What Really Happened on 9/11?

CFLarsen said:
You simply cannot imagine what you missed.
Click to expand...

I was lucky enough to have been to the top of the towers many times. I ate at Windows on the World one month before the attack. They should have built those towers back just they way they were. Perhaps a story taller.
JPK
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Those three will do for now. I don't quite have Claus' flair for lists. But one more thing. One of you links has an engineer saying that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. This may well be true, I don't know, but for argument's sake, I'll accept it. It's still a BS argument because sometimes design fails. The Titanic was DESIGNED to be able to stay afloat if the hull was punctured, Columbia and Challenger were DESIGNED to be able to fly to and fro from space without blowing up, etc.
Click to expand...
It is true that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. However, under the following circumstances:
1. The 707 was flying at just above stall speed (180mph).
2. It was lost in fog and searching for the airport.
3. Because of the above, all excess fuel had been dumped.

They were not designed to withstand an airliner travelling at full speed and fully loaded w/ fuel. The kinetic energy differences between the envisioned 707 impact and the impact of the 767's that hit them are orders of magnitude apart.

The 9/11 CT'ers are liars and scammers.

Source.
 
WildCat said:
It is true that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. However, under the following circumstances:
1. The 707 was flying at just above stall speed (180mph).
2. It was lost in fog and searching for the airport.
3. Because of the above, all excess fuel had been dumped.

They were not designed to withstand an airliner travelling at full speed and fully loaded w/ fuel. The kinetic energy differences between the envisioned 707 impact and the impact of the 767's that hit them are orders of magnitude apart.

The 9/11 CT'ers are liars and scammers.

Source.
Click to expand...


Are you saying they might have misrepresented a few facts? Color me shocked and surprised.
 
conspiracybeliever said:
Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe,By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations, Friday, January 04, 2002

A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce."

The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately..."

...A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.
Click to expand...

Bill Manning goes onto say (directly after that bit about the planes and fuel not being enough) that "theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remian just unexplored theory."

In the February 2002 issue of Fire Engineering, editors sum up a "call to action" voiced in their previous issue. These are the questions they want asked in an investigation of the collapse of the Twin Towers - "Can the fire service really handle high rise fires adequately? What part did lightweight steel trusses, some reported to have been in excess of 50 feet long, play in the collapse? How effective was the modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" employed at the WTC? How releveant to today's fires are the criteria established for the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test developed in the 1920's? When should the defend-in-place strategy for the WTC be used and not used for large high-rise fires? What can be done to make communication by radio possible in high-rise buildings?"

Notice something missing in both of those quotes? No explosives, controlled demolitions, or government cover-ups are mentioned. Instead, this periodical devoted to those who fight fires demands that our government do it's duty to protect the lives of the men and women who - in fact - fight fires. They asked for an investiagtion to ensure that those who bravely risk their own lives every day will be safe from a future, avoidable disaster like the one that happened on 9/11.

The conspiracy crowd hope others will read quotes from people like Manning, fail to check the original source material, and fill in the blanks with the conpiracy theory drivel. They willingly commandeer arguments for better safety regulations and more advanced fire fighting techniques. They use an effort to save the lives of civil servants to prove that their own warped, fantastic world-view is, in fact, reality.
 
All of conspiracybeliever's witnesses are accounts made on the spot by nonexperts. ASK ANY COPS OR FIREMEN, I'm sure in any tragic event there are hundreds of conflicting eyewitness statements. All the time. It doesn't mean people lie, they just recall diffrently. Many psychological factors come to play, stress, visual and auditory illusions, personnal interpretations and simple ignorance. I'm not saying those eye witnesses didn't see or hear what they say they did, but you can't hold this as the ultimate truth. Use some objectivity.
 
Video Proof Of Explosions At The WTC[/b said:
[/size]

I absolutely don't see any evidence of explosions. I just see building collapsing.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK IT'S DISCUSTING TO SHOW OVER AND OVER THE MURDER OF THESE PEOPLE.

THERE IS NO EXPLOSIONS, you showed it yourself with those video links, now stop showing it!
Click to expand...
 
JPK said:
I was lucky enough to have been to the top of the towers many times. I ate at Windows on the World one month before the attack. They should have built those towers back just they way they were. Perhaps a story taller.
JPK
Click to expand...

Would you work there?
 
Pardalis said:
I absolutely don't see any evidence of explosions. I just see building collapsing.
Click to expand...
By "proof" Roxdog really means "no proof". Otherwise, he'd have actual evidence as evidence must precede proof.
 
Conspiracybeliever, I have read your first posts of this thread thouroughly, I suggest you read the entire Loose Change thread, everything you said has been disproofed manytimes over.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Why would they bother?
Click to expand...
This is the final nail in the coffin constructed from lack of evidence.

Not only is a controlled demol combined with a double jet-crash needlessly redundant, but why would they desire a pancake collapse?

A: They wouldn't. If destruction is your intention, taking pains to control the collapse is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive.
 
conspiracybeliever is Roxdog from the Loose Change forum. Seems he's upset with me. :D

You haven't been posting here for over 3 hours now Roxdog, there's been lots of questions you haven't answered yet and many of your theories and statements have been shown to be false. I suspect this is the reason you hate a real debate on an internet forum, those pesky facts keep getting in the way and it's not easy to dance around what you've said.

I see you still had time to preach to the choir over at LC however, so lack of time is certainly not the reason you haven't been here in a while.
 
Piggy said:
This is the final nail in the coffin constructed from lack of evidence.

Not only is a controlled demol combined with a double jet-crash needlessly redundant, but why would they desire a pancake collapse?

A: They wouldn't. If destruction is your intention, taking pains to control the collapse is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Why would they desire a collapse over letting them burn? Why would their plot require building seven going down? Why would they require any of it? And if they could pull off such an amazing plot, wouldn't there be about a million more productive ways to use their power?
 
Oldpossum wanders onstage..

Oldpossum Considers the disqustingly tasty offal offered by Conspiacybeliver.

Oldpossum Thoughfully bites Conspiracybeliver on the ankle instead.

Oldpossum wanders offstage........

Seriously, how do people like conspericybeliver make it through the day?

I mean, they have so little contact with reality, they probably think trains can come to a stop in a matted of centimeters, and people only get run over by trains, because the train drivers are all members of the Atheist NWO, and they are eliminating someone "Who Knows Too Much", or something.
 
Just checked out the Loose Screw forum. Roxie, while claiming we refuse to debate the Loosers, has posted screenshots showing that threads on this topic are at the top of the JREF board -- meaning, of course, that we're vigorously debating them.

These people will believe anything, no matter how self-contradictory, as long as it fits their world-view.

<Makes note to self to write conspiracy book.>
 
hahaha good post gravy, your theory makes just as much sense. And your anecdotal evidence is enough for the average CT

When its written in a point form that way it makes it even more ludicrus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom