|
Post by concrete on Jul 18, 2010 2:28:28 GMT 10
Almost 9 years now. Still no answers (well, credible ones).
I honestly, dont know anyone who actually believes what we have been told.
As far as I'm concerned, jets did crash into the towers. They were the diversion. The destruction after, was something totaly different.
I dunno. Duck may know more with his poker prowess. But, to me if you wanna lie/bluff. Make it obvious, so no one believes it.
As I've stated many times. WTC7 is the key.
Give this a watch.
I can honestly vouch for this guy. Drylining/plaster/gypsum board is used as a fireproofing material.
|
|
|
Post by TheDuck on Jul 18, 2010 3:49:37 GMT 10
Yeah you said it Building 7 was the key. It is meant to be true though, the more outrageous the lie the less people see it ''The Truth Cannot Be Told... It must be realized.''
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Jul 18, 2010 14:16:19 GMT 10
Excellent video concrete. I agree concrete and Duck that building 7 is a key to what happened. No plane hit building 7 and it fell. Does it matter then if a plane hit each of the other two buildings or not. We know they could have fallen without the impact of a plane; building 7 fell with no such impact. I have always thought along the lines that the planes were all about visuals. I ‘saw’ it.
Experimentation is a good way to make a strong point. The experiment with the steel beam makes a strong case to the fact that steel will not start to melt after sustaining high temperatures for over 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 18, 2010 23:36:07 GMT 10
911 was an inside job in my honist opinion
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 19, 2010 4:24:42 GMT 10
friend of mine has a 5 dvd set of disaster footage. we must have watched at least 8 buildings collapse from fire.
wtc was built with a metal exoskeleton. planes breached that metal instantly weakening the building. the reason the buildings looked as though they went straight down was because the metal exoskeleton contained the the buildings within a certain perimeter. wtc 7 collapsed the way it did because of fire and tons of extra material that had landed on its roof after the larger buildings went down.
why that is so hard for people to grasp i can't answer.
as i've said many times before these silly fantasies that the buildings were brought down by explosives is what keeps people from asking the right questions. such as did we fund and train the terrorists who actually thought it was bin laden that was funding them. but of course that isn't magical enough for most.
so we will never know the truth.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Jul 19, 2010 8:18:52 GMT 10
Excellent video concrete. I agree concrete and Duck that building 7 is a key to what happened. No plane hit building 7 and it fell. Does it matter then if a plane hit each of the other two buildings or not. We know they could have fallen without the impact of a plane; building 7 fell with no such impact. I have always thought along the lines that the planes were all about visuals. I ‘saw’ it. Experimentation is a good way to make a strong point. The experiment with the steel beam makes a strong case to the fact that steel will not start to melt after sustaining high temperatures for over 24 hours. true wes no planes were flown into 7 but it WAS hit by massive amouts of debris falling from hundreds of feet in the air from the 2 towers ... as for this guys experiment ... well i do not think he duplicated the conditions at the original site .... he didn t use the same steel and other materials .... so his back yard experiment isn t really valid. to make a valid experiment and get valid results ,you must duplicate the conditions very closely only then can you make a determination.... otherwise the collected data from the experiment is really not reliable like in this video .
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Jul 19, 2010 8:36:40 GMT 10
l carbon (soot); l nitrogen; l water; l carbon monoxide; l aldehydes; l nitrogen dioxide; *******l sulphur dioxide;***** l polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons all byproducts of burned diesel fuel
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 19, 2010 21:30:04 GMT 10
I think, Drex and wiggy. You forget.
I'm a civil/structural engineer. I've also been involved with demolition.
I did something about this ages ago. I just can't remember what I called it.
But. To put it simply.
For the buildings to fall as they did (all three of them). They would need catastophic failure of all supporting colums, at the same time. So. A couple jets flew into two towers cutting and destoying colums? The buildings were designed to withstand a jet hitting tem (a smaller type yes. But, to be safe, you always over design). Ever chop a tree? How do you make it fall straight down? When you cut one side of it out, it falls the direction of the chop. Why didn't the towers lean towards the weak point, then topple over?
As for WTC7. Tonnes of debris? Where? Some ash and dust, remember that both WTC 5 & 6 buffered both shockwaves and debris. Please. Don't say it was tonnes of dust that made it fall. These buildings are designed to hold tonnes of paper, furniture, computer equipment, people etc. Not to mention the AC units and other plant on the roof.
I could accept that the building fell due to fire. If it fell like a building on fire. But as I stated above. For the way it fell, it would need catastophic failure of all supporting columns at the same time.
Look at this. The liftshafts (spine) of the building go first.
Sorry forgot to post this.
It didn't fall down. Burned yes. But, fall into its own footprint? No.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Jul 20, 2010 3:23:16 GMT 10
so your saying that 7 was in pristine condition? with no damage from debris wtc 1 & 2? its obvious that the building was on fire it is obvious that the building was damaged from the attacks, fire brought the building down ..... not explosives, not scalar weapons not elves,show me real proof and I mean 100 percent factual data ..which is scientifically proven to be fact on any of these conspiracy theories and maybe then i will start to believe it .... until then in plain English its all bullshit.people have used 911 to support their own agenda to politically attack the united states government for years now by creating these outrageous theories . i 'm not saying that is what you are doing crete, you have just accepted the conspiracy theory that is all . but these politically motivated entities most of which I suspect have origins in enemy foreign governments or factions perpetuate these false ideas to undermine the moral of the citizens of the united states in an attempt to turn the citizens against their government by creating civil unrest within the USA ... it was a 2 pronged attack really , we had the 911 physical attacks then afterward the political attacks ... with these so called theories . i think its always a good idea to question your government not just blindly follow ... but.. when you make wild accusations like these you had better have undeniable proof to back up that accusation and so far i have not seen any smoking guns .... just alot of finger pointing and twisted 1/2 truths .
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 20, 2010 15:35:58 GMT 10
people have used 911 to support their own agenda to politically attack the united states government for years now /quote] Wiggy. I'll turn this around slightly. The US has used the 911 attacks to support their own agenda for years now. Now. I can agree to disagree. But, there are just what seems to be too many coincidences during these attacks to show that if the government wasn't involved, it was at least complicit of it. The big smoking gun is, after the first tower was hit, no jets were scrambled to intercept all the other jets that had gone off course. Who told them to stand down? Then theres this. Watch the windows on the RHS at around 30 sec. They all blow out at the same time. Then the building collapses. This would indicate, in my proffesional opinion, a sudden increase of internal atmospheric pressure causing the windows to blow out. Or, internal explosions, on several levels at the same time. and this. The BBC report on the collapsed Solomon Bros. Building. While its still standing in the background. Read the caption at 2:20 True. It may not be the smoking gun you require. But, it's enough for me to come to the conclusion that we have not been told everything. So, if you wanna say I fell for the conspiracy. Fair enough. I'll just say you fell for the cover-up.
|
|