Was 911 all planned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah ok read my post above that one and that will answer both of those, sorry to burst your truther bubble. you also have to remember to calculate in that it wasn't just jet fuel burning in the building, there's a lot of plastic (which are made of what, boys and girls? hydrocarbons). it can't be individually calculated, go get me access to the supercomputer and a team like Purdue has, and then maybe, but until then this pointless tabloid trash isn't worth my time.

edit: if you're going to get onto me about that "duhurr it fell faster than free fall!", that's impossible without an outside force pushing or pulling it down enough to break the normal air resistance, because there's a thing called terminal velocity. nothing experiences true free fall within earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that jet fuel and burning plastic had enough thermal energy to take each of the floors to the brink of collapse, including the main steel columns? To such a degree that the structure would collapse straight down? Into the area of most resistance? Perhaps if you give me something a little bit more concrete (hahahaha, sorry), then I might be persuaded.

You also seem to be saying that the issue of thermal conductance in the structure, and huge cooling effect of the structure from the prevailing wind should be ignored because you feel it would take a supercomputer to reach a satisfactory answer. It sounds like you're just dismissing information there, because you don't want to have to deal with it. Ok, we'll just throw that bit out then, shall we? Reminds me of the NIST report. Great methodology - 'we'll get rid of that bit, we can't answer it'.

Good job the architects thought of that bit and the entire superstructure was designed to act as a heatsink (without the use of a supercomputer, too). This is one of the reasons that steel structured building don't collapse due to fire - EVER!!

Oh wait, apart from those three on 9/11.

I also stand by my question to which you referred me to a previous post. If that's your answer, then you have a very limited understanding of what you are claiming to know. Laughable.

Faster than freefall? Loading answers and presuming what I meant may be a wonderful boost to your swaggering intellectual ego, and may give you a fleeting self-masturbatory buzz.... Sadly, all it does is make you seem a tiny bit ignorant once again. What about the upward force? Yes, THE STRUCTURE!! Falling at NEAR FREEFALL speed would indicate the complete lack of resistance from the underlying structure.

"Dude you're the conspiracy theorist". That sticks so well.

Oh, oh, oh!!! Not quite done yet..... I forgot to laugh at this bit:

you don't think that the steel had been heated enough to reach that brittle point to where the second plane striking would cause such a strong vibration in the area that all the weight on top of the already weakened structure would cause it to fall?
Click to expand...

erm...now I'm done.

:R:
 


Well i was avoiding this thread for a while, because I knew it would turn into a festival of ignorance with the people blaming 9/11 on cavemen. I did a search on "ppc click fraud" and this came up so i guess i'll jump back in.

Isn't it funny how the people who want to debate the "truthers" do so just by making fun of them, or showing stupid little cartoon strips that were made by a disgruntled 40 year old man living in his mom's basement? Their arguments are about as scientific as Noah's Arc, and about as plausible as Miss Cleo's psychic readings.

For all of the people who have done little to no REAL research (9/11 cartoons don't count) please keep your mouths shut until you research Building 7. If that's too much work for you then just get off the thread. Debate about something you actually bothered to read up on.
 
Well said.. Sorry to disappoint your search results.
 
Ya I saw truth rising. Interesting but I am not sure if people who havent considered that this was not by brown people would take this as proof.

As for the non believers and the refuters BBC has decided to despute Tower 7 which has been a sticking point as it was not hit by a plane. And yet fell into its footprint. And the BBC reporter stood in front of it and said it already fell when it was standing there.

Video "Conspiracy Files 911 - The Third Tower Part 1 of 3" | sevenload

There are 2 other videos there on the right side.

This is unfortunately what most people will get their info from. And the BBC name is so hard to blow off. But try as you watch it, ask yourself if they are answering all your questions and asking the tough questions of the people they talk to.

Then watch Alex Jones site for the refute of the refute. Sorry to link off to AJ but he is doing some of the best research on these matters.

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 
here's what I say about this thread okay:

purple-drank.jpg
 
Yeah I was listening to them discuss the new BBC piece on 9/11.. The way they made it sound was freaking hilarious.. Amazing in every debunking piece they always, always sidestep on important issues and don't disclose the topic 100%.
 
Deckah said:
Yeah I was listening to them discuss the new BBC piece on 9/11.. The way they made it sound was freaking hilarious.. Amazing in every debunking piece they always, always sidestep on important issues and don't disclose the topic 100%.
Click to expand...


This the BBC thing that was on TV a couple of days ago? (About building 7?) From what I saw it seemed fairly even, although I missed the end.

Anyone who laps up what they are fed without question is a fool, Alex Jones has his own Agenda just as Rupert Murdoch does and though I'm generally in agreement with those who don't believe the official version of events I think it's a shame wankers like Alex Jones (and to a lesser extent Michael Moore) are seen as representative of anyone wanting to know the truth.
 
You know, what's said in the various videos and blogs is all good 'n' all, but I can't but feel that if the government, with all their resources, were going to plan such an horrific event, they'd do a damned sight better job of it.

Sure, governments are frequently incompetent, but the few bits hinting of direct involvement are SO out there, unless you're into "Let's guess the illuminati double-treble-back-bluff" games, it's just not happening.
 
SeoReborn said:
The plan...

<object height="339" width="420">


<embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x1eikt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="339" width="420"></object>
Click to expand...
Guys, does anyone know the name of or where to find the full video that begins here? SeoReborn and I have both been trying to find the full thing unsuccessfully. Thanks.
 
Everybody's gotta learn sometime

There you go, ummdav1d!!


EDIT: You can get it on torrent, but not many people are seeding it at the moment. If you want better quality, then I'm sure that I have some rapidshare links for it - I'll try and track them down for you.
 
SeoReborn said:
January 2001, Bush Sought to "Find A Way" to Invade Iraq

<object height="339" width="420">


<embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x5n0dx" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="339" width="420"></object>



One other thing is....he signed to cut taxes significantly..which is why the currency is dropping in value now!
Click to expand...
Ohh, forgot iran!

On the BBC a few days ago there was a thing about conspiracies and the 3rd tower on main prime time TV! Probably sent a shock to those ignorant fucks out there.

Atleast this forum doesn't have dumbass people do defend this crap!
 
katoved said:
I stopped reading and researching this stuff because it robs you of your time. Im pretty sure though that some of its true.
Click to expand...

Thats probably true. I really am not an expert or worry about this too much.

If you spent a ton of time and money you could probably figure out who killed Kennedy definitively. But who cares.

Vietnam was bad, we know that. Kennedy was against it. Then he was killed and Johnson followed the war path.

9/11 has more people interested in the official story being believed. It would be much more difficult to prove to everyone's satisfaction.

And the only thing to learn would be dont trust politicians, war profiteers, and that war is bad.

Who didn't know that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back