9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
iceaura said:
This will never die. It's like watching a zombie movie with one zombie.
Click to expand...

LOL, no kidding.
I don't know what's worse, the Night of the Living Dead, or these real-life zombies that keep puking conspiracy theories over and over and over.......
 
This information is like 3-4 years old dude. I have even posted it in one of the conspiracy threads before.
 
Uh, about "pull it" - even if it was demolition, did he mean "pull it" right then? Maybe it could have been planned for later?
 
clusteringflux said:
I saw that interview live and, yeah that's exactly how he said it.

My only thought (later) was that due to the sensitive nature of the information the building contained, it was prepared during the time it was built to have a "self destruct" option. this would cut down on the hours and hours of charge setting by a demo team in the case of an attack.
Click to expand...

Sure...and why not admit this, but the official story denies this is the case - no planned demos AT ALL.
 
nietzschefan said:
This information is like 3-4 years old dude. I have even posted it in one of the conspiracy threads before.
Click to expand...

No it's not, every single proponent who subscribes to the Arab conspiracy theory always interject by saying the term pull, is referring to the firefighters being evacuated. Even the unreliable popular mechanics hit piece reveals that no firefighting occurred in WTC 7, which raises even more questions.

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
Click to expand...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
 
Well, if there was no firefighting in the building, doesn't that mean it would go down faster? Even if the guy said "pull it", it doesn't mean he actually had the capacity to do so. He may simply have been wholly ignorant of the process.
 
Wow, the Government is maximum overdrive in hopes of diffusing the growing suspicions of 911. The N.I.ST has put together a masterful weapon of mass distraction that will repel all, but the most critical thinkers and open minded individuals. To make a long story short, here's the gist of their report.

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse that brought the building down.

So they've concluded that no Jetfuel was involved in this collapse. So in a nutshell, on 911, all three buildings collapsed due to 2 completely different scenarios. WTC 1 & 2, from the planes impact, and gallons of burning fuel, and WTC 7, due to thermal expansion from the fires expanding the support beams. That's absolutely preposterous, Steele is much more resilient then that. The Madrid fire burned at the same maximum temperatures of the WTC 7, 800dg Celsius. And that fire burned for over 24 towers and didn't suffer any thermal expansion that lead the building to collapse. This report is completely bogus and an insult quite honestly.

To bad none of their of conclusions could be, or will ever be repeated. They even admit, "this is a very rare event of nature".

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
 
Last edited:
Ganymede said:
Seriously, give it up man, I've proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the term pull refers to building demolition.
Click to expand...
Were you not aware that ‘pull‘ has more than one use? I will help you.

http://www.dictionary.net/pull

There are 8 definitions there.

Ganymede said:
I provided 8 examples to support my argument.
Click to expand...
Wow eight examples. All you have done is show that pull could potentially be used in that way. If you read my link you will see that there are many uses for the term ‘pull’. To determine the relevant meaning you need to look at the context where the word was used. Doing so makes it very clear that he was talking about pulling men out. If you actually look at what he said there is no way he was talking about a demolition.

To say that he was requires delusion or dishonesty. You can pick which one applies to you.

Ganymede said:
You didn't post one, just your meaningless and worthless opinion. Back on ignore you go. You're just trolling at this point. And Kenny just called my bluff, and was fucking obliterated. Back on ignore you go, since you're just simply trolling at this point. You haven't added anything to this debate but subjective distortions. Good bye Shaman, you've been T.K.O'd!
Click to expand...
Putting me on ignore is a desperate act of someone who is losing an argument.
 
Actually, I just read this on line. Looks like WTC7 was a clear burn-out.

GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper. “The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92MQLDG0&show_article=1
Click to expand...

I guess that's it.
 
Sock Puppy said:
Actually, I just read this on line. Looks like WTC7 was a clear burn-out.



I guess that's it.
Click to expand...

Wow, that doesn't say much for the engineers of that design.

btw, if there's a fire in one story of a large building like that is it common practice to evacuate the entire building?
 
What specifically doesn't add up?

When you say that what I hear is "It doesn't matter how many of these points are debunked, there are so many of them that there must be something going on".

Once all the CT claims are addressed though there doesn't appear to be much of a conspiracy left.
 
shaman_ said:
When you say that what I hear is "It doesn't matter how many of these points are debunked, there are so many of them that there must be something going on".
Click to expand...

Youll hear what you want. Youve made that obvious enough.

My point was that even within the official government stories there are holes. And we have a president in office who we KNOW has lied to us about Iraq. And you expect the truth from this administration all of a sudden? Hah! And Im gullible?
 
Last edited:
I would hope so!

"No, don't worry about it. Sure: 6th floor has gone up. But all the other floors are great!"
 
.. and what holes are there in the 9/11 story, specifically?

Just because I don't buy into 9/11 nonsense that doesn't mean I trust the US government at all. But that is something of a dodge (which is represented on the bingo card) and does nothing to substantiate claims of "pull it", bombs or thermite.
 
Sock Puppy said:
I would hope so!

"No, don't worry about it. Sure: 6th floor has gone up. But all the other floors are great!"
Click to expand...

Actually it was the 13 floor, that was the critical element, and failure of the sprinkler system.


http://news.aol.com/article/feds-sa...y/143502?icid=100214839x1208147293x1200441530


Feds Say They've Solved 9/11 Mystery

By DEVLIN BARRETT,

Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.
Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top