• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conspiracy believers, answer me this:

cloudshipsrule

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
1,170
If the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 were indeed CD's, why the delay in time between the impact of the planes and collapse?

Are you implying big brother behind the scenes had enough compassion to let some people escape before detonating the buildings? The perpetrators of the event wanted to kill between 2 and 5 thousand, but not tens of thousands of people? Why. More deaths would get everyone on the bandwagon to war even faster, huh?

Or, are you saying there was a malfunction with the CD in BOTH buildings, and it took about an hour to fix each problem?
 
There is one more thing. Truthers frequently say, that one proof of demolition is the wrong order. Can you believe it? They claim, that because WTC 2 was hit later but collapsed first, they accidentally demolished them in the wrong order. Can you believe the quality of their argumentation?
 
On 911blogger, one truther posited that the charges were set off when the north tower collapsed, but were only partially successful, leading to the big damage on the south face that we've seen on recent videos. Then the conspirators went in and fixed the problem, and blew the building when they were ready at 5:20. :eek:
 
cloudshipsrule said:
If the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 were indeed CD's, why the delay in time between the impact of the planes and collapse?

Are you implying big brother behind the scenes had enough compassion to let some people escape before detonating the buildings? The perpetrators of the event wanted to kill between 2 and 5 thousand, but not tens of thousands of people? Why. More deaths would get everyone on the bandwagon to war even faster, huh?

Or, are you saying there was a malfunction with the CD in BOTH buildings, and it took about an hour to fix each problem?
Click to expand...
Although I do not believe in WTC1&2 CD theories, it's quite simple to understand why they would not destroy the towers too quickly

First bear in mind that the objective of the attacks were not to inflict material damage. It was a 21st century PR operation, having people from around the world to have time to watch live on TV the burning towers, people jumping out, and finally the bouquet final (final fireworks bouquet) with the towers collapsing.

You must admit that, wether the terrorists entirely did it or there were some MIHOP, that 9/11 was a wonderful psyops...

I hope that answers your question.

B
 
cloudshipsrule said:
If the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 were indeed CD's, why the delay in time between the impact of the planes and collapse?
Click to expand...

Let me turn on the super twoof modus (I'm not 100% after the below, i have other ideas) and answer this...

The south tower's impact zone was lower, which means that it had more initial collapsing mass than the other one, this one should fail first then. It takes some time of course to determine this. The shock effect is better if more TV channels are on the scene with their cameras to catch the dramatic collapse with screaming people. Further the theory should have a basis; the fire weakens the structure during some time, raging fires do their job. The fact that some people start thinking why did the last impacted tower fail first (and conclude it is the collapsing mass theory) already shows that they did their job very well, even intelligent people believe it.
 
Last edited:
The south tower failed first for two reasons:

1) The weight above the damaged section was much greater.

2) The damage was more asymmetrical.

And of course, 7 failed much later because it was only seriously damaged as the north tower fell.

Hans
 
ref said:
There is one more thing. Truthers frequently say, that one proof of demolition is the wrong order. Can you believe it? They claim, that because WTC 2 was hit later but collapsed first, they accidentally demolished them in the wrong order. Can you believe the quality of their argumentation?
Click to expand...

That's not the argument. The argument is: the south tower had less fire, because the fuel burned outside the building. It was under control, and th FD was coming in to knock it down. So it had to come down before they got into the crash zone. No "accident."

Just clarifying where that argument comes from.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
That's not the argument. The argument is: the south tower had less fire, because the fuel burned outside the building.
Click to expand...


Only between 10 and 25% of the aircraft's estimated fuel load was burned off in the initial fireball.




skepticalcriticalguy said:
It was under control, and th FD was coming in to knock it down.
Click to expand...


That must be why the FDNY abandoned fire-fighting operations almost the moment they arrived and instead focused on rescue operations.

-Gumboot
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
That's not the argument. The argument is: the south tower had less fire, because the fuel burned outside the building. It was under control, and th FD was coming in to knock it down. So it had to come down before they got into the crash zone. No "accident."

Just clarifying where that argument comes from.
Click to expand...

I have heard David Ray Griffin talking about the wrong order. What you stated is another claim.
 
gumboot said:
Only between 10 and 25% of the aircraft's estimated fuel load was burned off in the initial fireball.
Click to expand...

Well, ok then. Still way more than was burned off in the air from the first hit (north tower).


That must be why the FDNY abandoned fire-fighting operations almost the moment they arrived and instead focused on rescue operations.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Well, ok then. I thought I heard something about needing 2 lines to knock it down.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Well, ok then. Still way more than was burned off in the air from the first hit (north tower).
Click to expand...


Actually NIST estimate that both impacts burned off about the same amount of fuel.




skepticalcriticalguy said:
Well, ok then. I thought I heard something about needing 2 lines to knock it down.
Click to expand...


That was one isolated fire on the 78th Floor. "2 lines" means two entire fire teams, or an entire fire house. An isolated fire is a fire that is not directly connected to other larger areas of fire.

No firemen ever went further than this so they could never judge the extent of fire, however survivors from the higher floors reported extensive fires.

-Gumboot
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Ok, haven't heard Griffin say "accidentally." Just explaining the argument as I have heard it in the past.
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't use the exact word "accidentally", but he clearly implied, that the order of the collapses was wrong.
 
busherie said:
Although I do not believe in WTC1&2 CD theories, it's quite simple to understand why they would not destroy the towers too quickly

First bear in mind that the objective of the attacks were not to inflict material damage. It was a 21st century PR operation, having people from around the world to have time to watch live on TV the burning towers, people jumping out, and finally the bouquet final (final fireworks bouquet) with the towers collapsing.

You must admit that, wether the terrorists entirely did it or there were some MIHOP, that 9/11 was a wonderful psyops...

I hope that answers your question.

B
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?
A PR exercise?

A wonderful psyops? For goodness sake, The WORLD trade centres were destroyed, thousands died and you call it a PR operation?

This attack cost close to 90 billion, on the day,thousands died, it grounded the entire air transportation, nearly sent the economy into a nose dive and you call it a PR oeperation.

Jeeezzzzzzzzz.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
That was one isolated fire on the 78th Floor. "2 lines" means two entire fire teams, or an entire fire house. An isolated fire is a fire that is not directly connected to other larger areas of fire.

No firemen ever went further than this so they could never judge the extent of fire, however survivors from the higher floors reported extensive fires.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Yes, and had they succeeded in knocking down that fire, they would have been able to proceed. Thus, the argument is that the south tower had to come down quickly; it was becoming more urgent than the north tower.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Yes, and had they succeeded in knocking down that fire, they would have been able to proceed. Thus, the argument is that the south tower had to come down quickly; it was becoming more urgent than the north tower.
Click to expand...

Why ? Why was it urgent to bring down the Towers, any of them ?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Yes, and had they succeeded in knocking down that fire, they would have been able to proceed. Thus, the argument is that the south tower had to come down quickly; it was becoming more urgent than the north tower.
Click to expand...
Are you sick or something? What would it matter (to a putative conspiracy) if they proceeded? Even if they put out the fires and rescued everybody, the conspirators would have their terrorist attack, -- and a grand tale of heroism to boot.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom