portisizzle Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 What's your point? That's what happens when buildings collapse. It just so happens they do it by themselves when you fly a jumbo jet fully loaded with fuel for a cross-country trip into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted May 6, 2006 Author Share Posted May 6, 2006 What's your point? That's what happens when buildings collapse. It just so happens they do it by themselves when you fly a jumbo jet fully loaded with fuel for a cross-country trip into them. My point is the manner in which the two towers fell are not consistent with explosives being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianbien83 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 My point is the manner in which the two towers fell are not consistent with explosives being used. Yeah, but maybe they knew that you were going to find that vid so they made it less perfect than they would have... Do people still honestly believe that the government was in some way responsible for this???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Yeah, but maybe they knew that you were going to find that vid so they made it less perfect than they would have...Do people still honestly believe that the government was in some way responsible for this???? brian,did u know that the president knew that pearl harbor was gonna be attacked?<<<< has been proven,why did he let it happen? b/c they knew the best way to economic growth is war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Can't explain the video but it sounds like more than a few people were happy that building was blown up. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 We just went through this entire thing with pictures and links and everything.. Please use the search function as it was way too much effort on my part....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Yeah, but maybe they knew that you were going to find that vid so they made it less perfect than they would have...Do people still honestly believe that the government was in some way responsible for this???? They must be a proud member of the tinfoil brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted May 6, 2006 Author Share Posted May 6, 2006 We just went through this entire thing with pictures and links and everything..Please use the search function as it was way too much effort on my part....... The "use the search" people are getting on my last nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 brian,did u know that the president knew that pearl harbor was gonna be attacked?<<<< has been proven,why did he let it happen? b/c they knew the best way to economic growth is war. First this is a theory that they knew, not a proven known fact, and I'll say it is a theory I tend to believe. But that isn't why they let it happen. The economy in the US was fine at the outbreak of World War II. We did not enter World War II for selfish economic reasons. They let it happen because they knew that the Axis had real plans for world domination that they were implementing. We had a population that was by and large ambivalent to the situation and no real army to speak of and were fast running out of time to train one and be ready for the inevitable. The economic boom resulted from us building weapons, planes, ships, and machines that we didn't have prior to the war, and while a nice side effect, was certainly not the reason we entered the war. To suggest we flung ourselves into the largest catastrophe that has ever occured in the history of mankind just so we could stimulate the economy is totally incorrect and extremely naive. Pearl Harbor was a military installation and target. Commanders must sometimes sacrifice parts of their force for the overall campaign. The Twin Towers were not a military installation or target, they were a target of terror, and certainly not confined to US interests. As a result I sincerely doubt the US was behind or knew about the 9/11 attacks. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianbien83 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 brian,did u know that the president knew that pearl harbor was gonna be attacked?<<<< has been proven,why did he let it happen? b/c they knew the best way to economic growth is war. Yeah, I've done a little studying of US History, I do know that there is certainly evidence that high ups in the goverment knew something was going down. But, there were incompetents at every turn. Yes, Roosevelt probably knew something was going on, and no, he didn't stop it. But it is far from proven. Just like everything that isn't explicitly written down and notarized at the time, and this is not, this is historical conjecture. Economic prosperity comes not from war itself, but from the industry that war creates. The US was making money before Pearl Harbor because they were selling war materiel to the Allies. WWII necessitated the conversion to a full wartime economy. The current fighting does not do that. Thus, there is no economic windfall from this war. Edit: Bang--didn't read your post before I responded...nicely put, by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 "brian,did u know that the president knew that pearl harbor was gonna be attacked?<<<< has been proven,why did he let it happen? b/c they knew the best way to economic growth is war." hey at least the paranoids are blaming liberals now for a change. by the way, there is zero evidence that the US government KNEW Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 "brian,did u know that the president knew that pearl harbor was gonna be attacked?<<<< has been proven,why did he let it happen? b/c they knew the best way to economic growth is war."hey at least the paranoids are blaming liberals now for a change. by the way, there is zero evidence that the US government KNEW Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.. Save your breath...err...fingertips my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 interesting fact, only three skyscrapers have ever fallen down due to fire, and yes others have been hit by planes,and they all happened on 9/11/01 in NYC. here is an interesting website:http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/loose_change_dvd.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinz91 Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Explain something to me. In regards to the Pentagon, how can a 757, which is 120 feet from wingtip to wingtip, fit into the hole that was left in the Pentagon, which was 65 ft. across. Not to mention, the roof didn't collapse until 20 min. after firemen hit the scene. if a 757 hit the Pentagon, don't you think the roof would be taken out? And I challenge you to find ONE photograph that was taken at the scene which shows any plane wreckage. In regards to the towers, several witnesses have said that neither of the planes that struck the towers had windows. You ever see a passenger airliner that didn't have windows? And finally, there are reports that Flight 97 actually landed in Cleveland more than an hour before it was reported crashed in Pennsylvania. I've seen several theories that say that our government actually flew two planes into the towers to get US citizens behind a war in the Middle East. I'm not saying it's true, that's just one of the theories. :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 The "use the search" people are getting on my last nerve. The I spent 11 hours researching it in another thread with pictures and links and counter arguments shouldnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 About 9/11/01....... They got us. Osama and his posse flat out got us. Those planes did have windows and Flight 93 got no closer to Cleveland than the Browns will get to the Super Bowl this year. Alex Jones poses some interesting theroies on his web site (www.infowars.com) though. Check them out if you are into conspiricies. About WWII....... In the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" it was speculated that the Japanese higher ups were suppose to get a phone call from an ambassador in Hawaii or something to that respect. When they received the call the planes headed for Pearl Harbor were to turn back. The Japanese never got the call and the planes did their thing. Roosevelt didn't let WWII happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Explain something to me. In regards to the Pentagon, how can a 757, which is 120 feet from wingtip to wingtip, fit into the hole that was left in the Pentagon, which was 65 ft. across. Not to mention, the roof didn't collapse until 20 min. after firemen hit the scene. if a 757 hit the Pentagon, don't you think the roof would be taken out? And I challenge you to find ONE photograph that was taken at the scene which shows any plane wreckage. In regards to the towers, several witnesses have said that neither of the planes that struck the towers had windows. You ever see a passenger airliner that didn't have windows? And finally, there are reports that Flight 97 actually landed in Cleveland more than an hour before it was reported crashed in Pennsylvania. I've seen several theories that say that our government actually flew two planes into the towers to get US citizens behind a war in the Middle East. I'm not saying it's true, that's just one of the theories. Someone has been watching too much of that 15 year old kid's video, "Loose Change." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinz91 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 Someone has been watching too much of that 15 year old kid's video, "Loose Change." No, someone just isn't willing to believe everything his government tries to force feed him. I've read enough and seen enough footage to know that that everything doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 If anyone can answer these questions with a comment better than, Someone has been watching too much of that 15 year old kid's video, "Loose Change." then I might start buying the "official story. In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible? The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible? Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible? Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible? Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible? A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible? A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible? The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianbien83 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 I would almost buy your argument if the only thing burning in that whole situation was jet fuel...but it wasn't. I honestly cannot believe that people actually think this way. I'll accept you disagreeing with the war in Iraq. But intimating that the government blew up the towers? That is just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianbien83 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 If anyone can answer these questions with a comment better than, Someone has been watching too much of that 15 year old kid's video, "Loose Change." then I might start buying the "official story. Okay, here goes... In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible? Which three are you talking about? As far as I know, there were only two. Both of the twin towers. Secondly, in the history of structural engineering, no steel-frame high-rise buildings have been hit by jumbo jets with full tanks of jet fuel. The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? I see, we should believe everything we hear on BBC, but not from the US Government or US media outlets. Sure. Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible? The actual impact would be like puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil. Your quote here doesn't say a thing about the aftermath. Does Frank talk about how a full payload of jet fuel would impact the structural integrity of the buildings? Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? Again, you can light jet fuel on fire, put a thermometer in the very center of that fire and it may be 1,800 degrees. But what about when that fire engulfs other things??? Do you have any idea what the temperature of a fire with jet fuel as an accelerant is? Further, does metal need to melt to bend? Don't think so. Structural integrity can be compromised prior to the melting of the steel. Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible? Where do you get this information? Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible? The pentagon, according to several sources, was actually a backup target. The TERRORISTS were unable to locate the original target and had to hit the pentagon instead. Their angle and heading of descent made it so that they hit the only part they could. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible? If this is true, and coming from you I have a hard time believing that, do you think there could have been some issue with shooting the plane down in the area? Possibly like, more deaths on the ground? A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible? The size of a city block? Did you see the crater that thing left? Also, do you have a link to that particular gem of information? Further, if this was credible, and the US government could fabricate terrorist attacks on the twin tower and the pentagon, why would they overlook such a mundane piece of information. (I know, it's the little stuff they always screw up on ) A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible? Again, where are you getting this info? How about they just burn it? How about they crush it, cut it into small pieces and toss it in the trash can? The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? You'll remember, I'm sure, that Bush was inaugurated January 20th, 2001. I'm also sure you'll remember that there was no love lost between the former and current administrations. I'm quite certain they didn't share everything. I'm sure that no one in the current administration imagined that a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon with such great impact. I notice that the quotes are only around the no one could have imagined part. Did you add the other yourself? And if you are quoting, don't you think you should add a link so the rest of us can see it? Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. Matter of fact, they didn't. That's why the third building came down. It was crushed by the fall of the others. Now, I hope that suffices. But I'm sure it won't. And I'm sure that I spent the last few minutes completely in vain. It made me feel a little better though, so it was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 you said:"Which three are you talking about? As far as I know, there were only two." later you said:"Matter of fact, they didn't. That's why the third building came down. It was crushed by the fall of the others." which is not at all true So you know there were three buildings "skyscrappers" that fell down that day or not? "It made me feel a little better though, so it was worth it." glad to hear it Those who would conceal the truth have tried (with some success) to condition the public into associating any questioning of the official version of events with the label "conspiracy theory" (and implicitly, "lunatic conspiracy theory"). A moment's consideration will reveal that this is quite a stupid claim, since to question, or to cast doubt upon, some claim or story is not in itself to put forward any other claim or story, and still less any "theory". One may (as many do) disbelieve the U.S. government's story about what happened on 9/11 without being obliged to provide any explanation at all as to what happened on that day. The first question which should be asked is whether the official story is plausible, and just a little research will show that not only is it implausible, it cannot be true. Realizing this is the first step toward gaining some insight into the events of 9/11. Many, however, are not even willing to make that first step, preferring to lie to themselves, with no thought for the consequences. from this site:http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm It took me a while to find but you are right that I should have posted it the first time http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html I'm not saying the gov did this cause I don't know that they did, but just look into it for yourself and there are way to many coincidenses for the "official story" to be true. Pry open your third eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianbien83 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 you said:"Which three are you talking about? As far as I know, there were only two."later you said:"Matter of fact, they didn't. That's why the third building came down. It was crushed by the fall of the others." which is not at all true So you know there were three buildings "skyscrappers" that fell down that day or not? "It made me feel a little better though, so it was worth it." glad to hear it Those who would conceal the truth have tried (with some success) to condition the public into associating any questioning of the official version of events with the label "conspiracy theory" (and implicitly, "lunatic conspiracy theory"). A moment's consideration will reveal that this is quite a stupid claim, since to question, or to cast doubt upon, some claim or story is not in itself to put forward any other claim or story, and still less any "theory". One may (as many do) disbelieve the U.S. government's story about what happened on 9/11 without being obliged to provide any explanation at all as to what happened on that day. The first question which should be asked is whether the official story is plausible, and just a little research will show that not only is it implausible, it cannot be true. Realizing this is the first step toward gaining some insight into the events of 9/11. Many, however, are not even willing to make that first step, preferring to lie to themselves, with no thought for the consequences. from this site:http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm It took me a while to find but you are right that I should have posted it the first time http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html I'm not saying the gov did this cause I don't know that they did, but just look into it for yourself and there are way to many coincidenses for the "official story" to be true. Pry open your third eye. You said that three buildings came down because of fire. That isn't true. Two came down because of fire, the third came down because of the other two. I don't believe I am lying to myself. There are a lot of things I don't believe. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. And while this administration may be a lot of things, I don't believe they would fabricate something like this. Sometimes things are really as they appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 If anyone can answer these questions with a comment better than, Someone has been watching too much of that 15 year old kid's video, "Loose Change." then I might start buying the "official story. Rational, thoughtful questions get rational, thoughtful answers. Played-out, discredited talking point questions get dismissive, glib replies. No amount of reasoning will ever convince the conspiracy theorists to return to reality and see things as they really are. Enjoy your terrifying fantasy world and I'll enjoy Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.