|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 23, 2010 23:04:05 GMT 10
what gets me is the buildings speed at which they came down in under 10 secs just mindblowing that there was hardly any resistance from the structural beams. thermite is a whole new ball game as there should not be one trace of thermite/thermate unless it was there?
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 24, 2010 1:16:10 GMT 10
the counter claim brill is that certain metals exposed to high temps can lead to a false positive for thermite or something like that. it sounds contrite but also remotely possible. which is why i am neutral on that evidence.
the speed doesn't bother me. again one of the largest structures ever built. when the tops snapped off it turned the remaining columns to dust. then you had tons and tons of material pancaking straight down.
you really can't compare the towers to anything. nothing that tall has ever been destroyed and no other buildings employed the outer shell like the towers had. so all the experts in the world can only conjecture based on much much shorter structures with all support on the inside.
as for the fires again no real frame of reference. all other buildings known to have had fires as hot as those in the towers got that hot much slower and without the shock of the plane's impact. which sent fuel flying through the floors and in one case its known that fuel rushed down stairwells like a flood. it would have been like napalming 5-10 floors right after hitting it with a 500lbs bomb. well more like a 250lbs bomb.
here is one way of looking at it. remember when the planes first hit the towers.........the huge fireball that came out the other side? well at that same moment that fireball was also spreading throughout the upper floors.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 24, 2010 1:39:40 GMT 10
i still think 3 building coming down all the same is highly questionable im still 50/50 and its not like i just started reading about it lol, probly looked in to it for too long but the conclusion in my court is still open to question as there are many ?
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 24, 2010 1:46:14 GMT 10
I'd like to see the insurance companies report.
I mean a guy takes out a BILLION dollar insurance policy. Then a month later, BAM!!! Three buildings are destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 24, 2010 1:48:02 GMT 10
whoa.......i've not heard of this insurance thing before. fill me in.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 24, 2010 1:56:34 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 24, 2010 2:00:50 GMT 10
no prob man. don't go out of your way if you run across it cool. many times i remember something i read but forget where the hell it was i read it.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Jul 24, 2010 2:05:29 GMT 10
i think what happened on 911 was factual ,, terrorists attacked just like we saw ..... the buildings came down from the attacks without assistance of explosive charges etc. now after that day i do believe that 911 was exploited for certian political and financial gains .....monitarily and for power .... and that is the real conspiracy we should be looking at !is it possible that certian factions of the us government and even private enterprise knew of the comming attacks and did nothing?drawing up a plan to profit from the attacks ..... this is where i would start!
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 24, 2010 2:20:39 GMT 10
agreed wiggy.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 24, 2010 2:43:11 GMT 10
Thats the main problem.
I don't really give a monkeys how the buildings came down anymore. An Apiphany if you like.
The main issue. Who was complicit in this crime? Sure there are theories, but, it's the seperation of the wheat from the chaff. The one thing I do believe though. Is, people knew these attacks would happen. Maybe they didn't know when. But they knew none the less. Too much circumstantial evidence and no 'concrete' evidence to prove anything at the moment. So, there will always be 'reasonable doubt' and no joy of finding a guilty party.
I honestly don't believe a guy in a cave executed this. Truck bombings maybe. But this was to organised and too effective.
|
|