Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
Hi Tomasz,
I am not so sure now about that web. Money helping always takes me out.
Still, things may work like that.
what do you think ?Cheers.
-
Watched the 6 videos. Okay, there are some question marks there still. Check out this, Conspiracists misrepresent WTC 7's condition
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition
-
Its a tragedy that in the US there has not one elected person, from either party, or senator, that has stood up to speak about 911 and the subsequent war. In Britain they have at least one..... GEORGE GALLOWAY!
-
Olly wrote:
@unknownuser said:
the first ever steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire. (don't forget world trade centre 7 that mysteriously collapsed)
the first ever plane wreckage to disintegrate and "vaporize".
the first ever plane crash to have no bodies or blood.
bullshit.
You think the report or the incident is bullshit?
-
the incident.
sorry if my comments are crude.
I just do not believe it. too convenient.
the 'hijackers' took over planes with pen knives? and the passengers just sat there and let it happen? bullshit.
-
the first ever steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire. (don't forget world trade centre 7 that mysteriously collapsed as well)
the first ever plane wreckage to disintegrate and "vaporize".
the first ever plane wreckage to have no bodies or blood.
bullshit.
-
Will we ever know the truth?
Most importantly what would happen if indeed this is the truth and the whole "war on terror" "axis of evil" is a lie?
-
that question is going to be asked for the next 100 years
-
my first gut reaction when i heard about 9/11 was that the Americans did it themselves (way too perfect, on many levels)and it still is. it just suites there needs too well.
-
Oli, how many skyscrapers have had planes crash in to them? i havent done an exhaustive search but im guessing its in single figures. Could have been a factor in the fact they fell down, could have been a factor in the fact there wasnt a lot of wreckage and could have been a factor in the lack of bodies. Just speculating of course.
-
no offense BTW, when i say Americans i of course mean the American government not the American people.
-
Popular Mechanics has debunked these insane 9/11 conspiracies. I suggest all you "truthers" read the report and then try to get a life. I can't believe that so many people can be so weak minded.
-
@unknownuser said:
I can't believe that so many people can be so weak minded.
Just accepting what you are told on TV is weak minded, questioning what you are told is not weak minded.
-
This applies well here,
"They professed themselves to be wise, even as they became fools..."
-
David, I assume you swollowed the whole WMD show and tell by Bush, Rumsveld and Powell as fact also?
-
The first ever steel frame buildings to collapse due to fire?
1967 original heavy steel constructed McCormick Place exhibition center collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire.
1997 Sight and Sound Theatre, with a steel rigid frame, collapsed due to fire.
1997 three 4-story buildings at the Kader Toy Factory in Singapore caught fire and collapsed under two hours.
Structural steel loses about 50% of its strength at 1000 degrees F. Around 1850 degrees it's down to 10 percent. Jet fuel burns at 800-1500 degrees F.
-
Feel this is like a Déjà vu...
Although I can't seem to find it any more, I recall we had a similar thread a year ago...
I recall that in particular Coen was very active in that particular discussion...@solo said:
Just accepting what you are told on TV is weak minded, questioning what you are told is not weak minded.
I agree that it's good to questioning things, but trying to argue (I'm not pointing my finger at you, Pete) with things that aren't checked nor true is hillarious...
Take the example:
@unknownuser said:
the first ever steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire.
That's just NOT correct...!!
Several steel framed buildings have collapsed... Now that's a fact...! -
Please correct me if any of the following is wrong -
As I understand it the building was steel framed with most of the main support steel being clad with gypsum wallboard. Other steelwork was protected by spray on coatings.
In the event of a 'conventional' fire I can imagine this being an effective heat protection to the steelwork. But when being impacted with a passenger aircraft full of fuel (do we at least agree that loaded aircraft flew into the towers) I can quite imagine the wallboard and sprayed on coating being blown away. Steel at elevated temperature isn't very strong so without protection it would soon have started to buckle and collapse.Maybe things would have been different if the steel had been given intumescent coatings as fire protection.
-
I work as an airline pilot and have done some accident investigation, so I think I need to say a thing or two here.
As far as the aircraft "disintegration" and nothing being left, I'll raise the first BS flag here. When you look at an aircraft, you see a massive vehicle. I look at an aircraft and see a paper-thin hull (vs. volume) and wings with the most massive objects being the landing gear, engines and wing spars. From the photos of the various crash sites, you can see engine cores and gear trucks being the most recognizable remains. Also, these aircraft were reportedly going faster than the maximum allowable speed for the structure of the aircraft at the altitudes they crashed at, so that means they were likely going in excess of 4-500 MPH. Crush a soda can with a sledge hammer and then burn it. Tell me how much remains. The human body is even less resilient to these extreme forces. Aircraft of the size crashed during the 9/11 attacks leave nothing but a smoking crater when they meet stationary objects at the speeds they were going.
Regarding the passengers doing nothing while the plane was taken over with pen knives, to me this is an offensive thought that they were cowards in some fashion. My understanding is that the weapons were "box cutters" or "utility knives", and many of the crew were killed with these weapons you find so un-threatening. Also, conventional wisdom at the time was to let hijackers have what they wanted. Don't antagonize them. Let them land the aircraft and make their demands. Keep quiet and stay alive. That is obviously no longer the case, and this philosophy no longer stands. In my opinion the passengers on board my aircraft are a fantastic line of defense against another 9/11 (ref: shoe & underwear bombers), and I'm glad they'll do their best to keep us all alive.
That said, I disagree strongly with many the actions of my country after 9/11, but that's politics, and not for this board.
So, I think the 9/11 events are exactly as described. Call me a conformist or whatever you want, but with my experience I'd say they are what they are.
-
There is an argument to be made on both sides of this issue, there is evidence that supports both theories also.
The issue I bring to this discussion is that we should question everything, we live in strange times and we need some degree of cynicism in order to navigate our media rich lives.Personally I bought the whole story as it unfolded on 911, I even supported the original war because of it, I did question why we never got aggressive with the Saudi's however considering most of the said attackers were from there after all.
Then came the doubters who had many valid observations, couple that up with the sudden need to go to Iraq and the bullshit reasons for going there, this was enough to convince many folk that the people we trust to keep us safe have some sort of ulterior motives which further assisted the 'conspiracy theory' that maybe the whole damn mess may have been planned as the Iraq war was.
Advertisement