GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   A question for 9/11 conspirecy people. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=762971)

bushwacker 08-24-2007 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldo (Post 12984017)
Aw, that sucks. I was hoping it would be some guy just standing there giving his theory based on loose inconsistencies...ya know, kinda like Loose Change.

Seriously though, I heard it was good and do want to see it. Unlike some, I watched Loose Change and it raised some interesting points. Of course, THEN I went out and got the OTHER side of the story, usually from MULTIPLE sources.

I viewed Loose Change much as I view Michael Moore films. He raises some interesting points, but you have to get the other side of the story...you can't just believe everything he says.


Yeah i watched loose change also and felt the same way. The show on the history channel actually had real life experts on it, i couldn'tbelieve it :upsidedow. They debunked all the theories that were raised and then some.

ronaldo 08-24-2007 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushwacker (Post 12984036)
Yeah i watched loose change also and felt the same way. The show on the history channel actually had real life experts on it, i couldn'tbelieve it :upsidedow. They debunked all the theories that were raised and then some.

When I heard about it I tried to find it on our Canadian history channel. As usual though, it was 24 hours of programming about Hockey and beer. I may have to break down and buy it.

_Richard_ 08-24-2007 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 12979300)
I have asked this question in most of the "9/11 truth" type threads and never seem to get an answer.

My question is: If our government was behind 9/11 who stood to gain from it and what did they stand to gain?

A lot people will say, "power" but to me that holds no water. Bush is already the most powerful man on the planet. You can't go up from the top.

Some say "money" Bush, his family and most of the white houses inner circle are already swimming in more cash than they could ever spend.

In the end what anyone in a high up powerful position stood to lose is far greater than anything they could gain. If what they did were discovered they would be shot and their family name would forever live in infamy. Every kid in America learns who Benedict Arnold was, anyone caught carrying out a 9/11 like plot would forever be remember by the people of this country as a villain.

why do you ask people questions you already know the answer too?

yahoo-xxx-girls.com 08-24-2007 04:28 PM

What is this a cow tipping contest... ^^

.

tigerw 08-24-2007 04:34 PM

Bush cant do anything without the concent of the people.... he needs you not to rise up against him... via the attack of 9 11 he could do pretty much whatever he wanted n noone could question it... simple as that

money? yes there is money in war... americas wealth is built on rebuilding after ww2.... rebuilding irak has made haliburton rich as shit which also prolly makes america richer... due to miss calc this war has cost america alot more than the gain...


a question to you... why did buiding 7 fall? its a steel frame building... never in the history of the world has a steel frame building fallen due to fire... and there was no plane hitting building 7... so why would that building fall if it was only on fire? it wouldnt so what happened to it? u dont konw i dont know but i think an answer is needed... even the 9/11 report wchih the government released said that was extremly wierd

Rochard 08-24-2007 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerw (Post 12984533)

a question to you... why did buiding 7 fall? its a steel frame building... never in the history of the world has a steel frame building fallen due to fire... and there was no plane hitting building 7... so why would that building fall if it was only on fire? it wouldnt so what happened to it? u dont konw i dont know but i think an answer is needed... even the 9/11 report wchih the government released said that was extremly wierd

Maybe it has something to do with the impact of two large planes hitting two large towers and two large towers falling? Four pretty big seismic events in the span of four or five hours?

No, that couldn't have been it.

Maybe it was the fact that the two towers fell, spilling hundreds of tons of concrete and steel right next to it? I'm guessing this shit didn't just fall and not hit anything else... such as building 7? You dont' think maybe some of the shit that fell.... maybe MOVED THE BUILDING?

Listen carefully. If hundreds of tons of concrete, steel, or what not suddenly falls next to another building.... THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT THE BUILDING 100 FEET AWAY WILL FALL TOO.

Fucking idiots. I swear.

aico 08-24-2007 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 12984710)
Listen carefully. If hundreds of tons of concrete, steel, or what not suddenly falls next to another building.... THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT THE BUILDING 100 FEET AWAY WILL FALL TOO.

Fucking idiots. I swear.

I didn't fall, it collapsed on itself, all 3 buildings did. It takes very careful precision & timing in demolition to make a building do that. Yah, maybe one, on a fluke would do that and the others would tumble apart slower and fall, but all 3, do you know the odds of that? C'mon use your head.

Not only did Bldg 7 collapse on itself, but it did so at a rate of speed that was equal to a rock being dropped from it's roof, again do you know the odds of that?

Questioning the so-called "truth" has never made someone an idiot, quite the opposite. I would be more inclined to call those who accept what we have been told and not question it when so many facts point to the contrary the only idiots. Certain aspects remained unanswered, and the Gov't is doing everything it can to keep it that way. People who have nothing to hide, have nothing to hide.

Rochard 08-24-2007 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12984801)
I didn't fall, it collapsed on itself, all 3 buildings did. It takes very careful precision & timing in demolition to make a building do that. Yah, maybe one, on a fluke would do that and the others would tumble apart slower and fall, but all 3, do you know the odds of that? C'mon use your head.

Not only did Bldg 7 collapse on itself, but it did so at a rate of speed that was equal to a rock being dropped from it's roof, again do you know the odds of that?

Questioning the so-called "truth" has never made someone an idiot, quite the opposite. I would be more inclined to call those who accept what we have been told and not question it when so many facts point to the contrary the only idiots. Certain aspects remained unanswered, and the Gov't is doing everything it can to keep it that way. People who have nothing to hide, have nothing to hide.

The section above the point of the plane impact had no support under it, it fell down on itself, and by the time the falling building came to a point where it did meet it support was it quickly (instantly) overwelmed. Of course the building fell on itself; How else is it supposed to fall? Just like sort of tip over or something? The top fell down on itself because their was no support under it. That's pretty simple.

I think it's wonderful that your questioning the government. However, to continue to hash over this for years and years with some of the dumbest questions is just getting old. When I can answer your questioning with statements that any freshmen high schooler can give you ("The building fell in on itself because it had no support underneath it"), well, it's time to give it a rest.

The US goverment gave you your answers - in the 9/11 Commission Report. Is it flawed? You bet your damn ass it is because everyone knows the government can't really do anything right, and on top of it's fault new things and new questions have come to light.

In order for any of this to have happened any other way means that hundreds of people must have been involved - people who planted explosives, who piloted or flew by the remote control that airplanes to the firefighters it the towers. I can answer all of your silly questions by saying "I'm pretty sure that someone would have come forward now".

I think it's just possible that some of you watch way too much fucking TV.

lucky482 08-24-2007 07:36 PM

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.com/v/gxRvExqN7_E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="https://youtube.com/v/gxRvExqN7_E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

lucky482 08-24-2007 07:42 PM

You guys are too paranoid.....
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gxRvExqN7_E

aico 08-24-2007 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 12985061)
The section above the point of the plane impact had no support under it, it fell down on itself, and by the time the falling building came to a point where it did meet it support was it quickly (instantly) overwelmed. Of course the building fell on itself; How else is it supposed to fall? Just like sort of tip over or something? The top fell down on itself because their was no support under it. That's pretty simple.

I think it's wonderful that your questioning the government. However, to continue to hash over this for years and years with some of the dumbest questions is just getting old. When I can answer your questioning with statements that any freshmen high schooler can give you ("The building fell in on itself because it had no support underneath it"), well, it's time to give it a rest.

The US goverment gave you your answers - in the 9/11 Commission Report. Is it flawed? You bet your damn ass it is because everyone knows the government can't really do anything right, and on top of it's fault new things and new questions have come to light.

In order for any of this to have happened any other way means that hundreds of people must have been involved - people who planted explosives, who piloted or flew by the remote control that airplanes to the firefighters it the towers. I can answer all of your silly questions by saying "I'm pretty sure that someone would have come forward now".

I think it's just possible that some of you watch way too much fucking TV.

I don't have TV or Cable. You're funny. You obviously know absolutely nothing about building construction.

Your biggest argument is calling people stupid, congratulations on a huge victory you intellectual giant. But, I am glad you admit your answers are on the same level as that of a Highschool Freshman.

minusonebit 08-24-2007 08:34 PM

9/11 allowed the Republican Party to pass a set of laws (Patriot Act, et al) that in the absence of 9/11 would never have been passed. The owners of WTC got insurance money to replace the aging structures that were soon going to require hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations to be brought up to code.

9/11 was an insurance job. Just like a staged car wreck. Only alot more dead bodies and damage.

aico 08-24-2007 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minusonebit (Post 12985311)
9/11 allowed the Republican Party to pass a set of laws (Patriot Act, et al) that in the absence of 9/11 would never have been passed. The owners of WTC got insurance money to replace the aging structures that were soon going to require hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations to be brought up to code.

9/11 was an insurance job. Just like a staged car wreck. Only alot more dead bodies and damage.

Yes he made 7 Billion from insurance on a 15 million investment and an insurance policy that he just changed to cover terrorists attacks, but, don't forget all the documents for corporate fraud that were destroyed with Bldg. 7, all the Worldcom, Enron, and other cases were all in that bldg, and destroyed with it.

minusonebit 08-24-2007 08:47 PM

And let us not forget that it ended up starting a war, I am sure all of the defense contractors are tickled pink (I see Lockheed Martin now has a new ad on TV reminding me that they never forget who they are working for) with all the new projects and thus revenue.

Hell, if we didn't have a war soon, they'd run out of contracts to fill and thus run out of money. Lockheed isn't the kind of company that can survive on a few maintenance contracts worth a few hundred million, they need billions and billions worth of new projects coming in all the time in addition to maintenance on the old ones.

And let us not forget Halliburton, that pillar of honesty and square dealings. The war that started after 9/11 gave Halliburton a huge shot in the arm as far as funding goes, hell, look at how much they got paid just to feed the troops spoiled food, nevermind the "rebuilding".

Ripshit 08-24-2007 08:52 PM

9(slash)11 was a stagged act to brainwash the mass herds of U.S. cattle into believing in a fake bunch of terrorists to get into war with the middle east for over 50 or more years to come!
Thank you Bush Admins!!!!:thumbsup

hershie 08-24-2007 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12985264)
I don't have TV or Cable. You're funny. You obviously know absolutely nothing about building construction.

Your biggest argument is calling people stupid, congratulations on a huge victory you intellectual giant. But, I am glad you admit your answers are on the same level as that of a Highschool Freshman.

You are stupid if you consistently ignore obvious facts and realities that stare you in the face and instead fabricate a bunch of BS:

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ? approximately 10 stories ? about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors ? along with the building's unusual construction ? were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Here is an realistic look at what may have happened: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf

Anyway here is more from Wikipedia:

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, US$16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers, as well as 7 World Trade Center.[27] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[28]

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[29][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[30] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][31]

A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[32][3] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[33]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[33] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 WTC were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[34] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors?; he then added, "But truthfully, I don?t really know. We?ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[35] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[33]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[36][37] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who?s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can?t worry about that. Facts are facts."[38] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[34]

aico 08-25-2007 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12985428)
You are stupid if you consistently ignore obvious facts and realities that stare you in the face and instead fabricate a bunch of BS:

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ? approximately 10 stories ? about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors ? along with the building's unusual construction ? were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Here is an realistic look at what may have happened: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf

Anyway here is more from Wikipedia:

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, US$16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers, as well as 7 World Trade Center.[27] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[28]

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[29][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[30] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][31]

A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[32][3] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[33]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[33] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 WTC were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[34] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors?; he then added, "But truthfully, I don?t really know. We?ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[35] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[33]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[36][37] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who?s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can?t worry about that. Facts are facts."[38] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[34]

Congratulations on you copy and paste skills. At least Rochard is using his brain and personal opinion. You, on the other hand, have nothing to bring to the table.

The Woodpecker 08-25-2007 01:51 AM

9/11 was Kyle's fault. He also dropped the deuce in the urinal. Everybody knows this.

collegeboobies 08-25-2007 02:27 AM

to say someone has more cash than they could ever spend as a reason they would NOT TRY TO GET MORE is stupid.

kane 08-25-2007 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by collegeboobies (Post 12986171)
to say someone has more cash than they could ever spend as a reason they would NOT TRY TO GET MORE is stupid.

I understand greed and some people's desire to have more and more no matter how much they have. But to me for someone to risking death and historic disgrace for money would mean they are a true sociopath. Do you think our president is a sociopath?

hershie 08-25-2007 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12986078)
Congratulations on you copy and paste skills. At least Rochard is using his brain and personal opinion. You, on the other hand, have nothing to bring to the table.

OK, here is something I came up with after getting the hampster wheel in my head spinning:

What happened to all the people on the planes that day? Let's see what you bring to the table on that one.

kane 08-25-2007 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12986237)
OK, here is something I came up with after getting the hampster wheel in my head spinning:

What happened to all the people on the planes that day? Let's see what you bring to the table on that one.

Um. . . they died. . .

Matt 26z 08-25-2007 03:55 AM

Even if it is true that a X% loss in strength can cause a building to collapse, there is irrefutable evidence in the form of molten metal found within the wreckage that something burned much, much hotter than jet fuel that day.

:warning:warning:warning There is also the witness to the explosion in the basement that caused substantial damage. This cooresponded with the the plane hitting the building. Is it possible that a bomb to damage the footing of the building was set off at the same time as the plane hit so that it would seem less suspicious?

Here is the guy giving his account of what happened in the basement (starts after one minute mark or so):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QlEXoY1HCWI

What the hell is this guy talking about?????????????????????????????

He got blown away in the basement, yet there are NO reports from office workers being knocked to the ground. In fact, all accounts are just of the building vibrating somewhat.

aico 08-25-2007 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12986237)
OK, here is something I came up with after getting the hampster wheel in my head spinning:

What happened to all the people on the planes that day? Let's see what you bring to the table on that one.

There were more people in the building than in the planes... but, duh, the people on the planes all died, what do you think happened to them, they parachuted out?

hershie 08-25-2007 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12986333)
There were more people in the building than in the planes... but, duh, the people on the planes all died, what do you think happened to them, they parachuted out?

I took you as one of the nuts that think a missle hit the Pentagon instead of a plane... I didn't realize you were limiting your conspiracy to only WTC 7. How can you ignore my cut and paste info and continue to say "controlled demolition" and steel doesn't melt... It took me two minutes to paste in reasonable and obvious conclusions that don't require a cover-up of impossibly massive proportions to make happen.

hershie 08-25-2007 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12985327)
Yes he made 7 Billion from insurance on a 15 million investment and an insurance policy that he just changed to cover terrorists attacks, but, don't forget all the documents for corporate fraud that were destroyed with Bldg. 7, all the Worldcom, Enron, and other cases were all in that bldg, and destroyed with it.

I bet you have completely distorted the reality of the insurance situation but if I find info you will only congratulate me on my cut and paste skills and ignore what it contains just like you brush over the fact that Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom and Skilling from Enron are both in jail now and will likely spend the rest of their lives locked up behind bars regardless of what was in WTC 7.

aico 08-25-2007 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12986368)
I took you as one of the nuts that think a missle hit the Pentagon instead of a plane... I didn't realize you were limiting your conspiracy to only WTC 7. How can you ignore my cut and paste info and continue to say "controlled demolition" and steel doesn't melt... It took me two minutes to paste in reasonable and obvious conclusions that don't require a cover-up of impossibly massive proportions to make happen.

Because I can cut and paste something that says it was a controlled demolition, what will that prove? I am not trying to prove anything I am debating the facts. I am not a nut, I have not formed an opinion, I am just saying there are some things that are a little askew of reality.

Ripshit 08-25-2007 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12986368)
I took you as one of the nuts that think a missle hit the Pentagon instead of a plane...

If it wasnt a missle or a bomb inside the Pentagon then why have 23 of the possible videos from nearby buildings been seized by the CIA and never realeased for the public eye to see?
What are these maggots hiding here?
Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie (Post 12986368)
I didn't realize you were limiting your conspiracy to only WTC 7. How can you ignore my cut and paste info and continue to say "controlled demolition" and steel doesn't melt... It took me two minutes to paste in reasonable and obvious conclusions that don't require a cover-up of impossibly massive proportions to make happen.

You are an Idiot!:1orglaugh

minusonebit 08-25-2007 08:35 AM

Funny how Lockheed's stock starts to climb right about when Bush takes office. Bush is a war president. His buddies own companies that are often defense contractors. He put 9/11 into play to start WWIII, to help his buddies get rich.

Look, its working.

http://i15.tinypic.com/4ublcly.jpg

minusonebit 08-25-2007 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripshit (Post 12986539)
You are an Idiot!:1orglaugh

You're one to talk. People who constantly feel the need to post in text many times larger than everyone else's are typically lacking in the intellect department.

directfiesta 08-25-2007 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripshit (Post 12986539)
If it wasnt a missle or a bomb inside the Pentagon then why have 23 of the possible videos from nearby buildings been seized by the CIA and never realeased for the public eye to see?
What are these maggots hiding here?
You are an Idiot!:1orglaugh


it us 80+ video cameras! And one was donated by Stickyfingerz :thumbsup

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t icleId=2497

Ann-Angelcom 08-25-2007 11:21 AM

To the people who think wtc7 fell due to damage. Have you guys been to NY? Do you see how close ALL the buildings are around the site? How come none of these fell? There is one building in the area that hasn't been occupied since but they are STILL taking it down level by level. Actually not sure if they are taking it down as in knocking it down or just gutting it. Same building that had a fire in it last week. Either way, this building did not fall as conveniently as wtc7 did. Yet apparently it was damaged enough for them to not have used it since that day.
Explain Please......

Dagwolf 08-25-2007 11:23 AM

If you think the conspiracy theorists are crazy... Explain the people who voted Bush into the presidency...

TWICE!

Who's crazier? (or are they the same people?)

directfiesta 08-25-2007 11:39 AM

March 4, 2001 ( 6 months PRIOR to 9/11):

Fox broadcast:


video of WTC and plane



all episodes:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht..._Episode_1.htm

Martin 08-25-2007 12:05 PM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

Check the date of the speech. Welcome to NWO bitches. It's here.

minusonebit 08-25-2007 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagwolf (Post 12987332)
If you think the conspiracy theorists are crazy... Explain the people who voted Bush into the presidency...

TWICE!

Who's crazier? (or are they the same people?)

Nah, they cant explain that one. And no, I voted against Bush.

aico 08-25-2007 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagwolf (Post 12987332)
If you think the conspiracy theorists are crazy... Explain the people who voted Bush into the presidency...

TWICE!

Who's crazier? (or are they the same people?)

People's votes don't count on Presidential elections. This might have something to do with it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123