you fucking morons. ? lol That's wishful thinking but that's beside the point... Did you watch the video I posted? Heard what the construction manager said? Are you that much in denial?

Here's a BBC article you might want to read before talking like you are some sort of authority on the subject..

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?


Thats all you got? lol.. Yeah , that's definitive! Very detailed, not vague at all... Dismiss all the links I posted above...

You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient...

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/8687.php

what i always found strange was , if you wanted the buildings down and blame it on terrorists , why not just plant bombs and claim the terrorists did it , after all they have already tried this several times, why go thru some elaborate scheme to fly planes into them and THEN detonate explosives, makes no sense and makes the scam harder to hide and pull off.

One of my theories from the beginning is that the collapse of the wtc's was nothing more than shoddy building, probably by mob contracts. exposing this would expose the fact that maybe a few hundred people would have died from terrorists and the rest from american stupidity.

Whether america secretly trained/guided/advised or had forwarning about the plane terrorists i am on the fence about, you have to remember the terrorists HEAD dude once worked for and with the american intelligence community, thats just a tiny bit odd to start with.

I'm not saying the usa had 100% complicity , just that they obviously knew/know more than what we hear about.

so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?

you're right. the buildings suffered significant damage from the planes... then the fire sealed the deal ensuring that final structural failure. thanks for agreeing with the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA reports.



i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.

its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.

of course the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner (full of fuel). this is engineering 101. structures like this are designed for the worst case scenario.

can you imagine if a bridge collapsed because it was completely full of stopped cars in rush hour and the design engineer said "oh shit, we never factored that in".

so do you think the engineer fucked up and made it strong enough to withstand the impact but not the fire afterwards? right, fire is very rare in a plane crash.

the fire wasn't that bad, that's why there was thick black smoke. the sign of a fuel/oxygen starved fire. the firefighters that reached the area reported that the fire wasn't that bad and they could knock it down with a few hoses. the people responsable wanted to let it burn longer to make it more believable but the fire was dying out fast so they pulled the building early.

this was a historical moment because no steel structured building has ever collapsed from damage like this. it was so historical that NOT ONE engineering standard was changed as a result of the collapse!

btw, if this was such a successfull attack on the US, why hasn't anyone taken credit for it? if you got in a street fight with chuck liddell and knocked him out with one punch would you keep it to yourself?

I laughed my ass of to that fucktard the other day. jesus christ

haha...

ok...

wow.................

you are stating it as fact, when its clearly not a fact.

furthermore, you are alleging that construction methods in the late 60's take into account 1000 plus passenger airliners in the year 2010 or space shuttles or whatever.

just... wow.

delusional much?

You can't win an argument with these far out there lunatics using logic, common sense or reason. The reason is because if they were capable of these traits in the first place they'd never have these outlandish theories backed up by one or two confused witnesses, random occurences of the numbers 9 and 11 in pop culture and visual evidence observed by laymen.

In short there's no possible way to educate these people and you're wasting your time.

It's all Meg's fault!!

http://theangryblackwoman.files.word...meggriffin.jpg

There were explosions from the moment of impact right up until the moment they fell. Elevator cables snapped, sending elevators crashing down to the ground level. This wasn't limited to top floors were the planes hit; It instantly spread to multiple levels including the ground floor and below.

Sure, why not? I've played flight sim and it's pretty easy to hit a tall building.

In fact, just yesterday a guy landed large plane after the pilot died.

Doesn't seem difficult at all.

You didn't see all of the paper flying around WTC site moments after the planes hit? That shit drifted around for hours.....

From what I have been told, the nano explosives were built INTO the building from the get go. That is how far back this nefarious plot goes back. These buildings were constructed to be future sacrificial pawns in a false flag operation by some of our own public officials.

Pleasure Pays you are obviously some kind of government apologist. How can someone as "smart" as you have so much free time to spend on a retarded message board trying cover things up and always change the subject and make things personal. Who is paying you to do this? You are not a sig whore.....

Not really... this was an article published september 13th, 2001.... The assumption was that a 800 C raging inferno made the building collapse... NIST later examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200 F... NIST claim on their part that this was enough for the building to collapse...





what?!
Frank DeMartini was an architect who works as the World Trade Center?s construction manager..
Same thing with Hyman Brown...
In other words... the builders...

The WTC towers were designed in the 1960s and completed in 1971. They were designed to withstand the crash of a plane of that time - not an airplane built forty years later.

No steel structured has ever collapsed like this? You think? With the exception of the Empire State building in the 1940s, no other skyscraper has ever had a large plane intentionally crashed into it! And the Empire State Building incident was completely different; The building is different, mostly concrete, and the plane was a 1940 bomber with little fuel in it.

Again, you are trying to use logic and reason to convince someone who is not capable of either. Just let it go.

Your kidding me, right?

I'm pretty fucking confident that if a one hundred story tall sky scraper falls 100 feet from my two story house that my house would be crushed just the from debris.

How many millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god only knows what else fell on and around that building? I bet you WTC 7 was physically moved off of it's foundation by all of this.

but...

http://blog.miragestudio7.com/wp-con...ighlighted.jpg

Yeah, because people from other countries never come to the United States for training, right? Jackass. At any given time there are thousands of people training how to fly jets in the United States.

Did you read the 911 report? They have detailed information of what schools they attended, where they lived, etc.

And to this very day we still have people from other countries in the US training on how to fly large commercial airlines.

you're comparing a house to a steel structured building?

a tree would crush your house but would not have much affect on a skyscraper.

great view! so according to this diagram all the WTC buildings would have been completely destroyed including the post office and verizon building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapse.html

In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), and the World Financial Center complex and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex was later condemned due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower, and is undergoing deconstruction. The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway was also condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, and is slated for deconstruction. Other neighboring buildings including 90 West Street and the Verizon Building suffered major damage, but have since been restored.[62] World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millenium Hilton, and 90 Church Street had moderate damage

you're correct, but the point is the other buildings that suffered severe damage did not collapse within their own footprint. well, at least not until demo crews did it.

nobody is disputing that there was alot of damage caused by the buildings coming down.

twin towers = controlled demolition = FACT

search on Youtube 'WTC FLASHES' you can clearly see flashes going off as it collaspes.

thanks goodbye

How old are you?

Hey genius, what's the story on building 7 then? I'd love to see you explain that one since you seem to know it all. :1orglaugh

I take it you're mentally challenged as well?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/t..._1120_wtc7.htm

Now stop asking stupid stuff.

Why do you even ask for facts? You don't want to hear them anyway unless they come from some kid in his moms basement who suddenly is an expert on every 9/11 subject because he is anti government.

It won't be long until one of the nutjobs says that report is not worth reading because the gov't published it, dismissing the 100's of renowned experts in their field that contributed to it, and further stating they must have been paid off or pressured to sign off on it.

The crazies go as far as dismissing the Popular Mechanics slap down of conspiracy theories report saying it was a product of "yellow journalism" just because one of the writers had a brother-in-law that worked in the White House thus allowing them to brush off the hundreds of scientists...that contributed to the findings.

Funny how you are looking for the truth and ignoring the findings of the most impressive assembly of experts out there. These are people who go home to their wives and kids at night and have no reason to perpetuate a conspiracy never mind how conclusive the reports are in the first place.

Im not sure what to choose:
Reports made by thousands of specialists ... or edited and submitted conspiracy clips on YouTube, backed up by drug addicted lunatic danish chemists.

Hmm... thats a hard one.

I was saying if a large building next to my house came down, it would have a huge affect on my house.

In this case, hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, and everything else came crashing down around WTC 7. People couldn't get out of WTC 7 because the entrance was buried by debris. In fact, if I recall correctly the debris was a number of stories high.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that these two buildings came crashing down next to WTC 7 and it didn't have any effect on a building in the same complex? Pretty much the entire complex was buried by debris.

Two planes hit the building, causing them to crash. There is zero proof to say other wise.

What they don't realize that is if any of these big conspiracies was true there would be so goddamn many people involved that that alone already would make it impossible.

All these reports would have to be fake and made by people who are all involved in the conspiracy. We're talking 100's of people for these reports alone.

It's amazing how a 130 page report created by experts, totally explaining in detail what happened to tower 7, means nothing to these conspiracy nuts yet a 16 year old kid who makes a cut and paste movie on his laptop in which he says it's impossible tower 7 fell down because it's not possible and uploads it to Youtube these same people call that 100% proof instantly.

why read..?
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...iracy_theories
It's all there...

You people have it all wrong. It was NOT the government. It was some real estate(which will remain unnamed) developers in the city that wanted a view of the water. ;)

Who's the hoochie in your avatar?

Fixt :thumbsup

Hahhaha fucking hilarious.

Thanks for the link Dirty F, I still don't understand how the fires started so far away or even brought it down, buildings have burned for over 24hrs before and not fallen. BUT, what you say does make sense, and it would be impossible to hide with so many in on it.

I don't know what happened and I doubt anyone will ever know the whole story. But I do think there are missing pieces.

But there are quite a few very odd things that occurred. Maybe they were normal, but there are a lot of things. I mentioned this before, but the government finding passports of the hijackers when an entire skyscraper was reduced to dust. Seriously?? The fire was so intense it caused giant steel beams to melt and the building to collapse, yet a postcard size piece of paper remained intact......and was found!!

There are some very suspicious financial issues in regards to the twin towers, rights to rebuild, terrorist attack insurance, and other things that are documented and when examined, make it look like someone was able to predict the future.

Not to mention several of the hijackers were well known by the FBI,CIA, and NSA for YEARS before the attack. Several hijackers had an apartment so close to NSA headquarters that if you looked out from the top floor of the NSA building, you could see the hijackers apartment.

You simply can't compare what happened to this building with other buildings. Nothing like this ever happened before. Every building is different and every situation is different. And this situation was extreme. Glad you actually did think about it instead of calling it bs right away.

Oh yes, we should ALL take what our Gov says as total truth.. Smart fucking move....

It's not like we bombed ourselves for Vietnam, it's not like we haven't done it in the past, it's not we didn't allow pearl harbor to be bombed, it's not like they drafted plans to fake an attack by Cuba, oh no... we should all lay the fuck down and take the reports that our Gov says is true, simply because....




Even if nothing went down on 9/11 - For you not to question it..... Sheep... You are sheep, sheep, sheeeeep, sheep...

That i totally agree with. I'm not saying nothing shady happened. It wouldn't surprise me if they let this happen while knowing about it. There's obviously more going on then we know about. But those theories some people come up with are just insane.

"According to media reports, the World Trade Center was designed to withstand an airplane crash." - https://community.emporis.com/pu/in/gr/

http://books.google.com/books?id=oia...um=2#PPT242,M1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/se...wers_built_to/