wow, DSM4Life como'n you are smarter then this i know you are. and please will someone tell me how building 7 fell. remember no plane.
Horus, they just can't comprehend what happened
wow, DSM4Life como'n you are smarter then this i know you are. and please will someone tell me how building 7 fell. remember no plane.
Horus, they just can't comprehend what happened
Here's the answer to your question conspiracy guy...
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf
For every conspiracy theory about 9/11 there is a theory to debunk it. No one will ever know which is true. But there are always those who seek these outrages conspiracies even when they don't exist just to justify their own paranoia.
Ok i want to throw MY 2 CENTS in here,
Why is every one scared and concerned with muslim sensitivity what about our freaking sensitivity how the hell are they going to be allowed to do this!
Cordoba House is what there going to name this and there is a history here people need to learn why they are naming this CORDOBA HOUSE this was a time when christians where slaughtered by the muslims, people need to wake up.
Last edited by jojomcgo; 09-08-2010 at 08:34 PM.
This what i think of the mosque!
I love how you guys point the finger at others stating they are dumb for not facing the facts. In reality you don't even know the facts yourself ! You are basing your facts on someone else's OPINIONS !
Are you a certified implosive/explosive expert ? Have you ever practice demolition ? Then your opinion is as worthless as the next persons.
i agree dsm. this whole demo conspiracy is really nothing more than a therory.
it's hard to believe that engineers and architecs built the twins to fall straight over onto other buildings if they were to be structurally compromised. i would think that if the buildings were to fall, they would be built to collaps onto they're footprints to minimize damage as much as possible exactly as they did.
i think the developers knew exactly what they were doing during the building of the twins and don't think they would overlook the fact that the structures could possible come down. so why wouldn't they be built to fall as they did?
I watched an interview of one engineer who helped build/create the towers and he said the same time. We had to design them so if something were to happen they wouldn't fall over onto 1000 of people in the streets. But i am sure zabster151 knows more than the people who built the buildings and he will grace us with his vast knowledge on the topic.
I've watched numerous interviews with Doctors, Professors and Research Scientists, all of whom claimed that AAS will do serious damage to your health and were of no benefit to increasing muscle mass. Again I'll do my own research and make my own decision.
I also read reports that one of the engineers whom helped design the towers said that certain bracing was only looped around rails and was not solidly attached and may have been a design fault that made the towers weak. This was proven wrong by photos of the construction showing that all braces were solidly welded to the beams. Any of these people could have been paid to say whatever the government wanted them to say. There are just so many things that contradict the governments version of events.
Years ago, cigarettes were advertised as being healthy for you and they were claimed to help reduce stress and anxiety and promoted a sense of wellbeing. The government wanted us to believe this because of the taxes they were raking in from the sales.
I don't think anyone is dumb if they choose to believe that 3 steel constructed highrise buildings collapsed from fire when it has never happened before in history because they are designed to withstand such events without collapsing and killing all those on lower floors, I simply choose to question things that have obvious inconsistencies.
Once again for those who didn't read those inconsistencies.....
One involves the story about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. We had three buildings collapse there, the North Tower [WTC 1], the South Tower [WTC 2] and Building 7 [WTC 7]. Each was a high-rise steel-frame building. Now, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire. There have been experiments with buildings raging with fire. In the experiments, fire made them sag a little, but never caused them to collapse. [See Madrid high-rise fire, page 34.] And yet on 9/11 these three buildings, which had relatively small fires in them, collapsed.
People have the image of the South Tower in their minds, and they think, Oh, these were towering infernos. But most of the jet fuel exploded outside of the South Tower, which produced the really dramatic effect. But you have to remember, that effect only lasted for a few seconds, and the fuel burned up very quickly. In the South Tower there was relatively little fuel to feed the fire inside; so it would have had to be feeding on carpets, on desks and things like that. And yet the South Tower collapsed in less than an hour after it was hit.
The collapse of Building 7 is particularly unusual, and yet the 9/11 Commission never mentions it once in their report. Somehow fire got started in Building 7, which is two blocks away and was never hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel inside to feed the fire. There are photographs that show only small fires on floors 7 and 12 of this 47-story building. And yet at 5:20 in the afternoon it comes collapsing down in exactly the same way as the other buildings.
Now I stress in the same way because they all came straight down into their own footprint for the most part. They collapsed very quickly, within about ten seconds. That's amazing when you think about it, that fire could produce that kind of effect, just like controlled demolition. In fact, on that very night, Dan Rather-viewing the collapse of Building 7-blurted out, "It looked just like one of those controlled demolitions."
Further evidence of Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition came from Larry Silverstein, the man who had recently taken a lease on the entire complex. In a PBS documentary from September 2002, Silverstein said he told the fire commander that the smartest thing to do was "pull it." Next, he says, they "made that decision to pull" and watched the building collapse. Pull is a term commonly used to describe using explosives to demolish a building. Silverstein allegedly made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7.
i dunno dsm. i'm feeling kinda stupid right now.
i've watched the videos over and over again. i've watched the helpless people in the upper floors make the choice to jump or burn to death. it pisses me off.
would you really live in a country that did that do it's own citizens to make a cheap ass political point and an excuse to invade another country? if you live in the u.s. and believe that our own our govt. fabricated the carnage that occured on 9/11 then why aren't you sprinting the hell out of the country?our govt. isn't perfect but jesus christ this isn't rwanda.
the people who are supporting the theory that this was a govt. conspiracy are fishing pretty damn hard. there's nothing wrong with questioning inconsistancies but it gets a bit ridculous after a while.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)