Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More 9/11 conspiracies

Mentalist said:
I'm not American you twat.



Wrong.




There were fourteen planes defending the entire United States on the morning of 9/11. The rest were on "war games" excersises hundreds of nautical miles away from Washington and the rest were up in your oh so precious Canada doing yet more War Games. That's convienient isn't it.



Flase Flag Terrorism isn't a new idea. It's been proposed byt the higher ups in relation to Cuba and god knows how many other times. Yes I do believe the people who have the power in the federal goverment would do this if the gains were great enough. The only way for neocon's to get their wars and the start of the police state they so want is by causing an outrage big enough to shake hearts and minds into getting angry and scared enough that they feel like they need these nutters to save them. They provide the problem and then the solution that happens to be what they wanted from the start and they make the public go along with it.




That is damning evidence you have there! :roll:

The video of Bin Laden planning the attacks is a laughable fake.The video is grainy and his face is the wrong shape (much broader) he is also wearing a gold ring (illegal by islamic law) and is seen writing with his right hand even though www.fbi.gov tells us that Bin Laden is left handed.



Because the planes on their own would never have brought down the towers you moron. No skyscraper in HISTORY has ever collapsed due to fire until 9/11 when the twin towers and WTC7 all collapsed. Hell WTC7 wasn't even hit by a fucking plane.



I seriously doubt a plane even hit the Pentagon.



I'm not American



True or not is irrelevant INTELLIGENT people can still see the apparant motives for the actions. Clearly you're too dense to figure it out.



Is this the best parody of my name you can come up with? Weak.





Never heard that one before.


The fact here is clear that you are just not intelligent enough to argue this with. True or not (oh which I am 95% sure it is) is really very irrelevant. You don't have a grasp on possible political gains and agendas to discuss this point with. The fact that you cannot even objectivley attempt to debunk this is laughable.

Here is a simple one for you:

How did the passengers on the planes phone people from their mobile phones at 32,000 feet. And when was the last time you introduced yourself to a family memeber on the phone with your first and last names?

How was a paper passport of one of the terrorists recovered from Ground Zero and still readable? Was he issued a titanium passport?

Thats just for starters. You obviously didn't watch Loose Change and you have debunked nothing in your four consecutive posts.

Try, try, try again...


Here's the real reason airlines are dealing you the mute button on your cell phone.

As anyone who has flown has heard, using a cellular telephone aboard an aeroplane is dangerous.


<A TARGET="_new" HREF="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v5|33b9|3|0|%2a|r%3B29720354%3B1-0%3B0%3B8637766%3B4252-336|280%3B15570050|15587946|1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.zdnet.co.uk"><IMG SRC="http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/ads/pa/ca-usi/compliance/CAcom01_300X250_qe.gif" BORDER=0></A>

American Airlines warns passengers that mobile phones "may interfere with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems." Similar warnings come from Delta, United and Continental. British Airways links cellular interference to potential problems with compasses and even cabin pressure.

What the airlines don't tell passengers is that there is no scientific evidence to support these claims. What concerns there are about cellular phones in aeroplanes dwell in the realm of anecdote and theory -- and to some extent in that of plain finance. There is money to be earned or lost by cell-phone companies and airlines if cell phones are used in-flight.

Why would airlines ban mobile phones if they cannot be used?????? Ooookkkkkaaaayyyyy.
 
Mobiles in aircraft edge closer
T
he trials were carried out on an A320 jet

Soon you could be using your mobile phone on flights as easily as you do on the High Street.
A two-year investigation has shown that mobiles can be used on planes without interfering with navigation systems.
Plane maker Airbus, which carried out the research, said the positive result paved the way for the widespread use of mobiles on aircraft.

Airbus said it was planning to put in-flight mobile phone technology on its aircraft by 2006.

High life
Before now many airlines have banned the use of mobile phones during take-off, flight and landing because of fears that they will interfere with aircraft systems and disrupt the two-way radio used by pilots.
But the two-year research project carried out by Airbus and backed by the European Commission has found that handsets can be used safely on aircraft in flight.


American Airlines has been testing an in-flight mobile phone system

The trials, carried out on an A320, successfully tested both voice calls and the sending of text messages to and from phones onboard the aircraft.

To make it possible to use a mobile on a plane, Airbus installed a picocell that creates a small mobile phone cell onboard the aircraft.

Calls via this base station were routed to mobile and fixed phones on the ground via Globalstar satellites. It also trialled several wireless network technologies such as Bluetooth, wi-fi and wideband CDMA.

The trials also simulated a medical emergency to show how the system performed when some traffic has to be prioritised.
Airbus estimates that by 2006 it will be possible to use mobiles during flights.

It is partnering with not-for-profit cooperative Sita and Seattle-based Tenzing to set up a company to equip aircraft with the in-flight mobile technology.

Airbus is not the first to carry out trials on such a system. American Airlines has been working on in-flight mobile technology for some time and plans to introduce it about the same time as Airbus. Also Boeing has set up a company called Connexion by Boeing to install wireless computer network technology on aircraft for use by passengers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3665848.stm

You cannot connect a call at 32,000 feet. A study has shown that you would have a 0.06 success rate of connecting a call. Hence why they are spending huge amounts of money installing tranceivers on planes IN 2006 to let you do this. Do I have to remind you that 9/11 was in 2001? And that many, many, many calls all strangley descriptive in nature were made and that calls to complete strangers were made instead of to loved ones?

Sorry, you've been debunked on that it only took 15 seconds of searching.

Try, try, try again..
 
Mentalist said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3665848.stm

You cannot connect a call at 32,000 feet. A study has shown that you would have a 0.06 success rate of connecting a call. Hence why they are spending huge amounts of money installing tranceivers on planes IN 2006 to let you do this. Do I have to remind you that 9/11 was in 2001? And that many, many, many calls all strangley descriptive in nature were made and that calls to complete strangers were made instead of to loved ones?

Sorry, you've been debunked on that it only took 15 seconds of searching.

Try, try, try again..

I thought the whole point of being able to crash a plane into a building was that they were much lower than 32,000 feet, by about 31,000 feet.

Those planes didnt dive into the buildings, they were already at the same height, and from that height it would be no harder making a phone call than it would be from a tall building.
 
Mentalist said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3665848.stm

You cannot connect a call at 32,000 feet. A study has shown that you would have a 0.06 success rate of connecting a call. Hence why they are spending huge amounts of money installing tranceivers on planes IN 2006 to let you do this. Do I have to remind you that 9/11 was in 2001? And that many, many, many calls all strangley descriptive in nature were made and that calls to complete strangers were made instead of to loved ones?

Sorry, you've been debunked on that it only took 15 seconds of searching.

Try, try, try again..

Altitude and Cellphone Transmission

According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.

In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.

The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.

The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?

While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report's timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.

Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.

United Airlines Flight 175

United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:

"Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight."

It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro's cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.

At 8:58, UAL 175 "took a heading toward New York City.":

"At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50 At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly."

American Airlines Flight 77

American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10... "At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet."

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot†that the plane had been hijacked....

On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission's Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:

" [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."

According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.

Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am. The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]

(Report p 7, see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf )

United Airlines Flight 93

UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93 passengers, apparently: "alerted through phone calls, attempted to subdue the hijackers. and the hijackers crashed the plane [in Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_93 ). Another version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.

According to the Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.â€70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.

The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. These cell calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and more than 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03).

"At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164"

This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)

more at Global Rsearch -August 10/23
 
whisky said:
I thought the whole point of being able to crash a plane into a building was that they were much lower than 32,000 feet, by about 31,000 feet.

Those planes didnt dive into the buildings, they were already at the same height, and from that height it would be no harder making a phone call than it would be from a tall building.

Seems you could be right. See above.
 
I can accept that altitudes were not consistant at its cruising altitude before the final aproaches but the amount of successful calls made (and the clarity) is rediculous. Also the content of the clas is highly strange. the flight attendant who just watched three murders on the plane and was explaining it to authorities from the plane sounded liek she was ordering a pizza. Her voice was totally calm. There are literally tons of odd occurances liek this and many more interesting ones than the cell phone issue.

If you want to discuss this then watch the documentary and then get back to me.


Maybe on another note someone would like to explain the obsession with the US Goverments leaders and druidic rituals and symbolism?

I suppose you also believe that Princess Diana just had an accident and wasn't murdered. That David Kelly wasn't murdered.

9/11 is chock block with inconsitant information and if you don't believe that agendas have been served for neocons and the US global interests in general since 9/11 then you are in a state of denial.

Watch the Loose Change documentary if you want to discuss this with me, simple.
 
Mentalist said:
I can accept that altitudes were not consistant at its cruising altitude before the final aproaches but the amount of successful calls made (and the clarity) is rediculous. Also the content of the clas is highly strange. the flight attendant who just watched three murders on the plane and was explaining it to authorities from the plane sounded liek she was ordering a pizza. Her voice was totally calm. There are literally tons of odd occurances liek this and many more interesting ones than the cell phone issue.

If you want to discuss this then watch the documentary and then get back to me.


Maybe on another note someone would like to explain the obsession with the US Goverments leaders and druidic rituals and symbolism?

I suppose you also believe that Princess Diana just had an accident and wasn't murdered. That David Kelly wasn't murdered.

9/11 is chock block with inconsitant information and if you don't believe that agendas have been served for neocons and the US global interests in general since 9/11 then you are in a state of denial.

Watch the Loose Change documentary if you want to discuss this with me, simple.


Hey, I am Canadian. I have not been exposed to as much bullshit as you have. We Canadians accept what happened, especially after George Bush pissed us off by claiming it was our fault because he terrorists came from here. It was not until after investigations it was discovered not one of them came from Canada that he learned to shut the fuck up.
 
Hey, I am Canadian.

As you keep saying

I have not been exposed to as much bullshit as you have.

You mean information.

We Canadians accept what happened, especially after George Bush pissed us off by claiming it was our fault because he terrorists came from here. It was not until after investigations it was discovered not one of them came from Canada that he learned to shut the fuck up.


So you accept the offical stance do you?
 
People react in different ways, sometimes when you see something very stressful the best way of handling it is to be in denial, at least in the short term, and for her, there was no long term.
 
whisky said:
People react in different ways, sometimes when you see something very stressful the best way of handling it is to be in denial, at least in the short term, and for her, there was no long term.

No way. It was weird. There is no noise coming from the background and she is acting totally normally explaining that the pilots have been stabbed to death and that "oh by the way, I cant' open the cockpit." She sounded like she was reading the weather.

It was not right.
 
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, noted theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives.

Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out."

Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story -- the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC-7.


Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen's tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victimís families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times.

He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires.

He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse.

They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell -- a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns.

The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed.

The massive core columns -- the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report -- were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.

There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust.

The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.

These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11.

Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them.

Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion.

The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Itís important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it.

These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert.

As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bushís advice not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administrationís conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

"'The number of contradictions in the official version of... 9/11 is so overwhelming that... it simply cannot be believed. Yet... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administrationís lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.

Dr. Griffin's speech given at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year, entitled "9/11 and the American Empire," was broadcast twice on C-SPAN.

In late September Dr. Griffin was asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Claremont College in California.

This weekend's events were sponsored by NY911truth.org, WBAI and the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com.

Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET
http://mujca.com

October 21, 2005



SCHOLARS FOR TRUTH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

DR DAVID RAY GRIFFIN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
 
Mentalist said:
No way. It was weird. There is no noise coming from the background and she is acting totally normally explaining that the pilots have been stabbed to death and that "oh by the way, I cant' open the cockpit." She sounded like she was reading the weather.

It was not right.

Ever seen the film of the bradford football stadium inferno?

It was something I watched live, in the space of 90 seconds a normal football game turned into a disaster in which 90 people burned to death.

The comitator who was covering teh game reported calmly on the sights in front of him, even when a man dressed in a bussiness suit calmly walked onto the pitch entirely head to foot on fire.

Not everyone goes to peices in teh face of adversity.
 
If I had to guess, I would say that buildings in NY arent subject to earthquake proofing.

You've already said earlier that when the two towers came down they generated earth quakes, they probably damaged the foundations of building 7.

And not all the rubble dropped neatly into the footprints, big enough chunks came down to wreck fire engines, so some of those most have gone into the sides of other buildings.
 
The towers recorded 2.1 and 2.3 respectivly. While that isn't exactly a small tremor it isn't large enough to bring down a skyscraper. WTC7 should not have come down. It was the third skyscraper to come down due to fire in the history of the world. The first two?

The twin towers.

And how did it catch on fire? all the buildings around it were untouched, yet WTC7 fell in a neat pile in six seconds of free fall.

Fireman all reported hearing numerous explosions and seeing flashes inside. (all hallmarks of detonators.) Larry Silverstein had just bought a 3.2 billion dollar 99 year lease on WTC7 six weeks prior. In the lease he was protected from acts of terrorism.

HDD from WTC7 were also sent to a german company to pull data from (the normal office computers that were obviously destroyed in the collapse) they found proof of insider trading and contacted the FBI. To this day no investegation has ever been persued by the FBI on that matter.

It seems to me that they had many secondary objectives to gain from dropping WTC7.

It does not add up. Skyscrapers don't just collapse. The Madid tower burned for almost 24 hours and obliteratred the entire building it spanned somthing like 40 floors before reaching the roof. While the building was damaged beyond repair the steel skeleton stood strong and did not collapse. The same can be said for EVERY fire in EVERY skyscraper ever. Until 9/11.
 
Could an alternative theory be that the WTC just wasnt built well?

That maybe because they are the only skyscrapers to fall down because of fire in history be because they were poorly assembled on the cheap and rushed to get the buildings up on schedule?
 
Mentalist said:
The towers recorded 2.1 and 2.3 respectivly. While that isn't exactly a small tremor it isn't large enough to bring down a skyscraper. WTC7 should not have come down. It was the third skyscraper to come down due to fire in the history of the world. The first two?

The twin towers.

And how did it catch on fire? all the buildings around it were untouched, yet WTC7 fell in a neat pile in six seconds of free fall.

Fireman all reported hearing numerous explosions and seeing flashes inside. (all hallmarks of detonators.) Larry Silverstein had just bought a 3.2 billion dollar 99 year lease on WTC7 six weeks prior. In the lease he was protected from acts of terrorism.

HDD from WTC7 were also sent to a german company to pull data from (the normal office computers that were obviously destroyed in the collapse) they found proof of insider trading and contacted the FBI. To this day no investegation has ever been persued by the FBI on that matter.

It seems to me that they had many secondary objectives to gain from dropping WTC7.

It does not add up. Skyscrapers don't just collapse. The Madid tower burned for almost 24 hours and obliteratred the entire building it spanned somthing like 40 floors before reaching the roof. While the building was damaged beyond repair the steel skeleton stood strong and did not collapse. The same can be said for EVERY fire in EVERY skyscraper ever. Until 9/11.


Question. Did this 'Madid' Tower have a high-speed commercial airliner fly into it? Just curious.
 
SaintLucifer said:
You fucking Americans are stupid. Muslims run around saying 'we didn't do it, the Zionists of Israel did it'. This had you questioning actually video footage. Get fucking real. It was Muslim psycho terrorists. No one else. Yes, there were interceptors in the skies. Right after the two planes crashed into the towers. You and your stupid fucking conspiracy theories. You actually believe your own government would do this to their own people? Fuck you are all dumber than our Canadian logs.
Trying to troll an issue of such import and intellectual curiosity only makes you look more like a teenage idiot, you fecking idiot.

I really didn't think it was possible to have an even lower opinion of such a low-class troll such as yourself. We can recommend some shit forums where your sort of 'thing' might work.
 
Mentalist said:
The towers recorded 2.1 and 2.3 respectivly. While that isn't exactly a small tremor it isn't large enough to bring down a skyscraper. WTC7 should not have come down. It was the third skyscraper to come down due to fire in the history of the world. The first two?

The twin towers.

And how did it catch on fire? all the buildings around it were untouched, yet WTC7 fell in a neat pile in six seconds of free fall.

Fireman all reported hearing numerous explosions and seeing flashes inside. (all hallmarks of detonators.) Larry Silverstein had just bought a 3.2 billion dollar 99 year lease on WTC7 six weeks prior. In the lease he was protected from acts of terrorism.

HDD from WTC7 were also sent to a german company to pull data from (the normal office computers that were obviously destroyed in the collapse) they found proof of insider trading and contacted the FBI. To this day no investegation has ever been persued by the FBI on that matter.

It seems to me that they had many secondary objectives to gain from dropping WTC7.

It does not add up. Skyscrapers don't just collapse. The Madid tower burned for almost 24 hours and obliteratred the entire building it spanned somthing like 40 floors before reaching the roof. While the building was damaged beyond repair the steel skeleton stood strong and did not collapse. The same can be said for EVERY fire in EVERY skyscraper ever. Until 9/11.

The flashes inside. Perhaps electrical fires that had started and shorts were the 'explosions'? How about liquid containers. You know? The 'explosive' kind used by janitors when cleaning portions of the building?? You do realise how extreme the head would be from burning aviation fuel yes? So someone who stood to gain cash from a building going down knew terrorists were going to fly commercial airliners into their building and acted accordingly? 'Hello Hamid, are you ready to round up your pals and fly your planes into the WTC that I may make a fortune collecting on the insurance?' Of course the fucker's lease had the WTC protected from terrorism. Had there not been an attempt by terrorists previously to take down the building via underground garages and bombs? The WORLD knew the WTC was now a major target of terrorism. If someone had attempted to blow up your home but failed, would you not also purchase extra coverage against terrorism? MORON. I have an idea. Grab a jet airliner and fly it into the Sears tower. If it remains standing then perhaps you are quite correct. Let me see, how fast was the airliners flying before they hit the towers? 680 mph? Whew. I guess that is nothing to a building. I suggest you drive your automobile into your home at a speed of 150 mph and tell me what happens. Learn the physics of FORCE you dimweed. *pats you atop your head* Be a good little boy and peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
 
Messenger said:
Trying to troll an issue of such import and intellectual curiosity only makes you look more like a teenage idiot, you fecking idiot.

I really didn't think it was possible to have an even lower opinion of such a low-class troll such as yourself. We can recommend some shit forums where your sort of 'thing' might work.

I merely point out there was no 'conspiracy'. Terrorists, bent on destroying the very symbol of American economic might, decided to make themselves heard. They flew commercial airliners into the WTC. What more do you want? It was a 'conspiracy' alright. A conspiracy by Al Quaida to destroy the WTC. Christ people. Get lives.
 
Top