Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 41. (Read 54943 times)
Funny interview with a Dutch domination expert who, like most, was unaware of the existance of WTC 7,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
Sadly (for some), he is longer among the living. One of those single vehicle crash things.
.....
Clearly the Pentagon also fit that criteria (went down without a plane hitting it.) Unless one considers a cruise missile to be a plane:
......
I do agree with the pentagon getting hit with a missile of some sort. There is no way a plane that big, with solid engines, flies into a building only leaving a circular hole. Leaving debris small enough for few agents to walk away with it...
Nonsense. The Pentagon is not your average building. Clearly the Pentagon also fit that criteria (went down without a plane hitting it.) Unless one considers a cruise missile to be a plane:
......
I do agree with the pentagon getting hit with a missile of some sort. There is no way a plane that big, with solid engines, flies into a building only leaving a circular hole. Leaving debris small enough for few agents to walk away with it...
Gravity points down. That's where things fall. Down. And saying "the fires didn't weaken" does not make it true. It doesn't even make an argument. It's more like random words.
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Hey, I didn't know about building 7 but the picture above are rather... Evidences.
Seems like some buildings went down without anything hitting them no?
According to conspiracy theorists, "Something hitting them" DOESN'T bring them down. It takes additional hundreds of ninja type guys secreting explosives in the dead of night.
Why that kind of thinking would be required when simple fires would do it, I don't know.
....building 7 collapsed hours after the towers. There were reports of they were gonna "pull the building".....
Pull means pull with cables.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I really don't know how American people swallows all of this? There are so many evidence about this topic that can trigger some really dangerous talks in Congress but still nothing happening. How is this possible?
....Well if it was for safety, sure... But wait... Wouldn't they need days, or at least hours to setup the demolition? Plant all the equipment to bring down the building in an orchestrated fashion? ....
Building 7 was burning uncontrolled for hours, during that time showed evidence of structural failure, and then collapsed.
I don't understand what is complicated about this, or what even lends itself to a plausible need for a conspiracy.
Uncontrolled fire. It burned, then it fell. Period.
So what?
I really don't know how American people swallows all of this? There are so many evidence about this topic that can trigger some really dangerous talks in Congress but still nothing happening. How is this possible?
Lol, have you not seen our presidential race? Cmon... now... haha
Yeah, good proof there is nothing to be saved in the USA...
Trump vs Clinton. It's like a comedy, but a really bad one.
I really don't know how American people swallows all of this? There are so many evidence about this topic that can trigger some really dangerous talks in Congress but still nothing happening. How is this possible?
Lol, have you not seen our presidential race? Cmon... now... haha
But yeah, building 7 collapsed hours after the towers. There were reports of they were gonna "pull the building".
Well if it was for safety, sure... But wait... Wouldn't they need days, or at least hours to setup the demolition? Plant all the equipment to bring down the building in an orchestrated fashion? Wouldn't someone need INSIDE information to get ready for such an unplanned event? lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ
Gravity points down. That's where things fall. Down. And saying "the fires didn't weaken" does not make it true. It doesn't even make an argument. It's more like random words.
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Hey, I didn't know about building 7 but the picture above are rather... Evidences.
Seems like some buildings went down without anything hitting them no?
It seems exceedingly unlikely that an airliner just crashed here. You´d really have to suspend all brain activity to believe that.
I really don't know how American people swallows all of this? There are so many evidence about this topic that can trigger some really dangerous talks in Congress but still nothing happening. How is this possible? What do you think? If I had just heard about 911, I might be being polite to the kid by my brain certainly would not be on reading the kiddie book.
But I am certain that the conclusion reached by Moore has to do with the IQ of Bush.
He is just paper and hi is not important at all. I don't know why people still defending him? He's an actor like Reagan and Schwarzenegger, and he did his job very well. It's obvious he was waited for instructions here, and he was confused, and he made a mistake. But I am certain that the conclusion reached by Moore has to do with the IQ of Bush.
It seems exceedingly unlikely that an airliner just crashed here. You´d really have to suspend all brain activity to believe that.
Wrong building. lol
I'm talking about the building that went down, without any planes hitting it... It only had a few fires...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycank4AxBo
Clearly the Pentagon also fit that criteria (went down without a plane hitting it.) Unless one considers a cruise missile to be a plane:
edit: Another fun vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRFvavH_vk
Still not quite entirely the same, but I do see where you get that at.
Building 7 was never "officially" hit by anything, plane, missile, drone.
Fires started on a few floors, but steel buildings don't fall from office fires. Only jet fuel, right? ha
I do agree with the pentagon getting hit with a missile of some sort. There is no way a plane that big, with solid engines, flies into a building only leaving a circular hole. Leaving debris small enough for few agents to walk away with it...
Wrong building. lol
I'm talking about the building that went down, without any planes hitting it... It only had a few fires...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycank4AxBo
Clearly the Pentagon also fit that criteria (went down without a plane hitting it.) Unless one considers a cruise missile to be a plane:
edit: Another fun vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRFvavH_vk
For the entire 9/11 debate, I simply ask... What about Building 7? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I saw footage of the planes hit and based on my understanding of structural engineering did not expect there to be any problems. When I heard later that they collapsed I thought to myself that I mis-estimated and didn't know structures and demolition as well as I thought.
My 'Oh, wow!' moment came a few days/weeks later when I saw some French web-site which showed some early shots of the hole in the Pentagon. From that point on I
edit:
Quote
Pentagon before the wall fell down about 30 minutes after the explosion or missile impact on Sept. 11, 2001. Notice the lack of airplane wreckage, and how the wall is standing intact. You would have to use your imagination to see an airplane there. We all know how big jetliners really are. The scene above shows no sign of the 124-foot wingspan of the aircraft that supposedly struck the building. There is an entry wound, but it's too small for an airplane, and there are large punctures deeper within the rings of the building. There is no airplane wreckage or debris field visible. Image from MSNBC.
Wrong building. lol
I'm talking about the building that went down, without any planes hitting it... It only had a few fires...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycank4AxBo
For the entire 9/11 debate, I simply ask... What about Building 7? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I saw footage of the planes hit and based on my understanding of structural engineering did not expect there to be any problems. When I heard later that they collapsed I thought to myself that I mis-estimated and didn't know structures and demolition as well as I thought.
My 'Oh, wow!' moment came a few days/weeks later when I saw some French web-site which showed some early shots of the hole in the Pentagon. From that point on I
edit:
Quote
Pentagon before the wall fell down about 30 minutes after the explosion or missile impact on Sept. 11, 2001. Notice the lack of airplane wreckage, and how the wall is standing intact. You would have to use your imagination to see an airplane there. We all know how big jetliners really are. The scene above shows no sign of the 124-foot wingspan of the aircraft that supposedly struck the building. There is an entry wound, but it's too small for an airplane, and there are large punctures deeper within the rings of the building. There is no airplane wreckage or debris field visible. Image from MSNBC.
For the entire 9/11 debate, I simply ask... What about Building 7? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Huh? What "structures?" What "Phenomenon?"
Are you talking about these samples of paint/rust? Please clarify.
By 'structures', I meant as an example the compenents of the red/grey particals and the highly energetic materail which releases it's energy readily.
By 'phenomenon', I meant that such structures are commonly formed by standard building materials.
The link I provided does answer the question of the composition of these fragments of paint attached to a layer of rust. RE "releases energy readily," yea, paint burns. Not at all like thermite.
I would have estimated that you knew what differential scanning calorimetry was, or be readily able to deduce it.
I've just read through a bit of the the paper for the first time in a few years. On page 27 the question of ordinary paint is addressed. Here's a different phraseology of the point I was making:
Code:
... If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance
such as paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration
using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
If you are up to the challenge, or know of someone who is has been, let me know. So far I've not discovered anyone who has done so, but seeking out such an effort is hardly my life's work.
Is this photoshopped or its real evidence? In Michael Moore's documentary you can find it as true and this happened on this specific date, after his security told him what happened at World Trade Center..
http://www.dailyviralstuff.com/24-fake-photos-that-went-viral/
Or they are trying to cover up..
But I am certain that the conclusion reached by Moore has to do with the IQ of Bush.
By "structurally sound" I mean, "not unsound, structurally."
I don't mean that the engineer who built the house out of playing cards didn't use superglue to hold the house together. I meant that he though any kind of house of playing cards was structurally worth anything other than show.
It doesn't matter that what you have just posted does not make sense. Phrases like "structurally sound" have very specific meanings.
Put it this way - If I was an investor and had that kind of money and was looking at Building 7, no to buying it. It just plain looked kind of shakey.
It would be nice if the things that I posted made sense to you. You could be quite a fantastic person for explaining things that made sense, if you only understood some sense.
At the base of it, the things that apply to Bulding 7, apply to the Twin Towers as well. The fires didn't weaken the Towers enough that they could have come close to falling from them. But, if they fell from some fires, they wouldn't have fallen into their own footprint in 11 to 14 seconds as they did. They would have toppled.
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Oh for crying out loud...
Stuff blocks gravity's downward pointing. That's why things don't fall straight down. And saying "the fires weakened
Finally, simply Google "burning buildings" and look at the pictures to see that none of the buildings (Towers or 7) came down due to fires weakening them... except in one possibility. The buildings were houses of cards, literally. And any that remain are way too dangerous for anyone to be in.
By "structurally sound" I mean, "not unsound, structurally."
I don't mean that the engineer who built the house out of playing cards didn't use superglue to hold the house together. I meant that he though any kind of house of playing cards was structurally worth anything other than show.
It doesn't matter that what you have just posted does not make sense. Phrases like "structurally sound" have very specific meanings.
Put it this way - If I was an investor and had that kind of money and was looking at Building 7, no to buying it. It just plain looked kind of shakey.
It would be nice if the things that I posted made sense to you. You could be quite a fantastic person for explaining things that made sense, if you only understood some sense.
At the base of it, the things that apply to Bulding 7, apply to the Twin Towers as well. The fires didn't weaken the Towers enough that they could have come close to falling from them. But, if they fell from some fires, they wouldn't have fallen into their own footprint in 11 to 14 seconds as they did. They would have toppled.
Finally, there are huge differences between 7 and the towers. For example, the primary support for the towers were the beams around the outside. The primary support for the bldg 7 was far to the interior. Again, just saying something isn't even an argument.
Does that make sense?
Is this photoshopped or its real evidence? In Michael Moore's documentary you can find it as true and this happened on this specific date, after his security told him what happened at World Trade Center..
http://www.dailyviralstuff.com/24-fake-photos-that-went-viral/
Or they are trying to cover up..
President Bush did nothing. At least he could have made the show of fighting for the people, whether or not it would have done any good.
Jump to: