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.
With all of the surveillance cameras throughout D.C and on the Pentagon, what are the chances that not 1 camera caught not even 1 clear glimpse of a 747 flying thru D.C and into our nations most protected building?
Now ask yourself, which seems more unlikely?
I'll tell you what seems likely.
Someone who can't even get the official details straight about what happened is likely to be completely wrong about any far-fetched conspiracy theory they promote.
The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by The New York Times in late 2001 and by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study. This idea is also untenable. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second
You cite an opinion written on a truther site as your source?
Seriously?
And to top it off, you didn't even provide a link to your source. Awesome. You guys never fail to amuse.
Someone who can't even get the official details straight about what happened is likely to be completely wrong about any far-fetched conspiracy theory they promote.
It was a 757, not a 747.
Haha, you're so desperate right now that you're nitpicking on something that really has no releveance. Both are very large planes. Now had I claimed it was a single engine cesna, then you would have a reason to make this an issue! LOL.
Haha, you're so desperate right now that you're nitpicking on something that really has no releveance. Both are very large planes.
I stand corrected. It was a 757. Not 747. Happy!
You say it's irrelevant. I say that your not even knowing the basics of what you're claiming didn't happen is indicative of your lack of ability to form a well thought out and researched opinion.
In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so why should anybody listen to you?
You cite an opinion written on a truther site as your source?
Seriously?
And to top it off, you didn't even provide a link to your source. Awesome. You guys never fail to amuse.
Opinion? WE SAW THE BUILDING FALL! Its not heresay or rumors. It was televised on live TV! Please enlighten us Swagger. If the building didnt fall into its own footprint, then how did it fall?
Opinion? WE SAW THE BUILDING FALL! Its not heresay or rumors. It was televised on live TV! Please enlighten us Swagger. If the building didnt fall into its own footprint, then how did it fall?
Do you know what the term "footprint" means? I'm sure you think you do, but you probably don't and wouldn't ever admit it, so I'll tell you. In this context, it means the space on the ground that the building occupied before it collapsed.
I live in Las Vegas, and have seen controlled demolitions of hotels that actually fell into their own footprint.
WTC7 did not.
THAT is a fact, and if you're not able to accept that one simple and unavoidable fact, simply because it doesn't conform to your preconceived idea of what happened that day, then you're clearly not interested in facts or the truth, but you instead have some sort of... issue... I can't go into what I believe is at the core of that... issue... without running the risk of receiving an infraction, and frankly, you're not worth that.
The one that baffles me the most is that it somehow shows George W. Bush does a good job on terrorism
He only allowed the biggest terrorist attack in history to happen on US soil without lifting a finger to prevent it. Lied about it, and is somehow considered a hero by the adoring 'liberal' media who fall over themselves to kiss his feet. It's a disgusting spectacle.
The Bush administration is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens. I think he belongs in Gitmo.
BTW, I'm still waiting for evidence supporting this claim.
If you had your tv on that day and were watching the various news outlets, you would not need to ask me for evidence supporting this claim. You would have seen what millions of Americans saw, and that was the media releasing the identities of the 9/11 highjackers shortly after both planes hitting the towers.
Funny how they knew everything about the attacks within hours of the attack yet claim they didnt see this coming! Maybe our govt is as dumb as you.
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.
Its not heresay or rumors. It was televised on live TV! Please enlighten us Swagger. If the building didnt fall into its own footprint, then how did it fall?
