World Trade Center Bombings Theories
 

Can some one give me the name to the othe conspiracy movie of the bombings othere than the Michael Moore one????

"charlie brown christmas" has some good info in it..


but i think your looking for "in plane site" or "loose change" i think are the names of a few

Yeah heres one. A fucking huge ass plane flew into it and made it collapse.

Loose Change! Thanks!

Do you really think they planted bomb on every level as they did not know exactly where the plane would enter. Then after the plane crashed into the building without damaging the planted bombs on those levels they turned off the bombs planted above the damaged area. Then they figured out which level exactly to detonate the first bomb and from thereon the others.
This ofcourse after they planted bombs on every fucking level of the wtc without anybody noticing it nor anybody then or now talking about it.
Times 2.

Oh and lets not forget that one of the people who knew the wtc inside out and knew a lot about the building structure and shit was on those damaged floors to help people and actually called other people outside to say the building was about to collapse because of the damage.

And demolition experts, some of the best in the world, saying no way that looks anything like a controlled demolition. But ofcourse those words mean nothing and some dude on the internet in his moms basement who makes a docu and says its a controlled demolition suddenly makes it plausable..right?

yes that is correct

this isnt 9/11 but the movie Terrorstorm is a good watch :thumbsup

I think Building #7 was blown up. It was blocks away from the twin towers and not hit, but it fell?

The same demolition expert who said no way the 2 big towers were taken down in a controlled way said that the footage of building 7 collapsing indeed looked controlled.

The self destruct capabilities were built into the buildings during construction. It just had to be all wired up. Electricians are always fiddling around in buildings, it wouldn't look suspicious. Might take them a year to get it done but they had time.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh




















:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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 collapsed in 10 - 15 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.

these are the best ones.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ewitness&hl=en

Uh wrong Einstein, if a building as big as that collapses near the top it will simply take all levels below it with it at a significant speed because of the weight. Period.

The demolition expert had no problems with the speed. As it as one of the TOP demolition experts in the world i anytime take his word over that bs you just posted.

Fuck off wacko. I was already wondering when you would show up. From all 9/11 conspiracy nuts here you certainly are the most retarded one. Please keep your nonsense for yourself. You are fucked in your fucking head. Like completely. Isane.

Insulting everyone doesn't make you right. It does tell us a lot about your intellect though.

whoever believes 9/11 was a conspiracy is
















































an idiot.

Where did i insult you again?

Franck, why are you bothering to argue with people who believe that crap? You'll never convince them... they've already made up their stubborn minds.

omg franck the spank
 

Period? Can you walk faster trough a closed door or trough a open door?
So why were the towers falling at free fall speed?

Which expert you're talkin' about? There many, saying it was an inside job.
In fact Larry Silvertein said live on regarding wtc7 TV, 'they made the decission to pull'... 'and they pulled it'..!

So know explain franck, how could wtc bulding 7 be pulled down - what means controlled demolition - on that day, coincedence? (WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane!)


Franck, you don't seem to be the smartest person on gfy.. but please, be honest to yourself.













and ........








:321GFY

and yes, terrorstorm, as already mentioned, is really worth a look.
buy it at amazon.com

yeah, dude, don't use your mind, believe in the mystery, in your country's reichstagbrand! :1orglaugh

hail bush :winkwink:

They werent moron fuck. Look at all the fucking footage on Google. The debris falls faster than the building itself. Get your facts straight.

I answered you now answer me. A building that size and weight, how exactly is it supposed to collapse when its not controlled? At what speed? 10 mph?

Build a small replica and watch it collapse. The weight will take everything down, there is no science needed for that.

But really, id like an answer. How fast was it supposed to collapse according to you without bombs. Please tell me.

I get my facts from some of the biggest demolition experts and you get them where? From the internet? From some kid in his moms basement?

Do ya happen to know the name of that demolition expert?

It was on TV a while back. Im sure its findable as it was a "famous" (for people who work in that area) person.

Its was a serious program. No conspiracy shit or internet bs.

Also a docu i saw recently was very interesting. This company had created 3d models of the twin towers and the damage the planes did to them. They very detailed showed you what was damaged (which was obviously A LOT) and how unavoidable it was that the building would collapse. This was not an pro bush docu, neither a conspiracy docu or anything like it. Just unbiased facts which were WAAAAAAAAY more plausible than any of these idiotic theories that float around on the net. But once again the conspiracy nuts are not interested in this as it isnt made by some anti goverment nut in a basement.

Bump for answers from Elitegirls.

Go use a dictionary before you use words you dont understand..

9/11 was a conspiracy no matter what your theory behind it is.. Uness you think it was an accident .. :1orglaugh

I think what you meant to say was something along the lines of "anyone who think the 9/11 conspiracy was masterminded by the american government is an idiot" and that would be alot more fair statement ( although i certainly wouldnt go that far, as certain parts of the american government have been cooperating with "terrorist" orginizations for years including the supposed mastermind behind this operation ) as far as how complicit any american officials were in this is hard to say.. certainly many of the theories posed are an insult to a rational persons thought process.

I think that those who believe everything the government says have some unnatural desire to 'hate' those who don't believe everything the government says.

What should be an intelligent argument where the opposing sides state their facts, their opinions, and their ideas, is always, always just one side calling the other side names. The government supporters do very little to make convincing arguments, other than calling their opponents 'stupid', insulting them, and making themselves look immature. Take 'scottybuzz' for example - has no idea what he's talking about, couldn't formulate an argument, other than saying people who believe in conspiracies are 'idiots'.

Franck if you want a proper discussion about this kind of large-scale conspiracy theory, you have to keep emotions out of it. And it doesn't help to be supported by people such as 'scottybuzz'.

If you believe the 911 crap was not a conspiracy, but someone else does, help prove to them that they are wrong! Opinions help in arguments, but need to be backed up by facts and evidence. I don't think anyone in here has any evidence one way or another.

Personally, I have looked at what I believe to be the 'facts' surrounding 911, I've looked at the official statements, and all the other stuff floating around, and I just can't accept the official position on it. Whether or not there was a huge-scale plot by the government to kill a bunch of people and destroy the towers - is not the issue. The issue is that many points the government has made are lies, many of the actual events and circumstances have been skipped, glossed over or manipulated. That constitutes a conspiracy. Thinking so does not make someone a 'conspiracy nut'.

I'm sure many facts the government released were true indeed - but even if they covered one minute detail up with false information - that creates a conspiracy.

so you believe in TV crap I believe internet crap? bad argument for you.. you don't remeber the name, aren't interested in scientific facts .. u r just a simple, little morron waitin' to get fucked. :2 cents:

have fun with the amero, with the national id cards, with checkpoints and microchips.

wake up..


tzz shizzl ma nizzl

just for the record and people who haven't decided what to think about 9/11 (section for sheeples is above :D )

You mean the heavy steal columns, blown out of the towers? A serious sign for explosives inside the buildings.

Not at free fall speed! But it was, so you're next explaining the speed of the collapse :1orglaugh (if you don't understand why not at free fall speed, just read again my little example with the doors.. and read and read, until you get it..)

Sure it's heavy but each floor would slow down the process. There is concret and steal below .. no free fall possible.... -> no free fall speed of the whole collapse.. (@franck, got it? :winkwink: )

Stupid question.. See above.

Bye...

I would have expected the averge gfy'er to work that out for themselves by the thread title and the thread replies.

all the guy asked for was the title of the videos. maybe he was just looking to point out how wrong they were.. so far this thread hasnt involved any direct accusations of who was behind it.. just theories.. it would be silly to discout every theory based on the fact you can explain "some" of the evidence..

Apathy really should be a crime.. ( then again so should beating a dead horse )

that has a catchy ring to it.. welcome to my new sig "Apathy really should be a crime.. ( then again so should beating a dead horse )"

*thumbsup*
 

good post!

i can't believe i just read this.

i read it 4-5 times to make sure.

jesus....


:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yes it's a ridiculous concept. A real one for those 'conspiracy nuts' isn't it. :thumbsup

See what you started? Are you happy now?

Fargin' Icehole! :winkwink:

Rent the NOVA documentary.

If you watch it frame by frame, you can actually see the exact second the trusses let go. They were not built to withstand the stress that the fire produced.

And, of course, there was no evidence of any detonations from explosives.

Anybody who believes the various conspiracy theories is not very smart, or is so blinded by leftist ideology as to be impaired.

Hmm.. that door swings both ways :)

No idiot, the debris that got away from the building because of the collapse. You know debris does that. And it goes faster than the building collapsing so the building is NOT collapsing at free fall speed. Who told you that it did? Loose Change? Go look at google videos once again.

And funny how you still didnt answer my question. How fast is a building supposed to collapse exactly? Why dont you answer me you moron? Maybe because you dont know?