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.
None of the buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds. You've been so had.
They all learn the same terms from the truther sites. It's like a cult.
I used to naively think if people like workingclasshero and me just put a little logic into the conversation, it would register and maybe even be welcomed, but it doesn't. They aren't looking for actual information.
I wonder why after 12 hours of fire, Grenfell Tower still stands, why Building 7, which was not hit by a plane like the Twin Towers, fell into its own footprint. Hmmmm.
The difference is, the London buildings weren't rigged with explosives and had members of the Bush crime family controlling its security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
9/11 required money, patience, smarts and organization. Do not underestimate our enemies, they possess all four. There were exploitable holes in our security and intelligent people could pick them out, analyze and exploit them.
Muslim terrorists controlled and ran a good chunk of Iraq & Syria for years. That's a good deal more elaborate and complicated than hijacking 4 jets.
Compared to the cockamamie scheme you're implying took place, it was simplicity itself.
It does sound a bit far-fetched, but even more far-fetched are magical airplanes that cause a modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse in the manner of controlled demolition. Why would the Twin Towers come down when the airplanes impacted at the very top? Does chopping the top ten feet of a hundred foot tall tree cause the entire tree to collapse? Maybe in a cartoon. But in the real world, not so much.
Cockamamie? maybe to you and me and to normal people, but not to power-obsessed oligarchs and neocons who had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull it off. in light of the trillions of dollars it has made for them, and the oil and defense industries they represent, it wasn't so crazy. sociopathic yes, but not pointless. people have killed for far less. the pursuit of power and wealth by any means is as old as time itself. Remember what Hitler said,
"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler
and they know the american public are gullible and would not question it. you are living proof of that. they managed to fool an entire nation into war with Iraq based on a complete fabrication, didn't they? an unprovoked, incredibly violent invasion of a sovereign country that didn't do anything to us, resulting in the pointless deaths of thousands of American citizens and many more Iraqis. what makes you think they couldn't do the same with 9/11? that's what despots do. they kill their own people in the pursuit of wealth and power. Hitler, Stalin, the Saudi king, Kim Jong-Il, etc. the Bush Crime Family are no different.
Sorry to break it to you but the myth of American exceptionalism is just that, a myth.
Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush, was on the board of directors of Union Bank which was seized by the US government under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Union Bank laundered money for the Nazi regime before and during World War 2.
Well, uh, I thought I started this about conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true by general consensus/later data/etc. There is no consensus about 9/11, though.
The difference is, the London buildings weren't rigged with explosives...
Oh sure. Ignore the massive structural differences and focus on the unproven assertion, that's convincing.
Quote:
It does sound a bit far-fetched
Ya think?
Quote:
but even more far-fetched are magical airplanes that cause a modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse
The aircraft didn't cause the collapse. Structural damage from the impact plus the fires triggered by a 10,000 gallon molotov cocktail did.
Quote:
in the manner of controlled demolition.
Gravity pulls downward. Pretty firmly so. Controlled demolitions look the way they do because buildings will head downwards once the collapse starts.
Quote:
Why would the Twin Towers come down when the airplanes impacted at the very top?
The planes didn't impact at the very top.
Quote:
Does chopping the top ten feet of a hundred foot tall tree cause the entire tree to collapse?
Buildings are not trees (nor tables), we covered that. (Using trees as buildings come with several drawbacks, a major one being the lack of interior volume.) Buildings are designed to support (mostly) static loads. Once you get a collapse that makes a sizable part of the building move downward, the dynamic load will overwhelm the rest of the building. That is, in fact, the same mechanism used in controlled demolition.
Buildings are not trees (nor tables), we covered that. (Using trees as buildings come with several drawbacks, a major one being the lack of interior volume.) Buildings are designed to support (mostly) static loads. Once you get a collapse that makes a sizable part of the building move downward, the dynamic load will overwhelm the rest of the building. That is, in fact, the same mechanism used in controlled demolition.
Doesn't matter what the object is, the physics are the same.
Only in cartoonland does compromising the top tenth, or even top half of any kind of rigid structure causes the whole thing to completely collapse in on itself, or at all.
Doesn't matter what the object is, the physics are the same.
Only in cartoonland does compromising the top tenth, or even top half of any kind of rigid structure causes the whole thing to completely collapse in on itself, or at all.
You're unfamiliar with the difference between static and dynamic load? If you saw off the top 10 floors of a 100-floor building, lift them 10 feet, and drop them - do the remaining 90 floors just remain standing?
There have been many true conspiracies, however the vast majority of them were not discovered by 13 year olds that think that they have an enlightened philosophy now because they just watched the Matrix for the first time.
Which seems to be the operating mentality of most of the "conspiracy theorists" I've run across.
You're unfamiliar with the difference between static and dynamic load? If you saw off the top 10 floors of a 100-floor building, lift them 10 feet, and drop them - do the remaining 90 floors just remain standing?
A "dynamic load" doesn't just keep accelerating when it impacts another substantial rigid structure. A car doesn't keep accelerating when it hits a brick wall, or when it hits another car. The wall causes the car to slow and stop. But the top block above the impact zone did not slow down at all as it crushed through millions of tons of solid structural steel and concrete beneath it. That can only happen with controlled demolition.
When a boxer hits someone in the face his fist slows down from the impact. But according to your logic his fist doesn't slow down at all by the impact, but keeps accelerating as if his opponent's face wasn't even there. That would violate all the known laws of physics. The floors of a modern skyscraper are not made of pancakes nor do they behave like pancakes - they cannot crush and accelerate through each other as if the other floors were not even there. That only happens in cartoons.
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.
