Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: kappa on January 28, 2004, 03:29:10 PM
-
More conspiracy for you guys.. I had not given this much thought since I had seen it happen. But building #7 does raise many issues and many inconsistancies about 9/11... Even FEMA fails to give an objective opinion into what happened to building #7 or give conclusived reasoning into its falling..
This site, however hard to stomach or impossible to believe, gives very good evidence...
WTC#7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html)
Some of the last clips are the most damning...
Read it all gents.. :confused: :confused:
-
LOOK! more evidence! black helicopters!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1075326621.jpg)
-
I dont think anything was rigged with the towers, but wtf happened with #7? Looked fairly intact to me...
-
I don't know anything about building 7, but all of the crap he spouts about the twin towers being rigged with explosives is laughable. Any credibility he builds about his WTC 7 arguement goes right out the window.
-
Do you guys have any idea how long it takes and what an involving process it is to rig up a high rise office building for an implosion?
Is this guy suggesting this was all arranged, set up and performed in a few hours, in the middle of a disaster zone while everyone was trying to evacuate new york city, find surviros and stop further possible attacks during a time of war...
I think this guy needs to find a girl or get a job or something, damned lunatics...
BTW is he suggesting the WTC was imploded too?
-
what a load of crap.
-
The poofs that are said to be "bombs" are windows blowing out as the interior floors pancake and pressurized the interior. The fire burned the floor supports and the crashed down inside the steel skeleton of the building. One needs to understand a bit about how these buildings were constructed to fully understand this. The buildings were NOT taken down with bombs :rolleyes:
The buildings were never designed to take the conflagration they endured, the structure may have been designed to absorb the energy of a jet crashing into it, and they did.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Some of the last clips are the most damning...
Read it all gents.. :confused: :confused:
No they are not. WTC collapse looks nothing like an implosion except for the fact that it fell down.
-
You have 3 passenger planes being hijacked and crashing into buildings in plain sight yet some people need to invent cruise missles and bombs.....
Dean voters?
Yaeaarrhhh!!!
-
That site ****ing sucks. What kind of a dip**** web designer auto loads video so it looks like your browser is locked?
What a joke.
If there was a real conspericy this guy would just disapear. After viewing the site I almost wish there was...
-
Contrails off jets are really chemicals the UN is using to control our minds. Flu shots are really used to make you want to buy more during the holiday season. the space shuttle contains a super-weopon used to create earthquakes from outerspace. And the world trade center was really blown up by our own government.
-
not that I buy the purposly blown up theory for the two towers but it does raise curiosity what happend to bldg #7.
this guy is obviously a nut for thinking that the two towers were brought down with explosives and that firemen said there's only a few small fires. It's obvious from the amount of smoke there is more than a few small pockets of fires. WERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE!
-
Originally posted by Furball
LOOK! more evidence! black helicopters!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1075326621.jpg)
That black Helicopter look like Black Hawk, but no info about that helicopter.
-
Have you ever noticed a crack in the foundation of a home grow over extended periods of time?
A large building is under constant gravitational stress. If the damage is just right, it can take extended periods of time (hours days or weeks -or longer) to develope to the triggering point of catostrophic failure.
With all the structural stresses of that day occuring in buildings very near to it, it should be no surprize that no. 7 failed when it did. I guess you could even say that it probably should have failed much sooner than it did.
-
The chopper isnt visable in all pictures - super stealth technology.
-
I think it's obviously a conspiracy. Those people that think several millions of tons of steel and concrete hitting the ground right next door had anything to do with shaking building #7 off its foundation are truly nuts.
-
Does anyone know what the measured seismic stress was at the base of building 7 when the neighboring buildings collapsed?
I would expect that the corner closest to the epicenter would flex more then the far corner facing away because of the way the force of the collapse is being transmitted through the ground, but unlike a normal earthquake, there would be a much quicker dropoff in force.
I wonder if it is possible that the small radius of the shaking could be the culprit?
-
The reason the twin towers collapsed was their exoskeletal framework failed. The towers had no interior support beam by design. All of the floors weight was held by the exterior walls similar to a spiderweb. It was a new and revolutionary design on a building that tall. The heat from the fuel fire weakened the exterior and it began to rip like a zipper. Once there was a failure the floors began to pancake. Engineers never factored in the asbestos removal either, which enhanced the heat's effect on the metal.
No black helicopters, no bombs, no implosions.
-
But what about bldg 7 RPM (AGAIN NOT THAT I THINK THIS NUT IS CORRECT OR ANYTHING FAR FROM IT) I'm just curious.
Did it fall from because of the stress it recieved when the other two fell?
-
I'm willing to bet if you were standing within a block of the towers when they fell you would have felt it. ;)
-
The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.
The foundation supports the building and as the weight of a 30 story building is quickly removed from the foundation the foundation reacts with an equal an opposite reaction.
So when the several thousand ton weight of the collapsing stories was removed from the typical building weight the foundation would have reacted upward as the compressive energy which supported 30 stories within the foundation was dissapated.
This motion of the ground would have been detected as the seismic motion that it was, before debris impacted the ground.
>edit>The removal of weight was a more time concentrated change in energy than individual piecees of debris impacting the surface over several seconds and therefore would be a greater spike.
-
You guys try to do any searching on how many 'steel frame' hightowers or buildings in history have fallen due to fire?? I understand 2 of these buildings were struck by aircraft mind you, but fire is claimed to be the culprit for both WTCs and #7... I did.. It is less than 4 by my searching.. Could be wrong.. Wish someone would show different..
Building #7 is not a foundation failure.. Unless the entire foundation dropped out at once.. Watch it fall....
(less than 4 but 3 happened in one day....)
-
Yes or no, Kappa... do you think the administration bombed #7, and by virtue of that guilt helped orchestrate the entire event? Clarify please, I'm trying to understand how insane you are.
-
I thought the burning aviation fuel melted the supports in the building itself. I would guess that most other fires involving this type of building did not involve anything other than burning upholstry, office equipment etc and not large quantities of combustible substances burning at high temperature.
-
I hear you Dowding.. But what gets me... No fuel in #7..... It was first distributed that #7 fell due to deisel fuel tanks igniteing, but they were found intact...
Interier fires will reach very high temps no matter what the fuel is..
-
if you guys don't start agreeing with him pretty soon ("open minded") he will start frothing at the mouth and calling you names.
Note how they never come up with conspiracy theories when "their" candidate is in power.
lazs
-
I dont beleive in conspiracies I just want a good explination on Bldg #7
-
More (http://wtc7.net/)
Original Footprint (http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4)
Towers 1 & 2 energies released (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html)
More wtc7 (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html)
-
Lets stop beating around the "bush" so to speak, 911 was a CIA conspiracy. Here is the proof. Forget the airplanes, even the twin towerrs were brought down by controlled demolition!!!
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/
-
Yeah, I've heard that the planes were actually full of fire retardant and the brave hijackers were trying to stop the upcoming demolition of the towers.
:rolleyes:
-
Hadn't seen that site yet.. But since wondering about WTC #7 and much reading, there are only more questions unanswered... For starters:
The 2nd tower struck, around 18mins after the first, recieved far less damage as the impact was not dead center of the building as was the first.. The 2nd impact was off-center to the right and at an angle to the building. Damaging one corner if you may... Most of the fuel was ejected out of the impact corner resulting in the hugh fireball witnessed by millions... The 2nd tower did not have entire floors consumed in fire as the first did... If you remember watching the 2nd aircraft made a course correction at the last second thereby missing full straight on center impact. Yet, the 2nd tower impacted fell first...
Looking at the way the WTCs fell from just an elementary standpoint of physics begs questions as well..
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in about fifteen seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
Only the top floors were damaged in the least.. I dont know if I believe this or not.. But as I've stated, it raises suspision enough for doubt.. This logic dictates that the possibility cant be ruled out completely...
-
(http://www.boxofmonsters.com/contr/langdon/BIGFOOT.JPG)
More conspiracy!
-
So it is true - kappa is not only a massive troll, he's an idiot, too!
:rolleyes:
-
Behold, political extremism at its ugliest.
Not quite as good as the Mr.Black show, but entertaining nonetheless.
-
Hawker: Howd you get the photo of Pongo's camping trip?
-
cmon I think this raises questions that cant be so easily answered. It does raise the conspiracy flag but I'm still not buying it. No one has yet to give me a good explination of how Bldg#7 fell nor have they explained the radio chatter prior saying "we're pulling it"
Again I'm not buying into this but it does raise some questions
-
LoL you guys bring so much to the table its very surprising yall are able to find it...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I thought the burning aviation fuel melted the supports in the building itself. I would guess that most other fires involving this type of building did not involve anything other than burning upholstry, office equipment etc and not large quantities of combustible substances burning at high temperature.
ah winner, yep 30,000+ gal of JP-4 is not in the fire design of any building.
#7 went due to stress of near by collapse
you guys cut the troiling there was NO conspeirsey
-
Kappa, stop being a coward. Tell us whether you really believe it was controlled demolition or not. Stop hiding behind 'I'm not sure if it's true, but it sure is interesting!'.
Grow a pair and make a statement, or stop wasting our time.
-
No way, thats not what kappa does here. Just look at his i hate religion and want it destroyed, no I dont hate hate religion and I dont want it destroyed thread... :)
WTC 2 fell first because the plane hit it going much faster 600mph vs 400mph appx doing far more internal structural damage. Another thing is that the WTC plane hit an angle, this damaged far more floors that the WTC 1 impact... It also hit the building much lower. There was much more weight above the damaged area and thats why it fell first.
I agree with chairboy though, stop jerking off and be honest.
Why do you want to ignore the obvious cause of the colapses (the airplanes), and prefer some fanciful theory that the towers were brought down by deliberate evil CIA explosions....
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, I've heard that the planes were actually full of fire retardant and the brave hijackers were trying to stop the upcoming demolition of the towers.
:rolleyes:
Allah be praised!!!
-
"The 2nd tower struck, around 18mins after the first, recieved far less damage as the impact was not dead center of the building as was the first.. The 2nd impact was off-center to the right and at an angle to the building. Damaging one corner if you may... Most of the fuel was ejected out of the impact corner resulting in the hugh fireball witnessed by millions... The 2nd tower did not have entire floors consumed in fire as the first did... If you remember watching the 2nd aircraft made a course correction at the last second thereby missing full straight on center impact. Yet, the 2nd tower impacted fell first... "
The second tower was struck much lower. There was much more weight above the damaged supports.
As far as your basic physics... the supports were built to hold up the towers in a static situation, as soon as part began to fall and build momentum, they could not hold at all, let alone a second per floor.
-
Amazeing how you all ignore the point by talking about the towers .... this is about building seven ..
stay on subject...
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Amazeing how you all ignore the point by talking about the towers .... this is about building seven ..
stay on subject...
Some of kappa's links also argue that the towers were blown up too, so its fair game..
Nice try though...
Maybe one day Bush will admit he and Cheney blew them all up, yea they snuck into the WTC complex monday night and wired it all to blow...
-
Or how about the rediculous idea that that just 7 wtc was rigged to blow, why? How? Have you guys any idea how complicated it is to prepare a highrise building for an implosion? It would be impossible to do without every single tenant in the building knowning it. Its impossible to do in one afternoon.
Mane you are being dumb for even sticking up for kappa here...
These extreme left wing sites have just as much credbility as if some right winger wrote up a 911 site claiming Clinton and Gore made 911 happend because of the 200 election scandal. Or how bouitclinton set the 911 plans in motio n with the hope that any president who won in 2000 (including gore) would be ruined so that hillary could jump in and run in 2004? Yes thats a good theory!!!!
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Amazeing how you all ignore the point by talking about the towers .... this is about building seven ..
stay on subject...
No, that was Kappa's technique for pushing the idea that the CIA brought down the WTC. He started with building #7 to gradually introduce us to the idea so he could make his strike later in the thread.
Now he's too chicken to come right out and make his accusation because the time isn't quite right, and I suspect he's realizing it never will be. I expect him to either never post in this thread again, or he might come in and say he never really believed the conspiracies, he 'just thought they were interesting'.
-
muhehe that guys is realy pissed off :)
but last 10 mins is most funny so far
:D
-
My questions lay w/ WTC #7.. Grunherz was first to post about WTCs 1 & 2.. Not me.. #7 has yet to be explained and I've yet to see any of you armchair warriors attempt to.. You guys bring nothing.. I wonder if yall are able..
Chairboy, why dont you stop being weak and attempt to answer my opening questions.. Im not interested in criticism, only answers and you have none.. You attempt to bring none.. I doubt your ability to bring any.. And with your lack of ability, you call me a coward... Go away if you cant be constructive to building #7s questions..
Grunherz, You .... Never mind.. thats already too much wasted time..
Scooter, what stress are you referring to? Is it something that I have not posted yet?? Please give some better idea as #7 was hit by very little falling debris... If #7 fell due to ground tremors, why did the adjacent buildings not fall? Why were they not condemned??
WTC #7 did not have hugh fires.. It was not impacted from the other buildings.. No more than the 2 buildings #7 was squeezed inbetween.. We have watched the video right? Did you guys look at the Footprint link I gave?? What started the fires inside #7?? None of these questions are answered.. Even by FEMA...
Again, I do not know what to believe without credible facts to consider.. I really do not concern myself with your judgements of me.. I do not care.. I only seek the truth.. I suppose asking you people to out-think yourselfs would be as hopeless in asking you to out-think FEMA.........
-
LOL... kappa back to... if you don't agree with lefty crackpot thinking then you are not thinking or "open minded".
So... are you saying that the terrorists also had people planted in building 7 and blew it up at the same time or.....
are you saying that the CIA flew the planes into the towers AND blew up #7 or.... are yu saying that it was a combined CIA terrorist attack?
Smart, open minded money is on the BATF doing the whole thing... well, went to smooth... let's say, the "open minded" know that the BATF hired someone to do it.
lazs
-
lazs
as kind as I can be towards you, i only look for answers to #7.. and on this board obviously I search in vain with folks like yourself at every turn..
-
if you will forget about buildings and listen last 10 mins Kappa...
when he speak about meeting of Bush Sn. with Bin Ladin family members
and about trades between them in past.
well i have to laugh and i will be probably lauging to deatg if it will be be ever proved
-
Originally posted by maslo
if you will forget about buildings and listen last 10 mins Kappa...
when he speak about meeting of Bush Sn. with Bin Ladin family members
and about trades between them in past.
well i have to laugh and i will be probably lauging to deatg if it will be be ever proved
orel,
im sorry but I do not understand..
-
This kinda stuff allways comes out just befor an election that the democrats are likely to lose... It is allways about republicans and allways so bizzare that it defeats it's own purpose.
Any "open minded" person capable of thinking knows this.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
This kinda stuff allways comes out just befor an election that the democrats are likely to lose... It is allways about republicans and allways so bizzare that it defeats it's own purpose.
Any "open minded" person capable of thinking knows this.
lazs
again lazs stop proving your incapable of thinking.. If it were a conspiracy, Bush, like yourself, would never posses the ability to conjure up such a thing.. I dont care who is in office as that didnt cause #7 to fall.........
-
Okay Kappa, let's try it another way... assuming I accept your assertion the only way #7 could have fallen is thRough bombs placed in the building, who do you think planted them? Would that have still been al Quaida, or do you have someone else in mind?
-
In last 10 mins of movie on the top he speak about meeting of sn. Bush and memebrs of Bin Ladin family around 9/11
Then he point of fact, that Bin Ladin family supported Jr. Bush in 70`s when he were trying to trade in oil industry.
-
lol Kieran.
-
orel,
lol forgive my ignorance.. What movie??
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Okay Kappa, let's try it another way... assuming I accept your assertion the only way #7 could have fallen is thRough bombs placed in the building, who do you think planted them? Would that have still been al Quaida, or do you have someone else in mind?
may be you shloud read all that stuff before prove us that you even didnt read that...
if were reading that you would know who is supposed to abandon #7
bla bla bla
-
kappa... I admit that I am incapable of thinking like you do. I have outgrown it if it ever existed.
lazs
-
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
on the page you posted.
not movie but clip.. that would be proper word :)
-
Originally posted by maslo
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
on the page you posted.
not movie but clip.. that would be proper word :)
LoL O that one! hehe Sorry, please forgive.. I had not watched that clip.. I concentrated on the #7 clips.. I will check it out today!
-
Blah, blah, maslo, blah, orel, blah, blah...
I never said I read it. Watching Kappa cast aspersions under the veil of "being enlightened" was all I had to see. ;)
See, there was this wonderful video of two jetliners crashing into these two really tall buildings. There were phone recordings of actual people calling their loved ones in their last seconds on earth. There were cockpit recordings illustrating the struggle for control. All faked of course.
Kappa has proposed in this thread two main ideas that I can see so far:
1. The towers couldn't have been taken down by the jetliners.
2. Building #7 must have been bombed.
Now you have to ask yourself... who do you think could have done such a thing? Could al Quaida have done it all? Maybe, but... why the distraction and high risk of the airliners? Why not set the bombs and blow them, ie WTC bombing #1? Or does the complexity of rigging for simultaneous explosions necessary for such a neat implosion seem improbable given the exposure to discovery by teams of men necessary to make such a thing impossible?
Well then... who? Our own government? For oil? That's stupid beyond belief. We have no shortage of outlets for oil, and the companies make pretty good money at it, too. Much smarter and safer to use your influence to price fix or create a false shortage to boost profit. Killing 2,400 of your own people to boost profits in such an ostentatious way is not only reckless, it's downright stupid.
Look; the president of the US couldn't even keep a blowjob in his office secret. How could such a complex and convoluted scheme as suggested by Kappa go undetected? It just isn't plausible.
-
sorry to be that offensive keiran...
lets make it clean things whitch kappa is asking
**********
a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
*************
We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."
***************
there is a lot of interesting points on that page, you can claim it BS, but read it first
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Okay Kappa, let's try it another way... assuming I accept your assertion the only way #7 could have fallen is thRough bombs placed in the building, who do you think planted them? Would that have still been al Quaida, or do you have someone else in mind?
but you probably found it ... im not saying its true or not... its just something new, what wasnt here before and we discuse it
************************
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was obviously the perfect opportunity to place those explosives.
-
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
You realize of course you could read that line to mean "pull the effort" or "pull the men out now"? You know, give up the fight?
-
'It' seems to mean one thing... 'Pull out' is 'normally' whats said when folks give up or leave the area...
I know its arguing small parts of the facts.. But thats how folks get caught is by the small seemingly insignificate things overlooked... usually..
-
But, back to the facts...
We have watched the video of #7 falling.. What does it look like people??
Have we read how many of the WTC buildings were destroyed in the attacks?? All of them... It was totall destruction of all of them by 2 aircraft..
This might lead one to ask how many non-WTC buildings were destroyed.. None would be the answer..............
Look how close #7 was sqeezed inbetween two other buildings.. They received no damage from #7 collapsing... My 'footprint' link...
Does it not bother anyone that even FEMA cannot answer conclusivly why #7 fell??? That our government is no longer asking questions about it?? Come on guys.. This is more than just made up BS...
There is an answer.. It may not be conspiracy back.. There could very sound reasoning as to #7 collapse.. It is not a sin to attempt for that realization..
edit: not my footprint link.... This picture (http://www.funnysnaps.com/bigphoto.jpg) #7 is just to the right of all the damage inbetween two buildings on a vertical line to the photograph.. This picture comes from THIS (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html) website.. It was inbetween the Federal Building and the Verizon building..
-
Let's just say I believe your mind is as made up as mine is. ;)
-
i hate english word SET , because it have about zillion meanings...
pull doesnt seems to be better :)
-
excellent objectivity kieran..
-
Originally posted by maslo
i hate english word SET , because it has abou zillion meanings...
pull doesnt seems to be better :)
Orel, I think you could have something in your original suspicions about the term used 'pull it' in the recorder radio chatter... There are many write ups on this distortion as well as precedence in the use of the term ‘pull it’ …
-
well what about fact that untill 9/11 non of steel building ever colapsed because of fire
they say this is first time, when modern skyscapers collaps because of fire..
anyone who know how to build sutch buildings ?
-
Understand, the twin towers were very unique in design, comparisons to other buildings just don't work.
-
yes twin were.
but no. 7 ?
-
Originally posted by majic
Understand, the twin towers were very unique in design, comparisons to other buildings just don't work.
How so?? Because the I-beams were so large that american industry could not produce them?? We had to import them.. What was unique about them??
Nothing was unique about WTC #7...
-
Originally posted by kappa
excellent objectivity kieran..
Let me be clear; I don't believe you are the least bit objective. I'm not claiming to be. ;)
-
Wow....and you guys think Rush is bad...lol
Kappa...how old are you?
-
Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC #7, openly admits on a PBS documentary about 9/11 that building #7 was imploded the day of...
to quote again:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I watched the video Orel.. I think it has convinced me.. There is simply too much evidence to ignore..
-
Originally posted by Rude
Wow....and you guys think Rush is bad...lol
Kappa...how old are you?
More personal questions Rude? What point will that make in your mind??
Im old enough to consider ALL possibilities in most any event... Are you?
-
I watched the video Orel.. I think it has convinced me.. There is simply too much evidence to ignore..
...convinced you of what? You always just stop short of making a clear statement.
...and I'm pretty sure you were convinced before you watched any video. ;)
-
Originally posted by kappa
More personal questions Rude? What point will that make in your mind??
Im old enough to consider ALL possibilities in most any event... Are you?
Well...you must be young since you wouldn't answer my question....which is fine, being young is a good thing.
All I have to say is that if you believe that our government orchestrated the events of 9-11, then you're whacky:)
-
OK,
I'm ready to declare.
It was definitely John Ashcroft, in the NYC subway, with a LAW missile!
I win!
I win!
I win!
-
Originally posted by Rude
Well...you must be young since you wouldn't answer my question....which is fine, being young is a good thing.
All I have to say is that if you believe that our government orchestrated the events of 9-11, then you're whacky:)
Really Rude?? So you consider yourself to be a thinker?? Able to rationalize things in your mind??
Read this thread and the links I've given (or find your own PLEASE) about WTC building #7 and explain to me how and why it fell with some sort of qualifing argument other than 'I'm wacky'... After all, this is why I post this thread for other ideas.. Not to be called whacky..
Again, I seek answers not criticism.......
-
Kappa,
Stop being such a coward and just come out and tell us WHAT you have been convinced of.
The websites you keep referring to also claim that the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airplane, what do you think of that?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Kappa,
Stop being such a coward and just come out and tell us WHAT you have been convinced of.
The websites you keep referring to also claim that the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airplane, what do you think of that?
I think it was...
Again chairboy.. stop being weak and explain WTC #7 to me..
-
There must be some among you, im sure not responded to this thread yet as most who have are very cowardly, that could possibly have the balls to challenge these inconsistencies given by our government and what has been reported to have happened by major news media, fire fighters, eye-witnesses, and even the owner himself..
Stop relating me to WTC #7 and give me evidence contrary to whats written here about WTC #7?? I know who I am.. I dont care who yall are.. Talk to me about WTC # 7.. or is that too far a grasp?? Your minds incapable?
-
dude i saw some evil looking chemtrails this morning. They actually spelled out 7 and two large I I which i think represented the twin towers. Its those damn monkeys that nasa sent into space and didnt tell us what ever happened to them!
-
You people are pointless as well as brainless... What a ****ing waste of ****ing time! And to think such things couldnever happen with brainless wonders like these among our country... Now THATS a leap........
Skuzzy.. please lock this thread before I do something that gets it locked..
-
when owner of #7 admit that he ordered to abandon it and someone here call kappa to be "idiot" i can do nothing more that IMAO
sure Rude , US gov. would never ever do sutch thing.
and US president would never ever borrow oney from Bin Ladin's family .... we are probably silly young tards, but we can determine that 1 + 1 is not -2
-
Originally posted by kappa
I think it was...
Again chairboy.. stop being weak and explain WTC #7 to me..
Actually Kappa, you've made the extraordinary claims, so the burden of proof rests with you.
My case has been made for me already by the firefighters, police, investigators, and thousands of victims of the 9/11 attack.
-
Originally posted by kappa
You people are pointless as well as brainless... What a ****ing waste of ****ing time! And to think such things couldnever happen with brainless wonders like these among our country... Now THATS a leap........
Skuzzy.. please lock this thread before I do something that gets it locked..
To paraphrase:
THEY ARE NOT OPEN MINDED!!!!!!!
Nice prediction lazs!!
-
Kappa tell me something, do you belive that WTC 7 was rigged with explosives before 911 or do you think the explosives were installed only after the attacks that morning?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually Kappa, you've made the extraordinary claims, so the burden of proof rests with you.
My case has been made for me already by the firefighters, police, investigators, and thousands of victims of the 9/11 attack.
chairboy, you cant realize that I've made a case already about WTC #7.. realize there are no thousands of victums, firefighters, police, or investigators saying WTC #7 was not imploded.. Go away, please....
-
Grunherz,
opps.. damn you almost had me wasting time again..
Fool me once, shame on you... clearly this is shame on me..
-
Please answer that question.
-
I only believe (from the owners mouth mind you) that it was imploded... Past that I am unsure...
-
Why would he implode it on 911? I think a number of buildings at the site were demolished after 911, why go through the trouble of doing it on 911?
What was gained?
Further, are you not concerned that many of the sites you quote for WTC 7 also argue that the twin towers were rigged for explosives as well? Would this not lead you to question their credibility?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
...and I'm pretty sure you were convinced before you watched any video. ;)
hehe i guess you were pretty sure that 9/11 could never happen before
-
Originally posted by lazs2
This kinda stuff allways comes out just befor an election that the democrats are likely to lose... It is allways about republicans and allways so bizzare that it defeats it's own purpose.
Any "open minded" person capable of thinking knows this.
lazs
The "open minded" person club is one that the Republicans can't even buy themselves into ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What was gained?
good question ...
for example ... #7 has been destroyed by terrorists attack according to US. gov.
so who could gain something in case that this #7 will fall because of terrorist rather that it fall because somebody wanted it to remove it.
1 thing is to sit at home and keep listen some blablabla speak with calm face
and second thing is to listen people whitch were there..
on that page you will also find, that some were wondering that few days before there we a lot of non annouced drilling in the buildings ..... but that guys was probably drunken commie tard, so we can ignore it and keep listen our mega cool administration... yeah .. coz we rock, we alway true...
god bless us
lol
-
I do not know..
I do not know...
If no creditable reasoning can be given for #7 falling, would that lead you to question the entire day of 9/11?? Whats wrong with questioning??
Many people have claimed that the diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded within building 7 but even the FEMA report admitted that these remained fully intact. The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
The report is available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.
The answer to this question would appear to be the greatest question in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.
What was done answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), who blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.
-
Originally posted by kappa
I do not know..
I do not know...
What DO you know? All you can manage is to make vague implications.
Here's a question, HOW would they do a controlled implosion of building 7 on the same day? It takes weeks to set up demolitions, weeks and a bunch of demolitions experts.
BTW, you haven't made your case the way you seem to think you have. You haven't made ANY case because you haven't actually stated what YOU think happened, you've just posted a few links and said 'Hmm, interesting' and 'Well, according to this website he said this... but I do not know.... I do not know....'
-
There must be some among you, im sure not responded to this thread yet as most who have are very cowardly, that could possibly have the balls to challenge these inconsistencies given by our government and what has been reported to have happened by major news media, fire fighters, eye-witnesses, and even the owner himself..
Cowardly? I have spoken my thoughts clearly to you, without dodging or obfuscation. SO... you are convinced #7 was imploded.
As Grunherz asked, was it set to go before 9/11, or was it rigged on that day? You must realize someone would have noticed those people rigging the building either way, not to mention all the attendant rigging and explosives. The time it would have taken to do the job would have taken days. But you can ignore that, and hang your argument on the word "pull".
Your basic physics argument was totally defeated too... you assumed one second per floor- a silly thing to assume anyway, and should never have been taken for granted- and ignored other relevant factors. What do you suppose the kinetic energy of a couple of million tons of debris falling at an initial rate of 32 feet/second would be? Can you show me a picture of any I-beam on the planet that can stand up to that type of force? How would that force be dissipated down the structure, impact after impact? Just basic physics, but I'll allow professional engineers could explain it better than I could. I'll also allow the possibility I might be in error, but I didn't see any such details factoring into your analysis.
What is really silly is you are demanding an exact explanation for every single aspect of the event, as if it were a known science. Can you point me to the research on airliners colliding with skyscrapers, and the collatoral effects on surrounding buildings?
Bottom line: you WANT there to be a conspiracy. You were convinced from the beginning there was. These pieces of "evidence" merely confirmed what you already wanted to believe.
-
Originally posted by maslo
good question ...
for example ... #7 has been destroyed by terrorists attack according to US. gov.
so who could gain something in case that this #7 will fall because of terrorist rather that it fall because somebody wanted it to remove it.
1 thing is to sit at home and keep listen some blablabla speak with calm face
and second thing is to listen people whitch were there..
on that page you will also find, that some were wondering that few days before there we a lot of non annouced drilling in the buildings ..... but that guys was probably drunken commie tard, so we can ignore it and keep listen our mega cool administration... yeah .. coz we rock, we alway true...
god bless us
lol
A few days before? So yoiu are saying they knew of 911 attacks before hand?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
A few days before? So yoiu are saying they knew of 911 attacks before hand?
no im saying that someone who used to work there confirmed later that there were a lot of non announced drilling in the buildings some days before attacks
Stop asking sutch questions and go read that page, if you want to speak about it.
-
So the exposives were rigged prior to 911, but with no knowlege of the upcoming attacks? Why?
-
kieran: I have spoken my thoughts clearly to you, without dodging or obfuscation
You've offered nothing...
Your basic physics argument was totally defeated too...
It was not mine.. I quoted... It was not defeated.. The building fell at very very near freefall speed.. That is NOTHING slowing each consecutive floor...
Bottom line: you WANT there to be a conspiracy. You were convinced from the beginning there was. These pieces of "evidence" merely confirmed what you already wanted to believe.
I believe, obviously with no creditable evidence about #7 falling, that it is not the nice neat little package that has been sold to the american people.....
All I care to discuss is #7 as it is the easiest target... Of course if government reasons were proven false that could and probably would lead to other things...
-
Maslo, are you Kappa? If WTC #7 was brought down as part of massive conspiracy that involved people knowing about the attacks in advance (and rigging the building appropriately ahead of time), then you must be Kappa!
My argument for you being Kappa is just as strong as your argument about... stupid craziness.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So the exposives were rigged prior to 911, but with no knowlege of the upcoming attacks? Why?
never ever happen that steel building colapsed because of fire
im not saing anything im bringing fatcs, that are intersting
-
Rigging a building for implosion is a very time consuming and dirty job. It can take upwards of a month or more to get a building completly ready to be safely demolished. It involves drilling into support beams and placing shaped charges. Cosidering the building was in use well before 9/11, it would be much harder.
OK, so let's consider the controlled demolition. How did the team get shaped charges into the building? How could they drill into support beams that were buried behind walls without leavinga huge mess? How could they cover such a large hole in the wall so no one would be suspicious? How could they close off sections of the building without alerting someone? How could they activate the explosives is there was no detcord and no electrical connections?
Know why buildings collapse like that? Gravity, maybe? If the supports in the center of the ground floor are weak, they collapse first. Hence, the building falls in on itself. Now if the supports on one side went first, then it would topple over.
As for WTC 1 and 2, the "explosions" you see are windows blowing out as the floors compress the air as they fall. The Twin Towers were not designed to be demolished conventionally, as the "mesh" structure could not support shaped charges.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Maslo, are you Kappa? If WTC #7 was brought down as part of massive conspiracy that involved people knowing about the attacks in advance (and rigging the building appropriately ahead of time), then you must be Kappa!
My argument for you being Kappa is just as strong as your argument about... stupid craziness.
Chairboy, what im asking and you seem to be too stupid to figure out is for other creditable reasons #7 might have fallen.. Other than the buildings owner saying it was demolished.. Or pulled.. FEMA can give no other credible reasoning..
Why is this so hard to grasp?? why dont you attempt educating yourself whereas you might possibly (however unlikely) add something constructive to the thread.... So far you add nothing but off topic argument.. example?? saying im maslo.. I mean com'on man.. get teh F E K outta my thread if thats ALL you have..
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
My argument for you being Kappa is just as strong as your argument about... stupid craziness.
yes kappa is my schizophrenic part
-
Up until Pearl Harbor, ther were no direct attacks on US soil by an outside force.
Up until 9/11, no major building collapsed from fire damage.
According to your logic...Pearl Harbor was staged to get America into WWII, right?
-
stay on subject please texace..
you seem to have some sort of knowledge about implosions.. Have you watched the film of #7 falling? What are your theories??
-
letter about Declaration of war from US has been send to Pearl Harbour Unit via civil post office.
look at that from economical point of view.. PH were thing whitch has been very need and welcome to convince public opinion ...
-
I believe, obviously with no creditable evidence about #7 falling, that it is not the nice neat little package that has been sold to the american people.....
All I care to discuss is #7 as it is the easiest target... Of course if government reasons were proven false that could and probably would lead to other things...
I've offered plenty of MY OWN discussion without resorting to cut-n-paste innuendo that YOU are providing. You could follow your own advice and grow a pair for yourself and try discussing YOUR conclusions.
Let's try it this way, kappa/maslo style...
Absent any motive for staging the 9/11 attacks, I find no credible reason to believe the US adminsitration was involved. I don't believe the nice neat little package political zealots such as yourself contrive to convince me otherwise. Start with giving me a clear reason why this administration would want 9/11, then you have a jumpoff point for your witch hunt.
-
and still kieran you offer nothing.. not a surprise....
knock knock kieran.. the subject is how and why WTC building #7 fell..
My conclusion is building #7 was demolished.. I wish someone could explain to me how Im wrong..
My reasoning for this conclusion..
The building's owner said it was...
No steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire..
No other credibal evidence is availible..
FEMA is unable to find a creditalbe reason, hence no reason given..
It is documented that people were aware that #7 was about to fall...
Visual evidence...
Footprint evidence...
Location evidence...
-
Originally posted by kappa
and still kieran you offer nothing.. not a surprise....
knock knock kieran.. the subject is how and why WTC building #7 fell..
My conclusion is building #7 was demolished.. I wish someone could explain to me how Im wrong..
Knock knock, Kappa... why would this administration knock it down?
You've had plenty of reasons given to you which you've summarily dismissed without consideration. When asked specific questions that nail your tail to the wall you ignore and move on. You aren't answering the hard ones, are you?
BTW, where did you get your physics degree? Or is it an engineering degree? Someone with your level of expertise surely must be a degree holder in some physics or engineering field...
-
LOL!
I Just spent/wasted some time viewing this video link. The guy in the video is a moron.
My theory is that bombs are in every building in the US, ready to be triggered when hijacked airliners crash into them.
"Everything is hidden in plane view" sounds like his brain is hidden in plane view also.
YEARRRHHH!
-
What questions??
I hold a degrees in economics and computer science.. I have an extensive math background...
I have never said, made the accusation, or lead to the idea that this administration is behind 9/11 in this thread....
-
Ok, then who is?
-
well keiran .. motivation ?
its easy how much money, trades has been given to US companies w/o tenders ?
who does those company support ?
Does people whitch rule world of money have any moral ?
Whats their priority No. 1 ?
Could someone who were trading with Bin Laden family play any role in this ? Some one who should meet Bin Laden family members around 9/11 ?
When Goverment make mistakes, give BIG contracts w/o tenders and do not admit any mistake, its probably quite normal in US ?
what was 9/11 ? Naaaaa... just few thousand of dead people, nothing
compare to ammout of money whitch will flow to Iq trough US companies is 9/11 nothing.
If it were true, is it surprising ? .. From country whitch support war conflitcs all around world, trying to make money when other people dieing ? (example Iran - Iraq war... both country were supported by US, taliban is product of US gov.)
nothing will be ever proved because nobody care about it ... In time of Lenin it was called 'Personality cult' .. even today you will find people, whitch will confirm you that Stalin was very kind and smart man.
-
Simply amazing.. Not even an attempt to explain it yet you guys will argue it all day.. worthless.. Untill I see something of merit posted, im out..
-
Originally posted by kappa
Simply amazing.. Not even an attempt to explain it yet you guys will argue it all day.. worthless.. Untill I see something of merit posted, im out..
Get a grip. You don't have the balls to directly state your mind, only play a poor man's "Leonard Nemoy- In Search Of", and it's up to US to prove to you the collapse of #7 wasn't a conspiracy?
Go to your room and talk to yourself dude, or the voices in your head...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Simply amazing.. Not even an attempt to explain it yet you guys will argue it all day.. worthless.. Untill I see something of merit posted, im out..
"Something of merit" means conspiracy theory to you.
-
Notice the second I asked for the source of his expertise he tucked his tail and ran... ;)
-
Okay, here is my "something of merit" theory for you kapppa:
George W Bush, after becoming president, ordered every building in the US to be rigged with demolition charges.
Bush then hired Osama to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC, knowing all along that the planes could not bring the towers down. Bush then had the charges set off to bring the buildings down so he could blame terrorists and take over the world. Bush had a backup plan........ his escape to mars just in case he was found out.
It's all hidden in plain view. "Everything is hidden in plane view" afterall.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Notice the second I asked for the source of his expertise he tucked his tail and ran... ;)
LoL from the likes of you?? What are you talking about??
-
Nuke your such a POSH... to the tenth even..
By merit i mean something credible that would suggest building #7 wasnt demolished.. None of you can do this.. But are more than willing to argue your ignorant thoughts.. I say thoughts cause they are far from points..
But nuke, by all means continue to show how worthless you are...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke your such a POSH... to the tenth even..
By merit i mean something credible that would suggest building #7 wasnt demolished.. None of you can do this.. But are more than willing to argue your ignorant thoughts.. I say thoughts cause they are far from points..
But nuke, by all means continue to show how worthless you are...
Why dont you start it all off with "something of merit" that proves #7 was demolished?
Maybe at that point I could momentarily take you slightly seriously.
-
I have.. are you too ignorant to read??
-
Originally posted by kappa
I have.. are you too ignorant to read??
why do you resort to attacks and calling me names here? Skuzzy may put you on probation, be careful.
Now, as for you posting your "proof" that #7 was demolished, why dont you tell me where I can research these known facts?
-
I'm right here kieran..
What questions??
-
Nuke, you for certian are too ignorant to read then since you wish for me to point them out.. Between maslo and myself they are all prolly listed at least twice..
Nuke, you can add nothing constructive to this thread.. please leave.. I do not wish to argue with you.. Do us both a favor and leave...
-
Conspiracies are fun!!
If this was done for monetary reasons, please tell me the value of all equipment and furniture inside wtc7 upon its collapse?
-
Why dont you guys answer kappas question about #7 and leave the conspiracy crap out the door. He does raise a very good question......WHY DID BLDG 7 FALL?
With all the black helicopter crap aside I have yet to find a good enough reason for it.
I'm not saying they knew about 9/11 i'm not saying it was rigged to go boom I'm not bringing bush in the equation....
What cause #7 to fall.....it didnt get hit by an airplane....it wasnt smoking all that much. And it certainly looks like it was demoed.
Conscpiracy crap aside can somone give ME....NOT KAPPA....a good answer?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Nuke, you for certian are too ignorant to read then since you wish for me to point them out.. Between maslo and myself they are all prolly listed at least twice..
Nuke, you can add nothing constructive to this thread.. please leave.. I do not wish to argue with you.. Do us both a favor and leave...
So you have posted proof that #7 was demolished?? That's outstanding kappa!! Why should this "proof" be "hidden in plain sight" while the whole world cannot see it?? LOL
Maybe I'll leave this thread when you have a good point to make.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Why dont you guys answer kappas question about #7 and leave the conspiracy crap out the door. He does raise a very good question......WHY DID BLDG 7 FALL?
B]
for one, kappa's question? He thinks the building was demolished.....what was his question?
He points to a link of some moron explaining how "we know 1 and 2 had charges" based on the "experts" and then takes whatever that moron says as fact.
What was his question?
-
Wow, Kappa, I don't think you understand what 'I'm out' means. You sure post a lot for a guy who has pledged to leave this thread.
-
I dont think the building was demolished because It is way to far fetched and not too logical. But what braught it down is my question?
-
Let's start with an easy one...
1. What's the kinetic energy of 1,000,000 lbs. of debris falling at an initial acceleration of 32 feet/second?
-
Saying i tucked tail to run was enough merit to bring me back.. 8)
Gee chair.. excellent post of substance there.. Never miss a chance to dig on someone.. !! NEVER!!
-
Gunslinger-
Maslo has flat out said our government did it. Kappa has tap-danced around it, but hinted at it several times.
I always love it when some self-proclaimed expert sets himself up as the sole arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. If Kappa can so easily dimiss arguments concerning physics and the structural strength of office buildings, one can only conclude he is an engineer. Otherwise why should I allow him to be the last word in what is valid or isn't?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Let's start with an easy one...
1. What's the kinetic energy of 1,000,000 lbs. of debris falling at an initial acceleration of 32 feet/second?
That argument leads nowhere kieran becuase your pull 1 million lbs of debri outta your arss... Besides it doesnt fall at 32ft/sec.. or 9.8m/sec... Acceleration of gravity is 32ft/sec squard... or meters squard..
WTC #7 PLEASE....................... ............................
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I dont think the building was demolished because It is way to far fetched and not too logical. But what braught it down is my question?
Thats fine, but kappa is saying it was demolished and that he posted proof of it.
kappa would rather believe the conspiracy angle with no proof rather than say he doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Gunslinger-
Maslo has flat out said our government did it. Kappa has tap-danced around it, but hinted at it several times.
I always love it when some self-proclaimed expert sets himself up as the sole arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. If Kappa can so easily dimiss arguments concerning physics and the structural strength of office buildings, one can only conclude he is an engineer. Otherwise why should I allow him to be the last word in what is valid or isn't?
I have dismissed no factual arguments of physics or structual strenght because I have yet to have any presented infront of me.. None logical that is...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Thats fine, but kappa is saying it was demolished and that he posted proof of it.
kappa would rather believe the conspiracy angle with no proof rather than say he doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.
And you'd rather believe there is no conspiracy with no proof.. Now go away......
-
I'm really leaving this time.. Perhaps I will check the boards later... I'm sure to only find mockery and nonsense... But who knows..
-
Originally posted by kappa
I have dismissed no factual arguments of physics or structual strenght because I have yet to have any presented infront of me.. None logical that is...
Right... you've ignored the arguments, then later in the thread posted no one has bothered to refute what you posted. In short, you aren't paying attention to viewpoints that oppose your predetermined concepts. You've said no one has the balls to post refuting arguments based on fact, when in fact people have given you very plausible and reasonable avenues of discussion- which you ignored. You aren't discussing, you're lecturing, big difference.
Now to be honest, it was easy from the moment you started the thread to see where you were going with it. That's why I tried to cut to the chase and get a straight "yes" or "no"- which by the way you have avoided. So... do you believe our government was involved in setting up 9/11, yes or no- or do you not have the balls to say. No wishy-washy "I don't know" either.
-
Originally posted by kappa
And you'd rather believe there is no conspiracy with no proof.. Now go away......
which proves that you lean towards believing a conspiracy before you believe anything else...... since you have proof of nothing yet believe a conspiracy.
You make a choice to actually say that you had proof that the building was demolished, then you are reduced to asking me to "go away" simply because I ask you to back up your claims.
Please tell us all again why the #7 building felll? I want to hear from an expert like yourself.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Right... you've ignored the arguments, then later in the thread posted no one has bothered to refute what you posted. In short, you aren't paying attention to viewpoints that oppose your predetermined concepts. You've said no one has the balls to post refuting arguments based on fact, when in fact people have given you very plausible and reasonable avenues of discussion- which you ignored. You aren't discussing, you're lecturing, big difference.
Now to be honest, it was easy from the moment you started the thread to see where you were going with it. That's why I tried to cut to the chase and get a straight "yes" or "no"- which by the way you have avoided. So... do you believe our government was involved in setting up 9/11, yes or no- or do you not have the balls to say. No wishy-washy "I don't know" either.
I just cant stay away.. Some will drives me here...
Ok Kieran... plz shed more light on these arguments you are referring to that I have ignored?? What view points have i not taking into consideration?? When?? Where?? What are you talking about??
-
Originally posted by NUKE
which proves that you lean towards believing a conspiracy before you believe anything else...... since you have proof of nothing yet believe a conspiracy.
You make a choice to actually say that you had proof that the building was demolished, then you are reduced to asking me to "go away" simply because I ask you to back up your claims.
Please tell us all again why the #7 building felll? I want to hear from an expert like yourself.
I have no physical proof #7 was demolished however I believe it was.. my reasoning.. let me edit this to show you since you are unable to find for yourself.. Yes my child.. I will take your hand... I will show you and lead the way for you since you are unable to yourself.. wait.. I dont have to edit..
My reasoning for this conclusion..
The building's owner said it was...
No steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire..
No other credibal evidence is availible..
FEMA is unable to find a creditalbe reason, hence no reason given..
It is documented that people were aware that #7 was about to fall...
Visual evidence...
Footprint evidence...
Location evidence...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Now to be honest, it was easy from the moment you started the thread to see where you were going with it. That's why I tried to cut to the chase and get a straight "yes" or "no"- which by the way you have avoided. So... do you believe our government was involved in setting up 9/11, yes or no- or do you not have the balls to say. No wishy-washy "I don't know" either.
I know for a fact the CIA in collaboration with Mossad and the Scottish Brigadoon underground were involved in the 9/11 hijackings. Contrary to conventional wisdom.
These agents purchased two some times three tickets a piece. They increased their numbers by impersonating additional terriorst by using hand puppets made of socks, glue stick and felt. Rather clever and resourceful. In this manner each agent was able to impersonate 2 terrorist. There by fooling everyone on board that there were more terriorts than there actually were.
Some agents were even so adept as to impersonate 3 terrorists - a much shorter midget terrorist.
They fooled security by dressing as argile, athletic, and even fishnet sock puppets. Benignly they sat chatting from hand-to- hand blending in among the other passangers. Then when the time came, several of the sock puppets donned their terrorist turbans put a gun to another sock puppet's head (pretending to be an innocent by-stander) and threatened to blow his socks off.
The flight attendant lead them to the captains cabin and thus are the details of the infamous 9/11 hijackings.
Only the CIA, Mossad, and the Scottish Brigadoon underground are sophisicated and specially trained to perform such an act.
That is your proof.
-
Really Nakhui... please... there lies enough unconstructive bull**** in this thread...
-
Originally posted by kappa
I have no physical proof #7 was demolished however I believe it was.. my reasoning.. let me edit this to show you since you are unable to find for yourself.. Yes my child.. I will take your hand... I will show you and lead the way for you since you are unable to yourself.. wait.. I dont have to edit..
My reasoning for this conclusion..
The building's owner said it was...
No steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire..
No other credibal evidence is availible..
FEMA is unable to find a creditalbe reason, hence no reason given..
It is documented that people were aware that #7 was about to fall...
Visual evidence...
Footprint evidence...
Location evidence...
Just like you have said more than once you were "gone" from this thread, you have believed your own lies.
What evidence do you have or have you seen that concludes
it was demolished?
I pray that you will answer me, since I know your are "gone" from this thread.
-
Hey I was gone forabit!
Damn Nuke.. dont make you hold your hand anylonger.. I gave my reasoning.. I also said I have no physical proof.. Damn man.. cant you read?? Everyone of my reasons I got from the links I posted way way back.. Read for yourself..
Besides its funny the watermelon you guys will post when you think you wont be replied too.. lol
-
Would it be against this BB rules to state that I beleive I am about 110 times more intelligent than kappa?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Hey I was gone forabit!
Damn Nuke.. dont make you hold your hand anylonger.. I gave my reasoning.. I also said I have no physical proof.. Damn man.. cant you read?? Everyone of my reasons I got from the links I posted way way back.. Read for yourself..
Besides its funny the watermelon you guys will post when you think you wont be replied too.. lol
kappa, you posted this garbage and attempted to back it up with your stupid link to an inbred moron's video, who explained how "we all know" bombs were in the WTC 1 and 2.
Now you look even more stupid than the link.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Hey I was gone forabit!
Everyone of my reasons I got from the links I posted way way back..
Oh crap, I'm sorry kappa...you got your opinions and took your stand based on links from the internet........now I know you are correct .
-
My reasoning for this conclusion..
The building's owner said it was...
No steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire..
No other credibal evidence is availible..
FEMA is unable to find a creditalbe reason, hence no reason given..
It is documented that people were aware that #7 was about to fall...
Visual evidence...
Footprint evidence...
Location evidence...
1. The building's owner said "yes, I had the building demolished."? Or did the owner say, "The building imploded."?Show me a quote.
2. Since no steel framed building has ever fallen due to fire it's impossible? Horrible logic. How many steel framed buildings have been hit by airliners? Show the research on the effects of airliner strikes on skyscrapers (one of those points you skipped over).
3. FEMA doesn't have a conclusive reason- not the same as having no idea.
4. Documented how? Because of your nebulous "pull" comment? Let me tell you, your credibility went out the window when you chose to hang on that word...
5. What visual evidence? You mean holes someone supposedly saw?
6. Footprint evidence?
7. Location evidence? You mean the part about the building not being directly struck?
Here's a fact for you... you haven't strung these points together logically at all. It is all based on assumption and a shallow examination of circumstantial evidence. In fact, it's laughable you buy into it at all. In the final analysis you aren't saying "I wonder what happened to building #7?"... you are saying "Why was building #7 blown up?".
-
Originally posted by kappa
Besides its funny the watermelon you guys will post when you think you wont be replied too.. lol
Omigosh, now you're going to go Mr.Black on us.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
kappa, you posted this garbage and attempted to back it up with your stupid link to an inbred moron's video, who explained how "we all know" bombs were in the WTC 1 and 2.
Now you look even more stupid than the link.
I first watched the video today.. Although it connected a few more dots for me, it was not what sent me down the road I find myself on...
Who looks more stupid, me with my reasonings or you just arguing with nothing?? Come on man.. Tell me how I'm wrong.. Tell me how FEMA has no answer to why #7 fell.. Tell me how the Federal post building on one side and the Verizon building on the other side were not damaged.. Tell me how and why people (including tom brokov{sp} and dan rathers) both while watching the building fall concluded it was well placed charges and said so on TV... Tell me how and why firefighters, police, news media, and other safety people knew #7 was about to fall and cleared the area.. Tell me how the building fell into a perfect form of itself (i.e. didnt fall over or tumble)... Tell me why the building looks like a demolition.. Tell me why the building caught fire?? Tell me why a steel framed building in an unprecedented act fell due to fire.. Come'on man.. I have reasonings.. you have nothing.... Come up with something or go away... You serve no one.. You really believe there is no conspiracy and I think thats great!! Now help prove that instead of the worthless circle jerk arguments you are placing before me....
-
1. Had you spent half as much time reading it instead of being ignorant while arguing with me, you'd not have to ask me these questions.. ..
2.Again.. A slight amount of reading might have stopped this ignorant statement.. #7 was not hit by a plane.. Fires inside #7 building were very small and reported to have been able to be extinquished by the buildings local fire protection...
3.Again, a light amount of reading.. I quoted FEMA saying they have no conclusive reasoning..
4. Again, read.. Read how all radio communications that day were gathered up for 'national security' reasons.. Very few articals are around.. but they are around..
5. Again, abit of reading.. Had you read some of my post you might have actually watched the video of #7 falling.. pretty damning video..
6. Footprint evidence as to how the building fell.. On itself and only covered the area of its original footprint.. Just like an implosion..
7. Again, abit of reading.. #7 was squeezed inbetween 2 buildings that recieved very slight damage..
Perhaps you might get a clue as to why your a waste of my time as you come and argue with nothing more than a desire to argue..
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Omigosh, now you're going to go Mr.Black on us.
still waiting on the qustions and facts of statements you were referring to i was dodging??
-
Originally posted by kappa
I first watched the video today.. Although it connected a few more dots for me, it was not what sent me down the road I find myself on...
Who looks more stupid, me with my reasonings or you just arguing with nothing??
Ummmmm, you just watched the video in the link today? So you based your whole thread on link with a video that you only just viewed today?
Tell us what "dots" the video conneceted for you.
And how many times did you say you where leaving this thread again?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Ummmmm, you just watched the video in link the today? So you based your whole thread on link with a video that you only just viewed today?
Tell us what "dots" the video conneceted for you.
And how many times did you say you where leaving this thread again?
lol Nuke.. what a retard.. First time I said i was leaving till I saw something of merit.. My something of merit was kieran saying i stuck my tail between my legs and ran.. that merit enough for my return..
Second and last time I said it, I did leave.. I left work and now im home..
Nuke, I based my opinon on many articals, pictures, notes, personal testimonies i've read, and a large amount of thought.. But probably one of the biggest reasons was watching the video of the actual building #7 falling.. The individual that made that individual site would not be enough for me...
Each post you make has become more and more worthless.. Consider yourself a winner and leave my thread please...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Second and last time I said it, I did leave.. I left work and now im home..
..
so each time you said you you were leaving the thread, it was a lie.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
so each time you said you you were leaving the thread, it was a lie.
omg dude.. I cant believe you reply with watermelon like this.. lmao what a freakin loser statement~!!
-
Originally posted by kappa
omg dude.. I cant believe you reply with watermelon like this.. lmao what a freakin loser statement~!!
coming from a conspiracy theory believer who lies, I take that as a compliment
-
Originally posted by NUKE
coming from a conspiracy theory believer who lies, I take that as a compliment
OMG OMG!!! dude!! lmao that makes my day to see you break down like this.. To bring it to this from your high and mighty I'll disprove you in an instant stance... Dude this is sad.. hehe I feel sorry for you now.. so, im sorry.. You win.. you are victorious!! clearly im a conspiracy theroy believer and I lie!! omg THE HORROR!!! THE HOrror!! the horror!! the horror
-
Originally posted by kappa
OMG OMG!!! dude!! lmao that makes my day to see you break down like this.. To bring it to this from your high and mighty I'll disprove you in an instant stance... Dude this is sad.. hehe I feel sorry for you now.. so, im sorry.. You win.. you are victorious!! clearly im a conspiracy theroy believer and I lie!! omg THE HORROR!!! THE HOrror!! the horror!! the horror
LOL, you are freaking out like Howard Dean after he lost the Iowa caucus.
Yearrrahhh!
Care to actually make a point?
-
salute kappa, I got one going to :). They are some rotten Bass turds eh?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
salute kappa, I got one going to :). They are some rotten Bass turds eh?
kappa won't answer you.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
kappa won't answer you.
he will if he logs outs and back in as kappa. :D
Ah, now it makes sense. Kappa banned. Whitehawk talking to kappa, who is whitehawk, who both believe in this Building 7 conspiracy... ah fegetaboutit.
-
LOL, we ( the rational) are still here to tuck you into bed at night.
-
I earned a degree in fire science in Honolulu Hawaii well before 9/11. Honolulu has its fair share of high rises, so we studied all kinds of fires including tall structures. The program included a building construction class, of which the primary focus was learning to recognize when a structure was at risk of collapse. If there is one thing that I recall about my studies of building construction and collapse, it is that buildings of all types and sizes can and will collapse from structural damage caused by fire. Its not a matter of can a tall building collapse from fire, its when it will collapse and can the fire be put out before it get close to that point. Direct fire impingement on steel structural members can cause collapse in as little time as 15 minutes. Structural steel is coated with fire protective foam to help prevent the steel from reaching temperatures where it can become soft in a fire. This foam, however, can deteriorate or break off over time or burn away in a fire. It would be insane to build skyscrapers the way we do today without fire sprinkler systems, without them skyscraper collapse would not be all that uncommon (except that we probably wouldn’t build them anymore in the first place). Fire officers are trained to recognize and predict building collapse; it is usually the biggest concern at any structure fire. The fire officers at the WTC should have pulled their crews long before the towers fell; the towers lasted longer than should have been expected. Building seven was in serious threat of collapse; the integrity of the foam insulation and sprinkler systems had to be considered. Building seven had also withstood the force of debris from the two massive towers collapsing near it. The New York Fire Department had just had the greatest reminder in our history of how costly building collapse can be. They didn’t want to, and didn’t need to, risk any more lives unnecessarily.
Quite often, clearing out and letting a building fall is by far the safest thing to do.
After reading portions of this thread I did a search and found a few articles that make similar claims; that something fishy happened with building seven. I also found that many New York Firefighters and other “experts’ were surprised that the twin towers collapsed from fire and suspect otherwise. I’m baffled that their studies differed so much from mine. Just because no major skyscraper had collapsed from fire, does not mean that it is not very possible. Countless smaller steel buildings have collapsed from fire. Several tests have been conducted that show that steel beams can give way in as little as 15 minutes of direct fire impingement. When I turned on the TV on 9/11 and saw towers burning, I expected them to fall. They actually lasted a bit longer than I expected. Once again, I was trained to expect severely burned buildings to fall.
I read the FEMA report on building seven and find it to be a reasonable account.
The articles that contradicted the FEMA report contain many ideas that are borderline silly.
eskimo
-
I tell ya..I've lost alot of respect for some of you guys...regular politics aside (because few agree on politics)....I can't believe all the rabble rousers on here that conjur up all the conspiracy theories...even worse that you believe them...I know that my opinion won't matter to you, But whats wrong with you people? People that invent these so called "theories" are just full of hate for one reason or another..We were attacked by an OUTSIDE force...You can say it all has to do with oil...but really did we have a problem getting the oil we are so dependent on before all this? It makes me sick to think that you feel so poorly about our country and the people that are running it...I tell ya what..you don'y like it..go somewhere else..No one is forceing you to be an American..Maybe at least if you go somewhere else you won't have the FREEDOM to perpetuate and promote this kinda BS.
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
I tell ya..I've lost alot of respect for some of you guys...regular politics aside (because few agree on politics)....I can't believe all the rabble rousers on here that conjur up all the conspiracy theories...even worse that you believe them...I know that my opinion won't matter to you, But whats wrong with you people? People that invent these so called "theories" are just full of hate for one reason or another..We were attacked by an OUTSIDE force...You can say it all has to do with oil...but really did we have a problem getting the oil we are so dependent on before all this? It makes me sick to think that you feel so poorly about our country and the people that are running it...I tell ya what..you don'y like it..go somewhere else..No one is forceing you to be an American..Maybe at least if you go somewhere else you won't have the FREEDOM to perpetuate and promote this kinda BS.
Thats why you have to call them lunatics. And trust me thats the best way to deal with these people. You get a load off your shoulders by insulting therir stupidity and bizzare behavior. They get the attention they need and the feeling of being rejected and scorned for sharing this special info. That the best part, they want people to attack them and ridicuklr them. That way they feel special and they feel like the little guy fighting against this huge enemy trying to supress the truth. Thats the whole point of conspiracy theories... Yep, 34 year old Mr. Conspiracry McNut living in his mothers basement is just gonna show the world how wrong it is...
-
Originally posted by kappa on page 2
How so?? Because the I-beams were so large that american industry could not produce them?? We had to import them.. What was unique about them??
Nothing was unique about WTC #7...
The twins were unique because the entire load of the building was carried by the outer walls. Standard construction has a network of verticle beams that carry the load across the interior and exterior of the building footprint, with a grid of horizontal beams, that tie them together.
In the case of the twins, the exterior framework remained straight because the bar joist for each floor tied them to the opposing wall. Bar joist are not all that heavy a guage of steel, and they will soften and sag under extreme heat in less time than a heavy I beam. The bar joist sagged until they pulled the welded brackets that they rest on from the exterior wall I beams. The impact of that failed floor on the floor below caused a domino effect. After enough of these floor joist failures, the exterior beams buckeled due to the lack of horizontal support from the bar joist.
Structures rely on systems. Plywood does not carry the load of a house but it does provide diagonal and horizontal support to the framing it is fastened too. Remove the plywood, and the structure is severely weakened.
A fire in any seel structure can weaken a key part of the system. There was one thing I do know of that was unique about building #7 on 9/11. Typically a structure fire has top priority, and is given full resources of local gov't to contain. Can anyone really say that fire in building 7 was at the top of the list of problems for NYC PD, FD, PA? I believe the reason why it collapsed while similar buildings havent before, is because the resourses brought to bare in 'similar buildings' were not availible in NYC on 9/11. Damage from 1&2 collapse probably didnt help matters either.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
he will if he logs outs and back in as kappa. :D
Ah, now it makes sense. Kappa banned. Whitehawk talking to kappa, who is whitehawk, who both believe in this Building 7 conspiracy... ah fegetaboutit.
just FYI, Whitehawk is another 52nd, just like Kappa and myself.
carry on
-
Originally posted by strk
just FYI, Whitehawk is another 52nd, just like Kappa and myself.
carry on
So you are in with them on this psycho nutjob conspiracy thing?
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
So you are in with them on this psycho nutjob conspiracy thing?
no, we were in the same squad for many years.
-
MCGROIN......
Mcgroin is right, same as a pool , remove the water fast and the whole pool foundation can pop and lose its adhereance to the ground.
Didnt read much sorry if some one said this already.
-
Hell, I didn't read the entire thread but.....
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Contrails off jets are really chemicals the UN is using to control our minds. Flu shots are really used to make you want to buy more during the holiday season. the space shuttle contains a super-weopon used to create earthquakes from outerspace. And the world trade center was really blown up by our own government.
....and Bush convinced America to invade Iraq only to increase Haliburtan's profits and to make Cheney more money, sacrificing over a thousand lives for monetary gain.
It all makes sense to me now.
-
Eskimo,
Would you be so kind to point out any particular instance of a modern (within the last century) steel frame highrise collapsing due to fire?
-
Oh my..What triggered the Kappa ban?:confused:
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
-
Hmmm... All rantings aside, it appears that the reason WTC7 collapsed is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
If the building was "pulled" by FDNY, what difference does it make?
WTC7 is gone... build a new one and move on.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... All rantings aside, it appears that the reason WTC7 collapsed is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
If the building was "pulled" by FDNY, what difference does it make?
WTC7 is gone... build a new one and move on.
Wow Sandman. Perhaps you say that because your certain there is no cover up of any type here? If so, I do not wrong you for that feeling. It is yours too have.
But we do know that WTC7 was sandwiched inbetween the Verizon building and a Federal building (post office I think) that both received none or very light cosmetic damage. We know that two planes destroyed 7 buildings all of which were part of the WTC complex and a small church I believe. No private buildings were lost or recieved anything more extinsive than lite cosmetic damage. None even shut down or condemned. Take a look at the footprint of WTC7 and the proximity it was to the buildings along it's sides. Take a look at how WTC7 fell.. All these points raised many questions with me. This is only a small portion of the questions surrounding WTC7 as it is from memory.
-
Hum, all this chatter about building #7 and I don't see anyone
raising the question about WHY, if it was detonated, would
it have been a target in the first place? What did that building have in it that would have been important to take it down vs.
leaving two buildings practically intact next to it raises an eyebrow
with me.
Secondly, I don't know why Kappa was demanding proof
that it wasn't a conspiracy when FEMA themselves couldn't
explain why it went down. If FEMA can't explain why it went
down, that means they also, apparently, don't have
evidence it was TAKEN down either.
-
Hmmm... I'm not a firefighter, but it seems to me that the principle goal of the fire department is to contain fires, not save buildings. If WTC7 was burning beyond what they thought they could control and the FDNY considered it a threat to surrounding structures, it makes sense that they would simply take it down.
-
Circumventing language filter
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wow Sandman. Perhaps you say that because your certain there is no cover up of any type here? If so, I do not wrong you for that feeling. It is yours too have.
I just doubt that the government could manage a cover up of this scale.
-
Originally posted by Ohio330
Hum, all this chatter about building #7 and I don't see anyone
raising the question about WHY, if it was detonated, would
it have been a target in the first place? What did that building have in it that would have been important to take it down vs.
leaving two buildings practically intact next to it raises an eyebrow
with me.
Secondly, I don't know why Kappa was demanding proof
that it wasn't a conspiracy when FEMA themselves couldn't
explain why it went down. If FEMA can't explain why it went
down, that means they also, apparently, don't have
evidence it was TAKEN down either.
Sorry, I dont mean to demand anything. If it was some sort of demand , I would think there would be some pic of a gun in the thread. A question was raised and then the questioner was attacked for being a nutjob/american hater..
FEMA cant explain what happened to #7. They could not explain it when it happened. Funny storry though. What do you think happened to all that 'evidence' that once lay in the form of a ruined building?? Well, they didnt keep it around to study it or investigate where the failure occured. It, along with the ruin from the Towers was shipped to China.. Literally.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I'm not a firefighter, but it seems to me that the principle goal of the fire department is to contain fires, not save buildings. If WTC7 was burning beyond what they thought they could control and the FDNY considered it a threat to surrounding structures, it makes sense that they would simply take it down.
Humm., another interesting point. What started the fires?
stress cracks to gas lines due to the tremblors?
Yes, I agree..a controlled demo would have been a good
choice to save the surrounding buildings, but if Kappa was
right about FEMA not knowing HOW it came down, then we
have to assume that the fire dept. spend all day puting
in charges with FEMA not knowing about it.. and if we
are to believe another person's post about the length
of time it takes to set it up properly then there wouldn't have
been time to do that. Also, I don't know about you, but
it would have had to been one heck of a hero to take
explosives into a burning building :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I'm not a firefighter, but it seems to me that the principle goal of the fire department is to contain fires, not save buildings. If WTC7 was burning beyond what they thought they could control and the FDNY considered it a threat to surrounding structures, it makes sense that they would simply take it down.
Indeed I would think you to be correct. However, #7 was not burning beyond what it's very own local fire protection could have put out. Besides the fact that the fire was very small, no one to date has been able to determine the exact cause of the interior fire. I have yet to see a picture of #7 ingulfed(sp) in flame. The building was intact.. As a matter of fact the building was inhabited by emergency workers/rescue all up untill the word was given to 'pull it'... If memory serves correctly, FEMA's hq was in #7.. There are even stories that FEMA arrived the previous day that came from interviews given to workers there..
-
Seems to me that we can't really compare a planned demolition to an emergency.
Sure... AFAIK, demolition crews spend days setting up building, but in the case of WTC7, can't they rush a bit? Do they evacuate entire areas for a controlled demolition? I'm guessing that the area around ground zero was largely evacuated already. That would give the crews some margin to cut corners and work quickly.
Granted... this is just spifballing. I don't have any answers.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Circumventing language filter
I'm not sure my friend. I dont loose sleep for it. Clearly I just p'd off the wrong person. No biggie.. 8)
-
I don't think anyone really cares if the powers that be, decided to pull down WTC 7.
I think people do care that no one seems to know that (or if) they did.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't think anyone really cares if the powers that be, decided to pull down WTC 7.
I think people do care that no one seems to know that (or if) they did.
my feelings exactly.
-
Well, I happend to be in NYC on 9/11. I found a roll
of film i never developed, so I rushed out today to see
what I got, and I'm surprised I didn't see what I
was taking a picture of. The photo has not been altered
in any way. We can clearly solve this dispute with my evidence.
I caught this speeding away from the scene....
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/AndyPage/1978KAWA.htm
-
Censorship sux...God Save The Sex Pistols
-
13- Do not punt topics. Punting would be making a non-substantive post for the express purpose of bring the thread to the top of the thread list.