I'm not saying I believe this theory but of all the ones I've ever heard this is the only one that makes any sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense at all. Clearly the towers fell where the fires were. Look at the videos. Please do me a favor and look at the videos of the towers falling and permanently remove this theory from your brain. They didn't fall at the foundation. Don't encourage sturg. WTC7 fell lower because the fire was lower.
 
weso1 said:
It doesn't make any sense at all. Clearly the towers fell where the fires were. Look at the videos. Please do me a favor and look at the videos of the towers falling and permanently remove this theory from your brain. They didn't fall at the foundation. Don't encourage sturg. WTC7 fell lower because the fire was lower.
Click to expand...

I never said I actually believed this theory, just that this one was the only one that had any chance of being true, the others that I have ever heard are just crazy, this one is just highly unlikely. And if I don't encourage sturg, who will?
 
Zero chance of it being true, Ohawk. Look at the videos of the towers falling and you will realize this.

Sturg and I hijacked this thread. Mossy's belief that it's possible that someone in a position of high power knew about it before hand is much more believable and possible. If you want to have a conspiracy theory then this is the place to go.

Plenty of questions surround 9/11 and even I have some questions, but we need to keep our questions sensible. This idea that there was some movie script conspiracies is just absurd. People would take sturg a lot more seriously if he didn't buy into these absurd conspiracies. Keep it to more reasonable conspiracies.
 
Weso, you're delusional man.

How can you say that the video you posted fell the same exact way as WTC7, when the video you posted you posted the building is still standing? Seriously, how?

Also, WTC1 and 2 didn't collapse because of fire either.

But hey, this conspiracy is dumb because it's not like the government has profited off of 9/11.
 
Look sturg, I'm not going to continue this debate if you can't admit that buildings on fire can and have fallen similar to a demolition site. Your belief that it's impossible for a building to collapse similar to a demolition site is based on nothing.

The fires were absolutely one of the major reasons that building one and two collapsed. The steel was distorted because of the intense heat.

You don't seem to have a good handle on the investigation into why the buildings collapsed. You thought the steel in the buildings melted away for example. And you think only a controlled demolition would cause WTC 7 to fall like it did. I don't think you have a good understanding of physics and engineering yet you seem to think you are incredibly knowledgeable.
 
weso1 said:
Look sturg, I'm not going to continue this debate if you can't admit that buildings on fire can and have fallen similar to a demolition site. Your belief that it's impossible for a building to collapse similar to a demolition site is based on nothing.

The fires were absolutely one of the major reasons that building one and two collapsed. The steel was distorted because of the intense heat.

You don't seem to have a good handle on the investigation into why the buildings collapsed. You thought the steel in the buildings melted away for example. And you think only a controlled demolition would cause WTC 7 to fall like it did. I don't think you have a good understanding of physics and engineering yet you seem to think you are incredibly knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

LOL. I think you're actually delirious or so brainwashed you can't see straight.

The video you posted of the building - the building is STILL STANDING. How can you say it fell the same way? WTC 7 fell to the ground at free fall speed. The whole building collapsed. Not half of it. All of it. It was also 47 stories. The video you posted was like a 5 story building.
 
sturg33 said:
LOL. I think you're actually delirious or so brainwashed you can't see straight.

The video you posted of the building - the building is STILL STANDING. How can you say it fell the same way? WTC 7 fell to the ground at free fall speed. The whole building collapsed. Not half of it. All of it. It was also 47 stories. The video you posted was like a 5 story building.
Click to expand...

Ok sturg, I'm sure reasonable people would think I'm the delusional one here. I think on that 2nd video I thought those were seperate buildings like in large downtown areas where you have buildings sort of semi connected by outer walls. But looking at it again you may be right that it's all one building. See, how you can look at evidence and change your mind about something. It's not hard. But with that in mind it's irrelevant. The part where it fell imploded and I'm not exactly sure why you think we can't extrapolate how a building falls of a relative small size to that of a larger size. Again, I think your delusion seems to be that you think you understand physics. The videos are pretty clear in showing that it's possible. You think it's not possible? Based on what, your horrific knowledge of physics and what fire does to steel?

Again if you can't understand that it's possible then there's just no debating. So this will be my last post on this unless you're willing to be reasonable.
 
BedellBrave said:
Are you a structural engineer?
Click to expand...

No. But there are literally thousands who have come out and spoken against the official story of the collapses. They have even made a website to describe how what happened was not what we were told. If you have an open mind, go ahead and look through some of it. If you don't, I wouldn't expect you to waste your time.

Link
 
sturg33 said:
No. But there are literally thousands who have come out and spoken against the official story of the collapses. They have even made a website to describe how what happened was not what we were told. If you have an open mind, go ahead and look through some of it. If you don't, I wouldn't expect you to waste your time.

Link
Click to expand...

I'd refer you to the American Society of Civil Engineers' resources on the topic. You will find conspiracy theorists within any field I suppose. But, I'd put my money with the ASCE (of which I was a part for a time).
 
weso1 said:
Ok sturg, I'm sure reasonable people would think I'm the delusional one here. I think on that 2nd video I thought those were seperate buildings like in large downtown areas where you have buildings sort of semi connected by outer walls. But looking at it again you may be right that it's all one building. See, how you can look at evidence and change your mind about something. It's not hard. But with that in mind it's irrelevant. The part where it fell imploded and I'm not exactly sure why you think we can't extrapolate how a building falls of a relative small size to that of a larger size. Again, I think your delusion seems to be that you think you understand physics. The videos are pretty clear in showing that it's possible. You think it's not possible? Based on what, your horrific knowledge of physics and what fire does to steel?

Again if you can't understand that it's possible then there's just no debating. So this will be my last post on this unless you're willing to be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Weso, I am a reasonable person my man. Why would I need to adjust my thoughts on the building you posted when I've been right since you posted it?

Remember, 5 years ago, I would have been on this train with you. I drank it all up. I wanted to go get Osama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, all of them. Anyone who even hinted at 9/11 conspiracy, I called a traitor.

But as I got a little older I became a bit less narrow-minded. I was referred to a documentary and asked to go in with an open mind. I watched it, and was blown away. All of the inconsistencies, all of the circumstantial coincidences, all of the things that just didn't make logical sense. After all, how do 3 sky scrapers fall to the ground when only two were hit? To my knowledge, they are the only sky scrapers in world history that have ever collapsed due to fire. Feel free to prove me wrong if that is incorrect.

If I asked you to explain all of the oddities of that day, you wouldn't be able to. Seriously, you just can't.

But I do see how our government has profited off of 9/11. And that's a little scary to me.

Lastly, I've asked you to comment a few times on some videos I've posted. You've chosen not to. One of them, the BBC announced the WTC collapse 20 minute prior to it falling. Another, 20 minute compilation of eye witnesses saying they heard explosions in WTC 1 and 2. You can choose to ignore those as if they didn't happen. I find it hard to believe that so many folks, including NYC's firefighters, would have gotten something so wrong. Those are two videos that you've chosen to ignore - and I suspect that is because you don't have a good answer. Unfortunately, there are dozens of wird things that took place that day nobody has an explanation for - other than "Just call whoever questions is a conspiracy nutjob traitor!"

If you want to take on the task of explaining all the inconsistencies of 9/11 (including the Pentagon crash and the Pennsylvania crash), let me know. And I'll start walking through it.
 
BedellBrave said:
I'd refer you to the American Society of Civil Engineers' resources on the topic. You will find conspiracy theorists within any field I suppose. But, I'd put my money with the ASCE (of which I was a part for a time).
Click to expand...

In my opinion, engineers have a lot more to lose by going against the official story than by abiding it. Especially when there are several documented stories of engineers changing their tunes after receiving visits from the FBI.
 
sturg33 said:
If I asked you to explain all of the oddities of that day, you wouldn't be able to. Seriously, you just can't.
Click to expand...

But I actually have in the past. I posted an incredibly detailed link like 2 years ago detailing the reasoning why the buildings fell. It all made perfect sense to me. You clearly haven't read the actual account on why the towers fell which makes much more sense than the unsupported crap you are spewing. You obviously chose not to read it as you still have no clue why the buildings actually fell. You could also just go to wikipedia.

Look I'll just answer your questions and see if you'll actually consider reason:

- Why couldn't BBC have just made a mistake? Firefighters suspected the building was going to collapse before it collapsed, so perhaps they told a BBC reporter that it was going to collapse and that somehow got misreported into it had already collapsed. See a very simple answer to this question. Why would BBC even be in on it in the first place?

- I googled your second question to try and find an answer to your question, something which you seem incapable of and found this:

His theory, presented at a technology conference in San Diego, is that when the planes went into the towers, they were trapped between floors which created a kiln-like effect.

This would have quickly pushed temperatures well past the melting point of their aluminium shell. The melted aluminium would have run down to the lower floors where it mixed with water and caused temperatures to spike to 2,700 degrees and fire off explosive hydrogen.

These hydrogen blasts would have been enough to blow out sections of the building whilst the high temperatures would have weakened the steel supports. link
 
I've read the entire 9/11 Commission Report. Keep in mind, Bush and Cheney refused to testify individually, and refused to testify under oath. So...

Regarding the BBC, sure that's possible, but the BBC had a correspondent in NYC who was right in front of WTC7. How could she have missed that it was still standing?

Regarding your link - I guess that guy's theory closes the case. I guess I should start seeing skyscrapers collapse to the ground every time there is a fire burning for an hour.

There's also the put-options that were placed on the airlines. The insurance policies taken out on the buildings. The FBI confiscation of any video recording of the Pentagon hit. The fact that our entire east coast was left defenseless because of "training." The fact they were able to conveniently recover the passports of the hijackers, while bodies and blackboxes were completely melted/destroyed. There's the hundreds of eye-witness of explosions. There's the testimony of the former pilot instructor of the Pentagon hijacker who said they guy was a terrible pilot. There was the fake confession tape.

I could go on and on, but why, when you completely discount my view as preposterous. While completely discounting the fact that I once held your view, and upon further evaluation, realized that 9/11 was the biggest fantasy ever told. But hey - since it makes you sleep better at night, keep believing that 3 skyscrapers completely collapse at free-fall speed because of fire. According to you, it happens all the time..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top