News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

[Ganymede]

TruthSeeker, do you think that possibly saw a bomb could mean saw an explosion? or do yopu think the fireman "SAW" a bomb and no one else did? Watching some of these conspiracy videos on youtube is embarrasing that people can be so simple.

Stop spreading dis-information. Please name the Conspiracy Theorist on the Video link I provided. You can't, so please stick to the facts. This is a montague of clips from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC.

I try not to get angry on these forums, so i wont say what i really want to say to Ganey(whatever the fuck he calls himself)- but i dont know what i would do if someone said they want to see me shot in the face and they were standing right in front of me. I dont even like to think about it.

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

 

[Carcano]

Another good documentary here Ganymede:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I guess these buildings keep their fire proofing huh?

You fail at science!

But they weren't impacted with 4 trillion foot pounds of impact of energy, That is the amount of energy from a 767, that weighs 171,000 pounds, delivers at 550 miles per hour. Just a little bit of difference between the incidents you cite and the WTC collapse.

That is the equivalent of 2000lb. of Military grade TNT, those other building had fires, but there was no impact damage, and large sections of the framing structure were not compromised.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Aluminum




That's not relevant.




The WTC weighs 1.8 millionlbs. That's not enough force to bring down the towers.

It is relevant because you think a 767 is apparently a giant coke can with wings...untrue, 171,000 lbs of metal and thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel is enough to bring down a building, get over yourself.

 

[iceaura]

By this un informed response I assume that you didn't watch the entire video. There's 3 different fire fighters who used the the word "BOMB IN THE BUILDING". But oh no, you want to believe what Dick Cheney is telling you to believe. How do they have more credibility then the first responders?

I watched the whole thing - damn if I will again, just to verify what I noted first time through, which was that no one in the video actually saw a bomb in the building themselves.

And no bombs went off in the lower floors, as far as we can see in any of the video of the firefighting or the collapse.

And the video was strangely edited - I would be leaning forward, realizing that the next few moments were key, and those few moments would be cut off. By the third or fourth time that happened, I couldn't help but get a bit suspicious of the editing.

One problem with all the bomb stuff is that we saw the building collapse, right on camera, from the top down, starting just above the airplane impact level (jsut where the structure was msot damaged and the fire hottest) without involving anything at all on the lower floors.

Another feature of this overwrought bomb stuff is that it doesn't change the essential story - nothing says AQ was incapable of planting a coordinated street bomb, maybe something designed to trap the firefighters with fires below them - on the assumption that they would be fighting fires above them. That would be recognizable AQ tactics. Even the actual presence of a bomb in one or more of the buildings would not support, in itself, a conclusion of US government instigation of 9/11.

And so forth.

One of the reasons we haven't been able to get a decent investigation of the US government's relationship to 9/11 is that any such inquiry gets sidetracked into this gaseous swamp of rumors and nonsense - most of it on video, where the contradictions and improbabilites can be slid past reason a bit more easily.

The most likely conspiracy for which that video is evidence is that this distraction is deliberate - that there's some kind of dirty tricks department run out of the Whie House that arranges for this noise every time people settle down and start asking real questions.

 

[John99]

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

oh, it was a joke??? sociopaths have a sense of humor too.

 

[John99]

Stop spreading dis-information. Please name the Conspiracy Theorist on the Video link I provided. You can't, so please stick to the facts. This is a montague of clips from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC.

I said 'some of those youtube videos', that is part of your problem. Pay attention.

 

[John99]

What type of power source did the towers use?

Gas
Oil

Do electrical supplies cause explosions?:scratchin:

 

[madanthonywayne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM

Checkmate!

Wow. That video took me right back to that day. But it doesn't prove there was a conspiracy. It simply brings back the massive confusion and shock of that day. No one knew what the fuck was happening.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh, an Independent investigation was done? Please provide the link. I specifically want the investigation done on WTC 7. Provide me that link or STFU.

Bitch, have you not heard of the damn 9/11 Commission? Give your head a shake, it's stuck.

I guess these buildings keep their fire proofing huh?

You fail at science!

They weren't hit by 200 tons of airplane and gas. I feel dumber just by talking to you.

I got 2 words for you. Building 7. So your extreme stress theory is in sufficient.

I got five words for you: fire and massive gas reserves. Shut it, and go away.

 

[VitalOne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM

Checkmate!

Initial reportings of big news events almost always contain many errors and misinformation....so its DEBUNKED

Checkmate!

 

[GeoffP]

Checkmate!

LOL.

 

[MacGyver1968]

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

 

[madanthonywayne]

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

That's easy. They say it was to justify the evil neocon's plan to take over the world via war in the middle east. Kind of a burning of the Reichstag redux.

 

[nietzschefan]

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

If it was to take away some basic freedoms in the U.S, it was an outstanding success.

 

[Thoreau]

I am with Ganymede on this. I saw the events in New York that day from the corner of Church and Duane Street and I trust what my ears and eyes witnessed. It was obvious that there were LARGE explosions going off in the lower areas of the towers. Not just cars exploding... but MUCH larger explosions. I've spent one year in Iraq serving my country, and I know the difference between a high powered explosive and a car exploding. And when cars DO explode, the shockwave is not nearly enough to knock a person on thier feet unless they are literally standing on or less than a foot away from the car. Furthermore, after witnessing the impact of the planes into the towers, there were several small explosions as well as many LARGE ones, large explosions that were powerful enough to throw people across the street at the base of the towers. Sorry bud, but no car exlposion is ever that powerful.

Also, take a look at steel buildings that were TOTALLY engulfed in flames and had burned for WEEKS and did not collapse. Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact??? Please...

Now, Im no expert but I do have the advantage of being able of having first-hand knowledge of both the tragic events of 9/11 as well as experience with explosive devices due to my military career.

Furthermore, if, infact, the explosions were caused by devices planted before hand, it would be impossible to know if it was placed by us or a terrorist organization, as I am sure that either one of them would have "covered thier tracks".

 

[superluminal]

Many of the secondary small explosions were due to interstage water tanks exploding (in tall buildings you need to stage the acsent of water to the top), and even emergency lighting batteries. Much larger explosions could easily be due to pockets of pressurized gas being driven by the impact to many different levels within cavities in the building such as elevator shafts, and either causing simple pressure explosions, or igniting when the fuel-air mixture was critical.

And as we all have such extensive experience with high-energy, fuel-laden projectiles impacting structures, it must be obvious what all of the effects might be. Right? Idiots.

Ganymede, you're an aggressive, ignorant asshat. And you FAIL at science. Ha!

 

[Carcano]

Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact???

Actually it was more like an hour.

The WTC buildings had a central core of huge steel beams that could not simply desintegrate in less than fifteen seconds. Remember that the top floors descended in 'free fall' time

There had to be planted internal explosions involved.

Again, this documentary is the most exhaustive explanation of the engineering problems involved you'll ever find on the net:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

 

[superluminal]

The WTC buildings had a central core of huge steel beams that could not simply desintegrate in less than fifteen seconds. Remember that the top floors descended in 'free fall' time

No, they didn't. It's been measured to be significantly less.

There had to be planted internal explosions involved.

Umm... no.

 

[Thoreau]

Nevertheless... that is an insanely short period of time.