Why do you keep assuming things? I have never claimed that the building falling in its footprint was a smoking gun... I was just responding to your questions which insinuated that there's no other way a building could fall... I find curious tho that two 100 storey buildings and one 50 storey building fell into their own footprint but I am no expert, I am aware of that... I'll add tho that many experts find it impossible...

As far the speed the building should have fell... I think computer generated models were made to test that... Look it up, I wont take your hand and do all the work for you... Look at both the nist models as well as the models made by other experts... If I remember correctly, it was around 22 sec... but look it up and decide for yourself...

You're spinning half truths around a single word "pull". No fire department has ever admited to "pulling the building" in any fashion. You're just seeing what you want to see, no what's true. Your facts are just made up shit.

And finally, no it was not an undamaged building with small fires:

Again you're making shit up. In fact, most experts find it not only possible but probable. The minority opinion is that of demolition.

Fuck I should listen to myself more. Here I am trying to convince an idiot with logic and reason. What a waste of time.

As for George Bush seniors new world order speech before congress, It was certainly NWO rhetoric and it was certainly a decent into tyranny, but your source got the year wrong it was 1990. Check it out

Perfectly reasonable explanation for the others. Before the twin towers fell the numbers 911 already had a scary connotation.

Hollywood knows of the subliminal impact of 911 (emergency phone call connotation)
And in some cases put it in the movies to boost suspense.

The terrorist groups knew that 911 (emergency phone call connotation) would strike fear so the date was set.

I make shit up? Exemples? Btw, I said "many" not "most" .... and I was referring to those Architects & Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/

Keep talking to yourself and you'll be on your way to do just that.. :thumbsup

Just like i expected. You can't fucking answer. Just a loud mouth screaming conspiracy yet you are totally clueless.

so what do you think Silverstein meant when he said go ahead and "pull" the building? did he mean tow it to another part of the city?

as a property developer, do you think he doesn't know what "pulling" a building means?

that one word probably wouldn't have meant much if the building wasn't "pulled" in perfect demo fashion.

there wasn't that much damage to the exterior of the building. certainly not enough to bring the entire building down. if part of it collapsed it would be believable but not the entire building...no way! it wasn't brought down by fire either. show me one other building that collapsed from fire. the entire building wasn't completely engulfed in flames, only a few offices on a few floors were on fire.

"but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building"

What exactly is much damage to you?

Why are you so goddamn fucking ignorant and stupid? Why?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

Go read that and fucking shut your mouth you dumb fucking moron.

Every post you faggots make is full of bs and made up shit and other crap. It's so fucking pathetic.

253 posts

So your theory is that the fire department was in on it and they work for Silverstein answering to his every whim? You're ridiculous.

Ok, well let's use the fascinating science of "common sense" to analyze how a building would fall down.

let's look at the forces at play in the system.. we have a building with lots of mass. We have the force of gravity acting with constant force in the direction of towards the centre of the earth (ie straight down). We have some wind forces acting on the building as well.

So there is basically 2 possibilities - the building, due to loss of structural integrity, succumbs to the force of gravity and falls - wait for it - straight down, or it get's blown over by a gust of wind.

Please, tell me how a building would NOT fall straight down. Then explain specifically how the twin towers "should" have fallen, given you believe it was a controlled demolition.

In order to calculate this you have to identify t0 (the moment the building began to fall) and t1 (the moment when the building stopped falling). This is impossible, or at best horribly inaccurate because

a) no building falls as one solid mass - perhaps internal structures like floor beams (that cannot be scene in the video unless you have superman x-ray eyes) began to fall before the exterior skin of the building. How do you identify t0 accurately?

b) you cannot identify when the building "stops" falling, due to the debris cloud that is about 200-300 feet in radius.

I welcome any possible rational response. Unfortunately, there isn't one - the best any looney-bin 9/11 "truther" can come up with is postdictive speculation, pseudo-science, fallacy, lies, deflection, etc.

In this case, please select the appropriate 9/11 truther response:

"Yeah well, what about the pentagon? huh? what about that?"
"yeah well look at this pic of molten steel"
"yeah well steel doesnt MELT at the temperature of jet fuel, so there!"
"oh yeah well look at these puffs of smoke - see! that's explosives!"
"ya look at this video of thermite burning.. then look at this video - look it's thermite!"
"ya well, none of this explains building 7?? ha HA! building seven.. explain that one then smart guy"

Type 'wtc flashes' in the search toolbar on youtube - watch the first video - you can clearly see 'flashes' going off as the building falls

not enough damage to bring the entire building straight down into it's own footprint at free fall speed.

here's what he said:

when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.

dispite everything that happened that day, the collpase of WTC 7 is clear evidence that it was planned.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Dude piss off already...

Youre sick in your head. Go away.

How do you know that? Are you an expert who studied this stuff? Seriously, how do you know. I'm very interested.

you can tell when someone is losing an argument...they start resorting to name calling an insults to try and discredit evidence.

NEW* ANGLE OF WTC TOWER FLASHES
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fa61Q3g4rbM

debunk that fuck face

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You don't have any evidence, that's why we're calling you an idiot.

You didnt even look at this link did you? You dont want to know it exists. It explains why the tower came down but you dont want to hear it.

sad...

yup, clearly fire damage!

hehehe piss poor you lot can't debate this, fires bringing down skyscraper buildings hahahaha

In which case, the bldg would have weakened on the south side causing it to topple toward the weakest wall.. But.. it fell straight down..
Why would the north wall fall at the same rate, and straight down..

When you have a weak wall that collapses, all other walls are pulled in the direction of that wall.. or in some cases, will not fall at all.. such as with the Oklahoma City Bombing (pic)..

It's sad that a lot of people online who try to push the conspiracy are fucking retards because then the skeptics automatically assume that they are correct simply because they happen to be debating idiots who don't know their asshole from a hole in the ground.

Most of you just seem to have the problem of thinking authority is synonymous with credibility. You believe anything as long as it comes from either someone in "power" or someone with "authority," as if people with power would never mislead you. The only information you deem legitimate is the information that is perceived to be "official."

Dirty Franck, you seem to be the king skeptic and question asker, so I would like to ask you a question. Why is John Farmer, ex Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, coming out with a new book titled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America?s Defense on 9/11 where he says "the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks," and "at some level of the government, at some point in time? there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.?

So my question to you, is why? Why would John Farmer do this? He was on the goddamn 9/11 commission itself, the "official" government commission. Do you really just think it's a coincidence that someone who had inside knowledge is now coming out with statements like these? Or are you going to make the even more giant leap of calling him a crazy kook? Attorney General of New Jersey, a federal prosecutor, and Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission... yea must be a pretty big wack-job, right?

Slapped this on DC. Not getting into this gfy debate. I never thought that airplane collisions caused the collapses. :2 cents:

That's a bullshit remark that people like you have to fall back on in a pinch and its how you rationalize and validate your own irrational paranoia.

Who the fuck says everything is perfect? Government is always right? Government doesn't lie to people? Who says "you should believe everything they say" or "you should believe everything in the media"?

Answer... no one.

Not one single person. "The Official Version" has nothing to do with absurd, irrational and impossible conspiracy theories that only a borderline retard could latch on to and run with.

It's one thing to have a question or two or to disagree with some aspect of whats generally accepted... its another thing entirely to construct a wildly impossible scenario, based on impossible facts and poorly reasoned arguments, to summarily dismiss anything that contradicts your firm CONCLUSION while demanding others "see it your way" and if they don't, they're just "sheep, brainwashed by the media" because you know your arguments fall apart otherwise.

so basically, you are telling us in one breath that government can't be trusted. and in another breath you are telling us that if you dismiss the views of someone in that SAME government that YOU AGREE WITH... that its a "giant leap" .

right?

really?

i mean... i'm reading this correctly right?

lunatic much?

Naturally, since you have been lied to about reality your entire life, any truthful revelations contradicting your false worldview may indeed appear to be far-fetched. But, to make things even worse, human beings are stubborn creatures who let their egos override everything else: Instead of learning about new information that does not fit within your current worldview, you would rather exercise your ego by letting others know what is and is not possible, merely based upon your personal knowledge and feeble understanding of what actually exists.

As a matter of fact, human beings are actually pompous enough to think that their status quo worldview is more rational than the truth. They neglect to factor the concept of intentional deception into their logical thought process, and thus fail to realize that the only reason why their worldview seems "rational" is because it is actually composed of a plethora of lies and distortions. So, in one of the greatest ironies ever, human beings think the lies that they are fed are reality, and that the truth, on the other hand, is crazy, unrealistic, and bizarre.

Official doctrines, by definition, do not incriminate the officials who created them. If official doctrines did incriminate the officials who created them, then the officials would be looked down upon by the public, and therefore they and their doctrines would no longer be considered official. This is simple logic.

So, as you can see, official doctrines are by no means synonymous with the truth. Rather, official doctrines are simply doctrines that were designed to keep in power the very officials who created them.

Furthermore, the word "official" should not be associated with the word "rational." Science is indeed an official government doctrine, yet it is not completely rational. The scientific community, in a bizarre and irrational manner, completely blows off the concept of government secrets. Science, by design and necessity, always downplays the significance of the government's power.

Science must downplay the significance of the government's power because it is of the utmost importance that the ignorant followers of science who are not "in the know," such as the common atheist, only think within the framework of status quo reality. If science did not downplay the significance of the government's power, then people would quickly realize that science is bullshit and that the status quo conception of reality is also bullshit. In other words, if people knew what really goes on behind the scenes, then they would quickly realize that science is just another form of control, courtesy of the ruling elite.

That's not what I said at all, you're just twisting it around to sound how you want it to.

I was simply making the case that John Farmer is most likely not a psychopathic nut-job, as most people who say things about 9/11 like him are labeled, because his credentials are impressive and he is obviously an educated man. Sure, he could be lying to make a profit or something along those lines, but my point is that's probably not the case. He is probably actually a good man (yes, there are a few here and there in the government) who wants to do the right thing and tell the truth.

so let me get this straight... everyone who doesn't see things exactly like you do and share your world view, has a problem. and you... you're the enlightened one. i have a "false world view" and you do not... yet we are both exposed to that same "reality" (whatever you seem to think that is). you're not arrogant or misguided or even sick. you, just like a hahahahahahahahaha tracker... "just know".

uhmm... ok.

haha

BTW... i don't dispute for a second that a lot of crazy shit happened that day that was misreported or that facts were altered.

i don't doubt for a second that WTC was intentionally destroyed. I would expect it to be ... being that it housed a lot of sensitive shit, including CIA offices.

you're saying (again)... wrongly that i agree with everything the government said 100%... yet you have ZERO basis for such a position other than you feel it bolsters your own position. you are fabricating the facts... just as you fabricate conspiracy theories.

what i believe or don't believe has zero to with wildly impossible theories which are more full of holes than any official explanation.

ok, none of us are engineers so lets put it in our terms.

have you ever seen those fake huge cock vidoes with the ridiculous cum shots? you know, the Freaks of Cock ones like this:

http://galleries.freaksofcock.com/vb...lane/vid03.mpg

what if the producer was trying to convince everyone that they are real cocks with real cumshots? would you believe him? what if the guy who was wearing the fake cock swore up and down it was real.

would you believe it? well, believe it or not alot of people believe those are real but we know better don't we!

now imagine a structual engineer watching those videos of the buildings collapsing. don't you think they would know the difference between a structual failure and a demolition?

really? you honestly have no concept of "fantasy" and that users understand its fantasy? you think people are sitting around waiting for a hot chick to deliver a pizza and drop to her knees and blow him?


which engineers?

the ones you agree with? or the ones you disagree with?

i presume you are telling everyone to only listen to the opinions of those "structural engineers" you happen to agree with?

if you watch these vids over and over... its clear

demolition

be it nano-thermite, whatever

look at all the videos on youtube of steel buildings that burned for 15 hours or more that DID NOT collapse...

then WTC

its pretty obvious, be it US GOV or not... it was an inside job.