Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm with you on this. The thought has crossed my mind as well that the towers coming down as they did solely as a result of the fires from the planes stretches credibility and that there might be more to the story.
So we're right back to the original question. Another poster suggested that it was done to cause that much more death and destruction. OK, that's possible, but then why do you need the planes? Just to make it more graphic and horrifying? That's possible too.
But what makes no sense is to say the towers were bought down by controlled demolition to eradicate evidence of controlled demolition.
I have no idea what happened that day. All I know is that no high-rise has ever fallen due to fire, even after burning for days, and that jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel. 700 engineers and architects agree.
I found it suspicious that all the building rubble was immediately removed and shipped out of the country. This is a crime scene, and it was totally tampered with before investigators could see it. Why? So nobody could see evidence of sheared-off steel beams proving controlled demolition? So nobody could look at the plane parts closely?
There are so many, many so-called coincidences that day that are simply not believable as coincidences.
Here is Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics talking about finding and matching DNA from the hijackers. Go to about 6:00 in the video and listen carefully. WOW! UNBELIVABLE!
As I posted before, Popular Mechanics consulted with and obtained information from building and engineering experts.
I also posted info from the NIST.
I am more interested in what you think of the davin coburn (from Popular Mechanics) interview I posted. Go to about 6:00 on the video. What do you think of what he says?
It doesn't prove that at all, of course. What it is intended to do is open your mind to possibilities that would not otherwise ever occur to you.
Part of the wisdom gained as you get older is gaining an understanding of how little you really know about what is going on in the world. Because, after all, all things that you do not observe with you own eyes are hearsay. We make assumptions based on what we are told by others and I think many of us tend to assume more honesty and integrity than really exits out there.
The older I get, the more I'm convinced that people who are honest and of conscience tend to significantly underestimate the evil man is capable of.
Hypocrisy alert. You are trying to get people to do exactly what I bolded in your post. Bringing up stories from previous administrations as evidence that the Bush administration would have acted the same exact way is trying to make people ASSUME that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy based on nothing but what you say. There is nothing concrete or logical that links the government to the WTC attacks. Nothing. You can talk about how you learn to distrust the government when you get older all you want, but you should also learn to not be so easily swayed by baseless arguments. It takes a lot evidence to convince me of something, and there has been none to back up your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT
Hahaha. Shows how little you know. Your heros, the Popular Mechanics psuedo-scientists were easily dismantled by Charles Goyette. And since the info is so widely disseminated, why don't YOU tell us how tower 7 fell at free fall speed when no plane even touched it?
Well seeing as how Popular Mechanics didn't use their own knowledge to describe what happened in the 9/11 attacks, rather they collected it from hundreds of experts in their respective fields, debating with them doesn't really mean much. Now while some of the points made about popular mechanics have been refuted by many sources, nothing of importance has been shown to be wrong. Not to mention.... YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. Which is exactly what this thread is about. Popular Mechanics is still a good way to learn about the actual physics of how the buildings went down, but no one said it was perfect.
If you know everything about the 9/11 attacks already, why don't YOU tell ME why WTC 7 fell? and then provide evidence, because that seems to be your weakness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges
I have no idea what happened that day. All I know is that no high-rise has ever fallen due to fire, even after burning for days, and that jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel. 700 engineers and architects agree.
I found it suspicious that all the building rubble was immediately removed and shipped out of the country. This is a crime scene, and it was totally tampered with before investigators could see it. Why? So nobody could see evidence of sheared-off steel beams proving controlled demolition? So nobody could look at the plane parts closely?
There are so many, many so-called coincidences that day that are simply not believable as coincidences.
You do realize that jet fuel didn't need to melt the steel, only weaken it right? The jet fuel burns hotter than other fires, which explains why it got hot enough to weaken the steel supports enough for them to sag. After they started to sag like that, they eventually gave way under the immense weight of the building. The floors then picked up momentum as they collapsed which explains why they fell at free fall speeds.
You then state your speculations as to why this and that happened at the aftermath of the attacks. You provide no evidence nor logical reason to believe what you say, rather all you have are abstract speculations based on nothing but your imagination.
So you guys, even if it was some how magically proven that controlled demolition was used in the WTC attacks... What in the world makes you think that proves Bush had anything to do with it? Hell maybe the terrorists put them there as well. You people offer no evidence nor logical explanations for what you suggest, and should be ignored until you can come up with actual solid evidence.
I am more interested in what you think of the davin coburn (from Popular Mechanics) interview I posted. Go to about 6:00 on the video. What do you think of what he says?
In other words, you don't really have a reply to my post?
I watched the video. Nothing in there I haven't seen or read before.
Building and engineering experts gave credible and accurate answers as to how the WTC buildings collapsed, including tower 7. You seem to want to ignore the facts I posted about tower 7. Don't believe wackos like Rosie O'Donnell who says "fire doesn't melt steel!"
The fact is that terrorists, at least one whom was seen on a security camera shortly before the 9/11 attacks, hijacked 4 airplanes and used them as cruise missiles and crashed them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon (and the one that crashed into rural Pennsylvania).
It wasn't an inside U.S. government job, it wasn't done by space aliens or bigfoot. It was done by foreign-born terrorists.
And hopefully, no one will bring up the other wacko conspiracy theory... it was a "missile" which hit the Pentagon. We've had enough crazy conspiracy claims for one day!
Hypocrisy alert. You are trying to get people to do exactly what I bolded in your post. Bringing up stories from previous administrations as evidence that the Bush administration would have acted the same exact way is trying to make people ASSUME that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy based on nothing but what you say. There is nothing concrete or logical that links the government to the WTC attacks. Nothing. You can talk about how you learn to distrust the government when you get older all you want, but you should also learn to not be so easily swayed by baseless arguments. It takes a lot evidence to convince me of something, and there has been none to back up your claims.
Where's the "Beam me up, Scotty" icon when I really need it? This has got to be one of the most irrelevant and hysterical posts I've ever seen on this forum. You have really lost it here.
1) I'm not trying to get you to do anything..well..except maybe close mouth and engage brain. I mistakenly took the time to explain one possible reason why the other poster might have made reference to a past military conspiracy. I see now that I was trying to have a discussion "with a kitchen table"
2) I have come to no conclusion whatsoever, but merely asked probing questions. Clearly you don't even know how to read.
3) Trust me - I am a lot less easily swayed than you are. It is clear that you are very quick to jump to the most foolish conclusions.
4) It takes a lot evidence to convince you of something? You've offered evidence to the contrary.
5) I made no claims. GOT IT? You are very, very confused.
Little wonder I keep hearing about the ignore list. End of discussion.
I have no idea what happened that day. All I know is that no high-rise has ever fallen due to fire, even after burning for days, and that jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel. 700 engineers and architects agree.
I found it suspicious that all the building rubble was immediately removed and shipped out of the country. This is a crime scene, and it was totally tampered with before investigators could see it. Why? So nobody could see evidence of sheared-off steel beams proving controlled demolition? So nobody could look at the plane parts closely?
There are so many, many so-called coincidences that day that are simply not believable as coincidences.
Not one of those 700 architects and engineers in the A&E truth group were at the GZ site or at Fresh Kills examining the evidencing and analyzing the collapse. The hundreds in those professions who WERE there say there was no evidence of anything other than a structural failure. There are about 25,000 engineers in the ASCE who agree with them.
Stick to facts. Nobody ever claimed the steel melted. All of the steel was not sold off and shipped out of the country. The government did not control and manage the cleanup all by itself.
I also was born more than 60 years ago. Other high-rise buildings have been struck by large planes and burned for days, yet never collapsed. Please explain why Building 7 collapsed in free-fall. And explain why the 9/11 Commission did not even mention Bldg 7 in their report.
The 9/11 Commission was not an analysis of the structural damage at all, and anyway, the NIST report on 7 was not completed before the Commission report was published. The collapse is explained. You don't like the answer, so you are re-asking hoping for a different answer?
The Commission report's purpose was to analyze where the intelligence and response failures were that allowed the attacks to happen. Whether it accomplished that or not is a matter of dispute, but many of their recommendations are still not implemented.
Surely you understand the idea of eradicating ALL evidence.
Oh, except that little piece of paper that magically flew out of the "hijacker's" pocket inside the plane, somehow escaped the fiery explosion and floated down to the ground unscathed, "proving" that hijacker's existence on the plane. LOL
Lame. The passport wasn't unscathed, and it wasn't the only document from a passenger on the plane, either.
And don't try to pull that "but the plane was completely vaporized/incinerated upon explosion" schtick because I was there and I know that's not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where's the "Beam me up, Scotty" icon when I really need it? This has got to be one of the most irrelevant and hysterical posts I've ever seen on this forum. You have really lost it here.
