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 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.
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.
It shows that our own military leaders have been and ARE capable of horrible acts of terrorism and then keeping it a secret. That is one of the reasons why millions of people are convinced that 9/11 was a false flag operation.
How exactly does what our military leaders from decades ago take part in prove what our CURRENT military leaders are capable of? You don't make any sense with your post, and completely ignore the fact that that government and this government are two completely separate entities. Seriously just think about your logic, it makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT
'Straw man arguements'? What a joke. I am merely pointing out the obvious - namely that the nearly free-fall collapse of the 3 towers defies the laws of physics, as supported by numerous scientists, and that the many suspicious events leading up to and following 9-11, lead straight to the Whitehouse. Understood?
Yes you are merely pointing out things that no one was talking about so you can change the direction of the debate. Thats call straw man arguments. Anyways there are experts on both sides that say opposing things, the physics of the 3 towers collapsing has been explained thoroughly on a number of webesites, Popular Mechanics being a major one.
And I love how "suspicious events" somehow prove that George Bush was responsible for it all.
Over 700 architects say the towers came down by controlled demolition. I think they are much more credible than a magazine article (Popular Mechanics):
Over 700 architects say the towers came down by controlled demolition. I think they are much more credible than a magazine article (Popular Mechanics):
Popular Mechanics consulted with building and engineering experts. You would know that if you had read the article. If you haven't, you seriously need to do so.
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.
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. Stretches, but I don't know enough to say it's impossible. So I asked you this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
I don't dismiss anything as a possibility, given the deception practiced in the Bush administration and by many others throughout history.
But help me understand the plan you are suggesting here. Why use controlled demolition as well as airliners flying into the building? Did they think the damage and death caused by the crashes insufficient to stir enough anger to advance the neocon agenda? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite get the motivation for controlled demolition.
And you answered with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges
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
Sure, I understand the idea of eradicating all evidence and by that I assumed you meant eradicating evidence that would be found relating to the plane crashes. So the next logical step in the discussion was for me to ask your theory on what evidence would be found about the plane crashes. So I asked you this:
Quote:
Ok, I'll stay with you for the moment because, as I said, I don't dismiss any possibility without good reason. And I'll let you know when/if my good sense tells me to stop listening.
So go on. What would the "eradicated evidence" have shown?
And you came back with this answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges
Solid evidence of controlled demolition.
which I found surprising to say the least because you must know that it destroys the credibility of your suggestion in a single sentence. Why on earth would anyone go through all of the planning and preparation necessary to bring down the towers using controlled demolition just to eradicate evidence of that same act? If they brought down the towers to eradicate evidence, the evidence in question would have to be related to the plane crashes.
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.
How exactly does what our military leaders from decades ago take part in prove what our CURRENT military leaders are capable of?
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.
'Yes you are merely pointing out things that no one was talking about so you can change the direction of the debate. Thats call straw man arguments. Anyways there are experts on both sides that say opposing things, the physics of the 3 towers collapsing has been explained thoroughly on a number of webesites, Popular Mechanics being a major one.[/quote]
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?
'Yes you are merely pointing out things that no one was talking about so you can change the direction of the debate. Thats call straw man arguments. Anyways there are experts on both sides that say opposing things, the physics of the 3 towers collapsing has been explained thoroughly on a number of webesites, Popular Mechanics being a major one
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?
No plane touched tower 7 but it had long-burning fires and damage caused by debris from the North Tower's collapse.
There was much more damage to tower 7 than the FEMA report indicated. About one-third of the south face had physical damage.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) discovered previously undocumented damgage to tower 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. The south face was obscured by smoke, making it difficult to make direct observations of damage from photos or videos.
Large fires were burning in WTC 5 and 6, as well as in WTC 7.
This according to the NIST's June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC disaster.
As for the collapse, the entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
Popular Mechanics consulted with building and engineering experts. You would know that if you had read the article. If you haven't, you seriously need to do so.
A lot more credible than a youtube video!
I don't get my information from magazines that are subject to the opinion of ONE editor.
Seven hundred architects and engineers coming together is much more interesting to me.
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.
