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

What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!

How is this even an argument what about the fires that caused catastrophic damage to the buildings structure. How come every time someone makes a good point about why your theory is jsut stoned conspirist bullshit you just pull out the old "what about building 7"? card oh my god what about building fucking 7?
 
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.

Which could as easily have been transformers in the building. See the documentary "Screw Loose Change".

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...

Because those buildings hadn't been hit by planes.

Far less than any pancake theory could possibly explain.

A cursory examination of the tower collapse will reveal that there was no "pancaking"; i.e. no pause.

Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah, USA
Retired BY Physics Professor

He isn't "retired". He was dismissed. Fired. Pitched.

Intuitions????

For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.

Riiiight. Which we have no proof of whatsoever.

Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.

Thankyou for revealing information about a completely different building, built over 50 years prior; in other words, a completely unrelated scenario. The depth of informativeness in this comment is massively underwhelming.

You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.

i) prove "multiple"
ii) prove that their specs also meant they could deal with fire, and that they would stay up indefinitely
iii) prove the builders weren't just wrong. It's happened before.
 
How is this even an argument what about the fires that caused catastrophic damage to the buildings structure. How come every time someone makes a good point about why your theory is jsut stoned conspirist bullshit you just pull out the old "what about building 7"? card oh my god what about building fucking 7?

Because it's the conspiracy theorist's version of, "Won't someone please think of the children!"
 
Originally Posted by MZ3Boy84
Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse
.

The major difference between the Empire State Building crash is that a B-25 weighs in at 33, 000 lb. fully loaded, which that B-25 wasn't, and its cruse is 230 mph, which it wasn't done at the time as it was in the process of trying to land, a Boeing 767 weighs in at 171,000 lb, and it was at it maximum speed 560+ mph, for a major difference in impact energy, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building didn't penetrate the building, and basically only damaged one wall, and penetrated only about half way into the ESB, the 767's made complete penetrations of the WTC towers, cutting major portions of the core support structure, and blowing fire insulation from the steel it was suppose to protect, really no comparison can be made between the two crashes, different airplane, different construction methods.
 
The major difference between the Empire State Building crash is that a B-25 weighs in at 33, 000 lb. fully loaded, which that B-25 wasn't, and its cruse is 230 mph, which it wasn't done at the time as it was in the process of trying to land,

Also, that B-25 had dumped most of its fuel, as it was in the process of trying an emergency landing in fog in a city.

really no comparison can be made between the two crashes, different airplane, different construction methods.

The construction methods are particularly important. High-rise buildings from the 1930's era (and in particular the Empire State Building) were massively overbuilt. The Empire State Building is essentially a giant slab of steel-reinforced granite and limestone.
 
Oh! Another 9/11 conspiracy video? And this time its on YouTube? How original!

Nope, it's just a collection of actual news coverage from 9-11. You know the coverage that they're reluctant to ever replay. Because all of their onsite reports contradict the official story. Think, before you foolishly assume and react to something that isn't.
 
Which could as easily have been transformers in the building. See the documentary "Screw Loose Change".



Because those buildings hadn't been hit by planes.



A cursory examination of the tower collapse will reveal that there was no "pancaking"; i.e. no pause.



He isn't "retired". He was dismissed. Fired. Pitched.



Riiiight. Which we have no proof of whatsoever.



Thankyou for revealing information about a completely different building, built over 50 years prior; in other words, a completely unrelated scenario. The depth of informativeness in this comment is massively underwhelming.



i) prove "multiple"
ii) prove that their specs also meant they could deal with fire, and that they would stay up indefinitely
iii) prove the builders weren't just wrong. It's happened before.


If you don't believe the vast amount of evidence that's already been presented. Then you'll never be convinced. No matter what's in front of your face.
 
The lower 10 stories of the south face of the building were destroyed to a depth of about 25%. There was also a continuous fire burning (fed by stored diesel fuel) for hours. This combination was enough to ultimately drop the building.

And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?
 
Nope, it's just a collection of actual news coverage from 9-11. You know the coverage that they're reluctant to ever replay. Because all of their onsite reports contradict the official story. Think, before you foolishly assume and react to something that isn't.

All of which are explained by ignorance and poor information.

That explains something else on this forum too. I "Gany" put me finga on it, tha.

If you don't believe the vast amount of evidence that's already been presented. Then you'll never be convinced. No matter what's in front of your face.

What's in front of my face is my nose and my field of vision. The former allows me to detect the subtle scent of bullshit; the latter, to identify idiocy at a distance.

And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?

Oh? But here I thought lots of planes had crashed into lots of things. :) But now they didn't. :( Which is it, then? Are we back to this being a singular case again?
 
what you're calling "checkmate" is in fact speculation in the midst of huge panic and uncertainty
 
Last edited:
Checkmate!


According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"


:roflmao:

You lose


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
 
ohh yes because we all know that polls are soo accurate...:D You fail at being even a semi believable nut job.
 
Back
Top