bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 LOL, this is the stupidest fucking post ever. Don't you think that if indeed it was something else that hit the pentagon osama wouldn't tell us? Get real. It was a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 haha..oh, yeah, great point! Thanks for putting an end to the debate, you're right...the fact that osama bin laden hasn't come forward and explained to us what it was that hit the pentagon explains everything.... It's awesome that you don't have to argue any other point ...if it wasn't a plane then obviously Osama would tell us what it was. end of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by hobo knife+Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hobo knife - Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> I don't think the absence of the plane is such a big issue...it's other things....such as why didn't the terrorists find out that section of the pentagon was empty? all that planning just to attack some empty offices. Quoted post [/b] Thats alot of dead people for an empty building. Originally posted by hobo knife@Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM How could this pilot with no flying experience pull that off? Quoted post Flight experience of 9-11 hijackers. Originally posted by hobo knife@Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM Why did our defenses fail? we had over an hour to deploy fighter jets around our capital when we were obviously under attack, there is an airforce base responsible for defending washington just a mile or two away from the pentagon, yet with four planes hijacked we didn't put fighter jets over DC? then they start flying into buildings and there is one headed towards DC and we still didn't have any fighter jets. bullshit. Quoted post You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, nevermind a matter of minutes, to shoot down civilian air liners that are supposedly hi-jacked (hindsight is 20-20 blah blah, I'm sure you would have made the right call if you were in charge of shit). Its not going to happen. Originally posted by hobo knife@Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM yet within minutes the fucking cia collected every video camera that could have gotten footage of the attack. Quoted post Prove it. <!--QuoteBegin-hobo knife@Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM There are pretty good arguments supporting both the official(officialy bullshit)story Quoted post OOOHHH SNAP!!! YA'LL MUST HAVE BEEN DOIN SOME MAD OBJECTIVE RESEARCH WITHOUT YOUR MIND PREVIOUSLY MADE UP, PIMPIN!! No seriously, I commend you on your reasearch. Good job. It all made alot of sense, and those links proving your statements wrong that I found after 30 seconds on google are pretty hard to find. Teh govermentz is teh illes police statez!!11!!11oneone!!11eleven!!1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 haha, whoa, what are you 12? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Uhhhh, barely, I'm almost 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jan 30 2006, 04:44 PM You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, nevermind a matter of minutes, to shoot down civilian air liners that are supposedly hi-jacked (hindsight is 20-20 blah blah, I'm sure you would have made the right call if you were in charge of shit). Its not going to happen. An example of how the air defense network normally responds to domestic emergencies is illustrated by the well-reported 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet. When the golfer's jet failed to respond to air traffic controller communications, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne's stricken Learjet starting about 20 minutes after contact with his plane was lost. I guess you should have done more research involving flight interceptions before "you served me" with your favorite movie. Prove the CIA collected all the video of the crash? haha...ok, I'll just ask them to release some more footage...maybe this time they'll release more than 5 frames of some shitty security camera 200 yards away. your 30 seconds of googling produced some shit from the 911 commission and some cnn list of casualties? And can you honestly say that when you googled those links your mind wasn't previously made up? I didn't say arguments supporting the official story were hard to find, even someone as un-biased as yourself managed to find them in 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The plane that hit the pentagon was aimed at the Naval intel section which was heading the intel on al-Qeida. The freedom of information act allowed them to know exactly where that section was. The pentagon was in fact made to withstand rocket attacks. A plane is much different than a rocket. I'm not going to explain this because I'm drunk and it's pointless cause all of uz are still going to think that bush sent an empty plane into empty offices or whatever the fuck most of this nonsense you're talking about is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 So apparently you didn't realize the "you got served" poster was a joke? You have a terrible sense of humor... No, I have done no research on flight intercepting. I am aware of the leer jet case only because that’s the second time its been regurgitated on here, and I also would like to point out they didn’t shoot the jet down. Do you recall a while back when a student pilot drove into Washington’s airspace on accident and everyone was evacuated? They didn’t have fighter jets up until the pilot had already turned around. But I was simply pointing out that the decision to destroy commercial air liners that are possibly hi-jacked and still carrying civilians isn't going to be made within a matter of minutes. During the hijackings on the morning of 9-11 there were literally thousands of planes still flying in American airspace as well. And yes, I can honestly say that when I googled the claims you presented as facts I had an open mind. I only typed in key words from your claims to find if there was any proof behind them, which there was not. If the results had came back that there were no deaths in the pentagon from the 9-11 attacks, I would think you are correct in saying that the buildings were empty. If I had not already known that the 9-11 hijackers had gone to flight school in Florida, and seen their graduation photo, then I would agree that the prospect of someone with no flight experience operating an air liner and accurately crashing it is far fetched. And my point of asking you to prove that the CIA stole all the footage was to point out you had none other than your own assumptions and speculation. Want to think the CNN casualty list is lying to you, feel free. Don't want to believe the findings of the 9-11 commission? Go right ahead. It seems that since conventional wisdom, reputable news sources, and the bi-partisan group put together to review 9-11 disagree with your far fetched theories, you have to imply that the “official story� is some how corrupted and wrong (officially BULLSHIT LOLOLOLOLzzz!!omfg). My point in posting those links was to point out your claims are not based on any facts, and therefore your “research� was probably spent on the same ultra left wing sites you get all of your talking points from, and possibly taking unhealthy amounts of LSD. Save it for when the college midterms come brah. Post proof that the pentagon was empty, that the hijackers had no flight experience, the media and 9-11 commission are all lying/bullshit, the CIA stole all the footage in the area, and all of the other claims you posted and prove me wrong. Please. I want to know about the “truth� that I have been repeatedly assured “is out there.� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Originally posted by POIESIS@Feb 7 2005, 04:43 PM dude, are you trying to drive me bonkers? while the above link may be interesting, you still haven't addressed your initial post with any links or evidence.. these other links are peripheral and do not confirm a whole. i'm sorry to keep bothering you, but unless you were being sarcastic, i don't see the obviousness of it..and regrettably, i don't have the time, patience or motivation to trawl the hundreds of 9/11 conspiracy sites to find reference to your claims..claims i haven't read anywhere during a time when i was trawling these types of sites. why can't you just provide a couple of links backing up your initial claims? you must have read it somewhere, right? Quoted post This is my favorite part of this thread. The last post on here before it was recently revived was you being repeatedly asked for links to provide evidence for your claims, and you being unable to respond with them and eventually ignoring it all together. Its pretty hilarious, and all you have to do is scroll up. Well......do you have any links? Or do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Stereotype, Do you get paid to do this? Seriously, what do you think? Do you think theres a slight possibility that there are govt. trained bloggers and forum crawlers who get paid to push the govt. agenda on forum boards. I don't think that's far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Why do you attack somones character instead of providing some proof? He's trying to do what I'm trying to do. Make you guys realize how incredible fucking stupid you are even though you think you are so smart. In this world you are not #1 and you don't know about any of these things. He asked you for proof... now show it. Especially about the 9/11 commission one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 Here is the relevant excerpt from 'Meet the Press' Sept. 16 2001: "Mr. Russert: What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day? "Vice Pres. Cheney: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft. "Mr. Russert: And you decided? "Vice Pres. Cheney: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time... "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate. "Mr. Russert: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down? "Vice Pres. Cheney: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? "...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1) Alternate link: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm And, you're right, I mistakenly said that wedge of the pentagon was empty... that's not true. That's only because I haven't even thought about all this stuff since I first looked into it... here's some of the info I was getting at. "This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift." The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. The fire that swept through the building caused the greatest damage in an unrenovated section with no sprinkler system, heavy windows or steel reinforcements. But many of the offices there were empty in anticipation of the renovation. While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there Tuesday, officials said. [LATimes]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon,0,2818328.story oh and I also mistakenly said the CIA collected video after the crash, it was the FBI, Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html I don't know if they collected other videos, I read somewhere they confiscated a hotel video that showed the crash...but the pentagon had a lot more cameras, not just one. They had cameras with better vantage points that would have shown the crash in clear view, not to mention whatever videos the fbi confiscated minutes after the crash. So why did they only release 5 frames from one security camera? And I love the way you took a shot at the freedom of information act for allowing the terrorists to target a section of the pentagon...I'm sure Rush would join you in disgust. And LSD? College Exams? "You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, nevermind a matter of minutes" Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Or is this a fact that you can back up with links? Or since your a grunt in the military you just know stuff like this already, bra. I will admit that I wasn't aware they had FAA pilots licenses, and they had logged so many hours of flight simulator training. Although, the pentagon crash has been called a very difficult stunt and would require a seasoned pilot, not someone called incompetent by his flight school instructors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.001 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The date from the “meet the press interview� is' Sept. 16 2001, several days after the 9-11 attacks. Giving them a lot longer to make the decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft than the few minutes they had when they realized 9-11 was a terrorist attack in progress. Had you fully read my statement, I said that the decision to take out a commercial air liner within a few minutes is not feasible. I don’t doubt that they eventually would decide to, but some air force traffic controller and his supervisor aren’t going to make that call on their own. In regards to the FBI stealing all the film, I think that they would like to see the footage of the attack and analyze it themselves. But again, you could not prove that ALL of the footage in the area was taken by government officials like you claimed, and instead you could only prove one case. That case was also government property (taken from your link: “His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel�) therefore it is perfectly legal for the government to take their own footage. Had they not taken any footage, I’d be willing to bet you would be saying their lack of interest is sufficient proof of some sort of conspiracy. Originally posted by hobo knife+Jan 31 2006, 10:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hobo knife - Jan 31 2006, 10:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>And I love the way you took a shot at the freedom of information act for allowing the terrorists to target a section of the pentagon...I'm sure Rush would join you in disgust. Quoted post [/b] I love it too. Me and Rush do oxy together before the midterms every year. My mommy pays for it of course. Originally posted by hobo knife@Jan 31 2006, 10:37 AM "You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, never mind a matter of minutes" Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Or is this a fact that you can back up with links? Or since your a grunt in the military you just know stuff like this already, bra. Quoted post Selective reading much? My full quote was “You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, never mind a matter of minutes, to shoot down civilian air liners that are supposedly hi-jacked.� I know they can have fighter jets in the air very quickly, but like stated before they are not going to make the decision shoot down a commercial air liner in a short period of time. If you think they would immediately shoot down a commercial airliner that is supposedly hijacked within 15 minutes, good for you. And the correct spelling is “brah�, a “bra� is an piece of garment females use to prevent the saggage of fun bags. Originally posted by hobo knife@Jan 31 2006, 10:37 AM Although, the pentagon crash has been called a very difficult stunt and would require a seasoned pilot, not someone called incompetent by his flight school instructors. Quoted post Don’t you think the flight instructors, who didn’t have any red flags go up when their students did not want to learn how to land, are maybe, just maybe trying to make themselves look better? Naaaah. <!--QuoteBegin-hobo knife@Jan 31 2006, 10:37 AM And, you're right, I mistakenly said that wedge of the pentagon was empty... that's not true. I will admit that I wasn't aware they had FAA pilots licenses, and they had logged so many hours of flight simulator training. Quoted post Now there is a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo knife Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 Originally posted by Stereotype V.001+Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stereotype V.001 - Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The date from the “meet the press interview� is' Sept. 16 2001, several days after the 9-11 attacks. Giving them a lot longer to make the decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft than the few minutes they had when they realized 9-11 was a terrorist attack in progress. Had you fully read my statement, I said that the decision to take out a commercial air liner within a few minutes is not feasible. I don’t doubt that they eventually would decide to, but some air force traffic controller and his supervisor aren’t going to make that call on their own. Quoted post [/b] Cheney is saying they made that decision on the day of the attacks, they did deploy fighter jets, and the fighter jets did supposedly have orders to destroy an airliner as a last resort. They happened to have deployed the fighter jets too late. Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM In regards to the FBI stealing all the film, I think that they would like to see the footage of the attack and analyze it themselves. But again, you could not prove that ALL of the footage in the area was taken by government officials like you claimed, and instead you could only prove one case. That case was also government property (taken from your link: “His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel�) therefore it is perfectly legal for the government to take their own footage. Had they not taken any footage, I’d be willing to bet you would be saying their lack of interest is sufficient proof of some sort of conspiracy. Quoted post I don't have to prove they confiscated all the film the simple fucking fact that no film was released is proof. If they didn't confiscate all the film then why didn't some of it get released to the media? Why wouldn't they release the footage from the gas station? Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM Selective reading much? My full quote was “You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, never mind a matter of minutes, to shoot down civilian air liners that are supposedly hi-jacked.� I know they can have fighter jets in the air very quickly, but like stated before they are not going to make the decision shoot down a commercial air liner in a short period of time. Quoted post If you know they can have fighter jets in the air that fast then why didn't they have them in the air an hour and a half after the first planes were hijacked? <!--QuoteBegin-Stereotype V.001@Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM Don’t you think the flight instructors, who didn’t have any red flags go up when their students did not want to learn how to land, are maybe, just maybe trying to make themselves look better? Naaaah. Quoted post Of course. Why the fuck does that make the flight instructors look better? "Yeah they were really bad pilots, they didn't even want to learn how to land, but we passed them anyway." That really doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't they say the pilots were exceptional and the fact they didn't want to learn how to land was overlooked because of their skill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The reason that you didn't see the film was because before it was seen it was deemed as "Top Secret" requiring for you to have a certain US security clerance before you were allowed to see it. I guess the thousands of people who saw that a plane hit the pentagon were all liars and the 12 people who said that it didn't look like a plane are the only ones who weren't brainwashed by the government to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YourSistersAssCookie Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I know one thing for sure. That shit wasnt me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifaykedmyowndeth Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 i live near dc and im telling you there is no way a plane that big could land then run into the building at that angle or even sweep around and do it , theres not enough space there. the highway is so close to it. and oen ting is yes fighter jets supposivley are supposed to follow a commercial jet if it was gone off course for more than 15 minutes without proper communication... not shoot it down but for precautionary reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 BYU’s Dr. Steven Jones Blows the Roof off a Utah Auditorium by Philip Sherman Gordon On Wednesday, February 1, a quiet, “churchy-looking� gentleman in a white shirt and tie walked into a packed auditorium on the campus of Utah Valley State College and electrified the room like a rock star. The 150-seat auditorium was filled to capacity, with every seat occupied, and people sitting in the aisles from the stage floor to the back of the room. Video cameras on tripods lined the back row. Two documentary-film crews were in attendance, in addition to the school’s camera crew, and various independent journalists. Seven “spill-over� rooms, with seating for 40-50 each, were also filled to capacity. On this very conservative campus (in the most conservative county in the most conservative state in the union), where community leaders pulled out all the stops in 2004 to prevent Michael Moore from speaking as part of his anti-Bush, pro-Kerry “Slacker Uprising Tour,� Dr. Steven Jones, this pious professor from the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University, calmly, gently, gave a simple physics lesson on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, the implications of which awed the audience with a sense of world-historical significance, and implied an indictment of the present administration so utterly devastating that it made Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 look like a Bush apologia. Dr. Jones argues that the physics behind the government’s explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11 do not make sense, and that a better (and perhaps only) explanation for their collapse was that they were demolished, exactly the way structural engineers bring down large buildings, by pre-positioned explosive devices set off in precise sequences. He argues that the 650 degree Celsius temperature of burning jet fuel would not have been hot enough to even bend the steel girders of the WTC Towers, let alone to melt or evaporate them, as recovered beams indicate. And even if it was hot enough to evaporate the steel, the towers should not have collapsed as they did, pancaking so perfectly into their own footprints. On the rare times when such structures have failed (always due to earthquakes), they have toppled over sideways. The towers would have had to have been perfectly sliced, at every point along a horizontal plane at exactly the same instant, for something even resembling a pancaking effect to occur. And even if they did somehow pancake perfectly into their own footprints due to a structural failure, they would not have done it in the time it took for them to collapse, falling at essentially the speed of an apple dropped from the top of one of the towers, with nothing between it and the ground but thin air. The steel and concrete in the floors that collapsed should have taken some measurable time to break, and thus slowed the collapse somewhat as it unfolded. And even if it did collapse, at super speed, phwack phwack phwack, floor by floor, as fast as an apple falling through the air, impelled by the weight of the decapitated structure above it, its solid steel frame severed like a head by a flaming guillotine, that does not explain the molten steel seen at the Ground Zero clean-up site many days after the event. What could have caused such heat? asked Professor Jones. And on it went, point by point, for almost two hours. Nothing about the physics of “what we know� about 9/11 seemed to add up. And all that’s not to mention the mysterious collapse of the forgotten WTC-7, the third steel-frame building that imploded due to fire, not only that day, but in the history of architectural design--the building that was not hit by a plane, that was surrounded by other buildings equally impacted but structurally undamaged by the collapse of the towers, that, with no jet fuel or violent impact, but allegedly due to a small number of scattered “debris fires,� collapsed, pancaking perfectly into its own footprint, looking exactly like video images of buildings being demolished by pre-positioned explosive devices. Playing the one available video of WTC-7 collapsing at slow speed, Dr. Jones used his laser pointer to indicate the explosive “squibs� clearly seen shooting their way up the sides of the building as it collapsed from the top center down. He showed still images of similar micro-explosions on the sides of the Twin Towers, with steel beams clearly visible, ejected out of the sides of the buildings, ahead of the dust, blown out before the above portions collapsed. It is a devastating presentation, and one could feel the disequilibrium of 150 minds reeling at once. The defining moment of contemporary American experience suddenly lost its definition. What is the meaning of 9/11? What really happened that day? If these things are true, the implications clearly point to some kind of “inside job� involving the government of the United States of America. (The Department of Defense, the FBI, and the CIA all had offices in the mysteriously collapsed WTC-7. Is it reasonable that outside terrorists could have infiltrated that building and filled it with explosives? ) If the WTC was brought down by pre-positioned explosive devices, somehow facilitated and covered up by the government, it would be the most audacious conspiracy in human history. When before have so many people been so spectacularly bamboozled, with so much death and destruction, and such massive implications for geo-politics? Never, that’s when. And that is the problem Dr. Jones is facing with his research. People have knee-jerk reactions to “conspiracy theories,� at least to the ones that do not make it into their established and trusted news outlets. And the mainstream media, so far, despite a blip or two in the New York Times, is taking a pass on this story. Yes, my skeptical friends believe that the Bush administration cynically smeared the war records of both John Kerry and John McCain during the 2000 presidential election through the use of shill agencies. Yes, they believe there was suppression of black voters in Florida, and other schemes to cheat their way into the White House in the 2000 election. Yes, they believe the administration conspired to rig the intelligence they used to justify their invasion of Iraq. Yes, if they are regular readers of The New Yorker, they believe that the election fraud was worse in 2004, with rigged ballot machines, in Ohio in particular, being used to great effect. And, yes, they believe in massive wrong-doing and cover-up regarding October Surprise and the Iran/Contra affair, as well as the CIA-orchestrated overthrows of democracies in Chile and Iran, to name only two well-known examples. But no, they don’t believe in conspiracy theories. These are hardcore leftists who refuse to even entertain the question of whether science supports the conclusion that the planes brought the towers down. “Too many people would have to know about it for them to get away with it,� one friend said. “They’re not that smart,� said another. “It’s just not plausible,� said a third. The issues raised by Professor Jones are not breaking along standard political fissures. People’s relative amounts of skepticism and credulity, rather than their political affiliations, seem to determine their openness to giving the professor’s analysis a hearing. Jones himself claims to have been a lifelong Republican, but now affiliates with no political party. The audience Wednesday night was definitely not the usual suspects of progressive professors and pierced and tattooed activists and students who regularly gather to share criticism of the President, although there were a few of those, too. Mostly, they looked like a cross-section of average middle-Americans. But by the end of the evening, it is no exaggeration to say that most had become political radicals, not of the left and the right, but of the right and the wrong. ------------------------------------ I know this is a little off the subject, but it's something I'vebeen saying all along. I dated an building engineer for a while, and she showed me a lot of um, "independent research" that her firm did that backs this up. I'm sure someone has a great answer to this...I'm not contesting that planes flew into the WTC buildings, but if the Pentagon didn't collapse, why did the Towers fall into their own footprints....not to mention WTC-7 (which everyone seems to have forgotten about)? NOTHING HIT WTC-7, AND IT CAVED IN DUE TO A FIRE? Even wood frame buildings don't do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 any visuals to back this up? hell i can write a paragraph saying the exact opposite proof sparo, proof... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Yeah, I have some links...hang on, I've got to find them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Tons of WTC video footage Check out the WTC-7 video....that's the one that shocked me. There's plenty of links about this (WTC+collape+video) on Google, but this one summed it up pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I check that link out, one thing that immediately pops out is this: We are told that the twin towers collapsed due to infernos initiated by the plane impacts, yet eyewitness testimony and firefighters broadcasts prove there were no infernos in the buildings, so why did the buildings collapse within minutes of the aircraft impacts? they make it seem like it happened within 5-10 minutes it actually took just shy of an hour from the time of impact to the collapse of the south tower(which was the first to be hit) 56 minutes is a long time for something to burn right off the bat from this, i know i shouldnt what this site is saying as 100% fact, im gonna browse around and if i find any other discrepencies ill post em up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Definitely look at the WTC-7 collapse videos...you'll see some small explosions going off on the outside of a building that wasn't even directly hit by anything large enough to demolish it.. Something doesn't seem right about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Originally posted by CACashRefund@Feb 10 2006, 04:47 PM I check that link out, one thing that immediately pops out is this: We are told that the twin towers collapsed due to infernos initiated by the plane impacts, yet eyewitness testimony and firefighters broadcasts prove there were no infernos in the buildings, so why did the buildings collapse within minutes of the aircraft impacts? they make it seem like it happened within 5-10 minutes it actually took just shy of an hour from the time of impact to the collapse of the south tower(which was the first to be hit) 56 minutes is a long time for something to burn right off the bat from this, i know i shouldnt what this site is saying as 100% fact, im gonna browse around and if i find any other discrepencies ill post em up. Quoted post LOL are you guys fucking retarded in the head? This guy is a fire inspector now... Yea no shit firefighters said there were no fires in the buildings... they weren't on the impact floors obivously. "fires don't last 56 minutes" lol Fires can last as long as there are things to burn. The building collapsed after the fire took 56minutes. The jet fuel mixed with all the plastic and other extremley flammable shit in the offices melted the Iron beams which support the building... once they started melting the seepage went down into the bottom of the building on the iniside and ended blowing up a gas main or some shit. Man, better not question you guys thoe, I know you're all experts at how builidngs burn down and shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sparoism Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 No, but I have some engineering experience. Every video I've seen from a structural failure due to an outside force being applied to it (earthquakes, floods) shows the building falling AWAY FROM the force. Buildings only collapse into their own footprints when they are demolished using strategically-placed high explosives. I've seen plenty of videos of those, as well. Guess what the WTC collapses looked like? Yep, they fell STRAIGHT DOWN. I'm also not buying it when I hear that they were engineered to do this. NO ONE designs a building to cave in on itself. That's insane. Load bearing supports are intended to bear loads, under all kinds of torsional, lateral, and vertical stress- to make a statement to the contrary, if all the workers on the 76th floor of WTC-2 had made up their minds to suddenly start jumping up and down in unison they would have ended up on the 75th floor. This had very little to do with fire science, and everything to do with simple physics and engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Originally posted by bobthemothafuckinbuilder@Feb 10 2006, 02:03 PM "fires don't last 56 minutes" lol Fires can last as long as there are things to burn. who said this? my remark of 56 minutes is a long time for something to burn isnt directed towrd me doubting the fire, but the use of the site's language in that the towers collapsed within minutes reading must not have been your strong point in school army is a good place for you, dont quit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Originally posted by CACashRefund+Feb 10 2006, 05:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CACashRefund - Feb 10 2006, 05:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-bobthemothafuckinbuilder@Feb 10 2006, 02:03 PM "fires don't last 56 minutes" lol Fires can last as long as there are things to burn. who said this? my remark of 56 minutes is a long time for something to burn isnt directed towrd me doubting the fire, but the use of the site's language in that the towers collapsed within minutes reading must not have been your strong point in school army is a good place for you, dont quit it. Quoted post [/b] Being a dick whore is a good place for you, stick to it. If you could read the phrase "USMC" it would also help. Comprehension must not have been your strong point. How is 56 minutes long for something to burn, it's not a fucking piece of paper it's a huge building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Originally posted by bobthemothafuckinbuilder@Feb 10 2006, 02:03 PM LOL are you guys fucking retarded in the head? This guy is a fire inspector now... -Yea no shit firefighters said there were no fires in the buildings... they weren't on the impact floors obivously. -Fires can last as long as there are things to burn. -The building collapsed after the fire took 56minutes. -The jet fuel mixed with all the plastic and other extremley flammable shit in the offices melted the Iron beams which support the building... -once they started melting the seepage went down into the bottom of the building on the iniside and ended blowing up a gas main or some shit. Man, better not question you guys thoe, I know you're all experts at how builidngs burn down and shit. Quoted post so insightful bob. and so...not ironic. and i don't know about caca and sparo, but i'm actually retarded in my left ass cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 bob, you're all like, back-from-iraq krazee, man..watch out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Originally posted by bobthemothafuckinbuilder@Feb 10 2006, 03:39 PM Being a dick whore is a good place for you, stick to it. If you could read the phrase "USMC" it would also help. Comprehension must not have been your strong point. How is 56 minutes long for something to burn, it's not a fucking piece of paper it's a huge building. Quoted post i can see youre being all you can be at ease gi joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.