Shocking New Revelations On 9/11 Ground Zero Cover-Up

Discussion in 'Politics' started by I.Q., Sep 28, 2007.

  1. Ok loser, let me explain this so that even a dummy like you can understand. Ok?

    I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the CTer there, understand?

    Granted, what I should have said is: HUUUGE bombs would have been necessary to blow the columns out at the speed necessary to make the building collapse the way YOU SAY IT DID. Maybe you might have understood that....

    Fine, my bad....

    If you're gonna base your argument on my f'ed up writing...... then you have no chance of making your points to anyone other than intellectually bancrupt individuals such as yourself.

    Also, I noticed that you've conveniently ignored the question of whether or not you can hear explosives going off. Another sign that you've been defeated.

    And yes, the buildings came down without the aid of explosives. Let me explain it to you again-


    Hey, I even have multiple building engineers that I can cite as evidence. Do you? Here's just one, and oh my, he's even been published in a peer reviewed and highly respected journal:

    9/11 demolition theory challenged

    An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
    The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

    One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

    The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

    Resistance to collapse

    Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

    Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

    In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

    "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

    Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

    His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

    This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

    He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

    The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

    This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

    Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

    Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

    Dr. Keith A. Seffen

    Give it up, you're just embarassing yourself. You have nothing. You ARE nothing.....
    #21     Sep 29, 2007
  2. Turok


    >These people say that in order for Bldgs 1, 2, and 7
    >to have fallen symmetrically, at nearly free-fall speed ....

    This conversation always end the same way -- show me some video that demonstrates that the buildings fell at "near free-fall speed".

    You can't do it, it doesn't exist, 'cause it didn't happen.

    It's the fatal flaw in your entire argument yet y'all continue to spew it - continually posting video that shows a rate of collapse far slower than you later claim.

    End of story.

    #22     Sep 29, 2007
  3. I.Q.


    Okay, so now you morons are trying to claim that the buildings didn't fall in the way that they did? The way that is clearly visible on video from a dozen different angles? LOL You guys are too much.

    #23     Sep 29, 2007
  4. I.Q.


    Yeah, I figured that post would send you idiots into a tailspin and piss you off. It's pretty funny to watch you boys squirm in a logical trap of your own creation like the low down dirty snakes that you are. Pwned. LOL

    #24     Sep 29, 2007
  5. #25     Sep 29, 2007
  6. I.Q.


    LOL @ Bill Maher. Bill Maher is a Zionist Jewish Supremacist who worships the state of Israel. Are you seriously using that clown to backup your position(if you even have one)? You might want to rethink that tactic, dumbass. haha

    #26     Sep 29, 2007
  7. Hmm, he also happens to hate Bush and his administration, the war in Iraq, neocons etc. He is reasonable, intelligent, funny and open-minded.

    But you do have an interesting perspective on this matter - according to you a supporter of Israel can't possibly have valid views on 9/11 conspiracy theories no matter how open-minded, smart, independent and politically incorrect he may be. The views of Jew-hating degenerates like you (believing that 9/11 was carried out by the Mossad despite Al-Qaeda/Osama's confessions) I suppose should be taken seriously, right? Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me.
    #27     Sep 29, 2007
  8. What caused building 7 to come down? It wasn't hit by a plane. It had a fire in the building, but how would that bring it down?
    #28     Sep 30, 2007
  9. DrEvil


    Silverstien who owned buildings 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 admits that he was informed by the fire dept on sept 11 that they would have to demolish building 7

    When John Kerry was questioned regarding the Silverstein admission he says and I quote "they made a decision based on the danger that it would destroy the other buildings so they did it in a controlled fashing ..."

    George Bush says when talking about WTC and I quote "He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people from escaping ..."

    US Army special forces says and I quote "in 2001 after the WTC bombing ..."

    Rumsfeld when talking a about the 911 attacks says and i quote "they shot down the plane over Pensilvania ..."
    #29     Sep 30, 2007
  10. DrEvil


    IQ, I see Haroki and dddodo have been working overtime all weekend to come up with answers to your posts. You must be doing a good, job, they appear to be in a panic.
    #30     Sep 30, 2007