Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
- Thread starter kazakhan
- Start date
Explosions aren't the same as explosions from demolition charges.
Yer, but in this case they could be.I mean the main stairway, running from top to bottom was supposed to have suddenly been covered with the leaking fuel from the plane, when this ignited it must have been close to the kind of explosion youd expect from a demolition charge.
see: '9/11 NTC firemen heard explosions in WTC'......."The Independent Commission [for 9/11]..decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists:"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
I will let you in on a well kept secret. When buildings are on fire there are often explosions in them.
spidergoat said:
No, I have no desire to feel that way. I have a desire to see things the way they are. Yes, sometimes a 747 loaded with fuel hitting a building is just that - and that's just what it was. However, having witnessed the thing from a few blocks away, I can attest to the fact that a HUGE ball erupted as the planes hit the buildings. Most of the jet fuel was ignited in the moment. What wasn't, poured to the lower floors and quickly burned off.
Does jet fuel stick to surfaces like a jelly - if it did, I'd have less doubt. Does Jet fuel burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel? Steel coated with fire retardant material? The official story states that the impact of the planes knocked the fire proofing off making the likely hood of structure collapse more likely. Does that even make since?
Had the inner core of the towers been ablaze, then I think it would have been impossible for the firefighters who perished to make it to the upper floors.
I have no "proof" as to what I believe happened but just reading the "official version" of what caused the collapse causes more questions than answers.
Again, just give the people a halfway plausible story and they'll believe it. I think most people would be surprised at how often the official story has been disproved. Computer simulations have not been able to duplicate this event. Only when they are rigged, i.e., making the towers weaker, increase the temperature at which jet fuel burns, etc. have they been able to get the desires effect and that is what is being sold as the reason.
Why didn't they just use the demolition charges to blow up the building and forget about the airplanes. If the airplanes would have hit the towers at the wrong place the demolition would have been fucked up. If one plane would have missed a tower then the demolition charges would have looked rather silly after an investigation. That couldn't have happened you say? Oh, one plane never reached its destination because of passenger intervention.
And a demolition expert will tell you it isn't so easy to take a big building down. They drill and position explosives in precise places. Lots of explosives.
And nobody ever noticed the stick of dynamite next to its work cubicle with a fuse sticking out.
fucking mystery that is!
And a demolition expert will tell you it isn't so easy to take a big building down. They drill and position explosives in precise places. Lots of explosives.
And nobody ever noticed the stick of dynamite next to its work cubicle with a fuse sticking out.
fucking mystery that is!
spuriousmonkey said:
Well if your intention was to invade the Middle East and get control of the energy supplies then you're gonna need some stepping stone for the American public to get behind you. "Creating" the worse "terrorist" incident in American history accomplishes that goal.
Re: Operation Northwoods
You find the ideas of explosions during fires exceptional?
dkb218 said:
Just let muslims install the demolition charges. The scenario you are proposing is just too far fetched and unlikely to succeed
dkb218 said:
And if you have the entire resources of the US govt at your disposal and are willing to expend a few thousand lives and billions in property then you sure as hell could come up with a scenario that would result in a much more direct link to saddam. Look up Occam's razor
No.
And neither are you nor David E Jones?
And neither are you nor David E Jones?
Jet fuel spread everywhere is a good way to start a huge fire. The building was full of plastics, carpet, rubber, wood furniture, ect., many of which are made from petroleum. You know they make rockets that burn rubber as fuel? The jet impact could indeed knock of the lightweight fireproofing material from the steel. The impact also blew huge gaping holes in the building, creating a structure that very much resembles a blacksmith's furnace, with a ready air supply at that height.
On the topic of explosives:
on the topic of jet fuel:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
on the topic of jet fuel:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
The intellectual conspiracy theorists say that that popular mechanics only debunked the stupid conspiracy theories that they had all ready debunked. They say that popular mechanics deliberately ignored all quality conspiracy theories.
If this is an accurate depiction of what popular mechanics did then the Hearst owned popular mechanics article writen by a man alleged to to be Micharl Chertoffs cousin actually tends to confirm the conspiracy theories by using deceitful tactics to try to discredit them.
See link http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
The best way to discredit a truth is to discred things that the truth teller never said while pretending to be discrediting the truth teller.
Examples of this are the "Joseph Wilson lied about Cheney sending him to Niger" talking point and the way the New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post killed the San Jose Mercury's "Dark alliance story".
In the big media soup the truth can be easily washed away and kept out of our consciousnesses. Given to conflicting versions of supposed truth we will believe whatever we want to believe. Most people choose to believe whatever most other people are choosing to believe.
There is also another important effect that determines what most people will belive. If a ten year old girl has two best friends, and they are all equally best friends, and then two of them have a fight, they both know instinctively that being the first to tell their version of the fight to the third girl will be very important in determining who the third girl will believe and therefore who she will side with. Adults are not much more objective than ten year old girls.
If this is an accurate depiction of what popular mechanics did then the Hearst owned popular mechanics article writen by a man alleged to to be Micharl Chertoffs cousin actually tends to confirm the conspiracy theories by using deceitful tactics to try to discredit them.
See link http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
The best way to discredit a truth is to discred things that the truth teller never said while pretending to be discrediting the truth teller.
Examples of this are the "Joseph Wilson lied about Cheney sending him to Niger" talking point and the way the New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post killed the San Jose Mercury's "Dark alliance story".
In the big media soup the truth can be easily washed away and kept out of our consciousnesses. Given to conflicting versions of supposed truth we will believe whatever we want to believe. Most people choose to believe whatever most other people are choosing to believe.
There is also another important effect that determines what most people will belive. If a ten year old girl has two best friends, and they are all equally best friends, and then two of them have a fight, they both know instinctively that being the first to tell their version of the fight to the third girl will be very important in determining who the third girl will believe and therefore who she will side with. Adults are not much more objective than ten year old girls.
Sock puppet path said:And if you have the entire resources of the US govt at your disposal and are willing to expend a few thousand lives and billions in property then you sure as hell could come up with a scenario that would result in a much more direct link to saddam. Look up Occam's razor
You and your Occams Razor [I saw the movie CONTACT also]
This THEORY seems like a sell out - a way of doing the least thinking...
The American public would not had been too happy with a president whose approval rating was sinking face prior to 9/11 wanting to start building empires and sending there little kiddies off to war for the sake of the control of the Middle Eastern energy supplies. While Suddam was a brick on the road to that control, he and Iraq are not the end point.
We are suppose to fighting a war on terror yet we find our troops in Iraq. This president has made it clear that finding and fighting terrorist are not a priority. A "democratic" Iraq with an American puppet regime in charge is the goal for Iraq. Syria and Iran are next in there sights.