fox news.R00k wrote:It wasn't. I heard it on the television news.Coreiel wrote:it was. i read it on the internet.R00k wrote: You are stupid. hahaha
WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!
-
Guest
Re: WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!
yes they were,R00k wrote:Proof!
http://www.ericblumrich.com/swf/wtc.swf
If WTC7 was demolished (which is a fact), the charges had to be there before the attacks!
If they were placed before the attacks, why couldn't they be in the twin towers too?
If you believe otherwise, you really are stupid.
and..
it..
was..
the...
JEWS.
also a fact
[color=red][WYD][/color]S[color=red]o[/color]M
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
Re: WTC Was Demolished By Explosives!
Doesn't make any sense to me either, but I am of the opinion that the gov't spews nothing but pure bullshit. If GWB told me the sky was blue, I'd look out the window.Kracus wrote:Yeah but why would the goverment say it was due to jet fuel? That part doesn't make much sense to me.Nightshade wrote:Complete and utter bullshit. I remember hearing that WTC7 was going to be dropped, but that in no way means that the charges had to be in place beforehand.R00k wrote:Proof!
http://www.ericblumrich.com/swf/wtc.swf
If WTC7 was demolished (which is a fact), the charges had to be there before the attacks!
If they were placed before the attacks, why couldn't they be in the twin towers too?
If you believe otherwise, you really are stupid.
My point is that in spite of all the inconsistencies, the weirdness, the lies, the theories, all that jazz, WTC 1 and 2 were not brought down by explosives. I make no other claim. (Except for the whole Pentagon/plane/missile idiocy)
Somehow I don't see how rigging a building with explosives is a safety measure.l0g1c wrote:Here's an idea, just from my own head, not trying to prove one way or another. Maybe they were all set up for detonation already and since two huge buildings nearby had just gone up in flames, they wanted to make sure they controlled the explosion in case there were any fires that began to spread.
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
I must admit im not an expert on this situation but it screams of bullshit and smells of extreme anti-bush, left-wing propaganda. If that's your leaning, don't latch on to this crap as it makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
A quick search brought up a court case regarding the destrution of WTC 7. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/02 ... 012605.pdf
If you'll read this you'll find that IRI filed suit claiming "gross negligence" for allowing CitiGroup to maintain large stocks of diesel fuel in tower 7. The fires in tower 7, which were caused by large chunks of debris from the larger towers, became impossible to extinguish thus causing the collapse.
In tower 7 there was a pressurized diesel system and 9 high powered generators. This was designed to ensure there would be no interruption of power to its trading activities.
I guess you could say that there is a major cover up by almost every government agency invovled during 9/11, some business entities and some news agencies covering the story but that seems a pretty widespread cover up. :icon27:
A quick search brought up a court case regarding the destrution of WTC 7. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/02 ... 012605.pdf
If you'll read this you'll find that IRI filed suit claiming "gross negligence" for allowing CitiGroup to maintain large stocks of diesel fuel in tower 7. The fires in tower 7, which were caused by large chunks of debris from the larger towers, became impossible to extinguish thus causing the collapse.
In tower 7 there was a pressurized diesel system and 9 high powered generators. This was designed to ensure there would be no interruption of power to its trading activities.
I guess you could say that there is a major cover up by almost every government agency invovled during 9/11, some business entities and some news agencies covering the story but that seems a pretty widespread cover up. :icon27:
To be honest, the only explanation for them falling, aside from explosives, is the pancake theory -- meaning the fires weakened the structure enough for the top floors to fall down, and their weight caused each subsequent floor below to drop when it was hit by the floors falling from above.
This can not have happened for two very real reasons in my mind (among all the others that people have presented).
First, simply watching them fall, you can obviously see that floors were blowing out before they were ever hit by the floors above, or anything else. It's very apparent, even with all the clouds of smoke surrounding them.
Second is the picture of a woman standing in the hole right where the plane entered, waving to people on the ground below, holding on to the steel beams with her arm wrapped around one. This was before the collapse happened. You can say it's circumstantial if you want, but there is no way that the steel beams on any part of that floor were heated enough to weaken the entire floor by 80%, and then cooled off enough for a woman to hold on to, in a matter of minutes. And this was at the exact entry point of all the fuel.
And if this collapse of a steel building really was such an unprecedented event, why did FEMA ship all the steel OVERSEAS immediately and melt it down, before even a single specialist could have a look at it?
Why are the firefighters - who themselves have said they heard explosions in the building - under a federal gag order from talking about the event?
The North Tower had a raging fire in it several years ago (before they even had thorough fireproofing between the floors) that burned for hours and hours on end, and still never suffered a bit of structural damage -- not a single beam even needed to be replaced. This fire caused them to add fire-proofing in the conduits between floors to prevent any fire from spreading floor-to-floor in the future.
And even beyond all this circumstantial evidence, even if you believe 19 knife-wielding Arabs did burn these buildings down with two massive molotov cocktails with all your heart, then do you not think the government should explain why they immediately removed all the evidence before it could be examined, when it was arguably the worst murder and disaster in our history?
Normally if something like this happened, the structure would be inspected, if for no other reason than purely for insurance purposes. Who told FEMA to immediately melt all of the steel, even before the rest of the debris was cleared, without even storing some of it? Shouldn't that question be asked of someone?
This can not have happened for two very real reasons in my mind (among all the others that people have presented).
First, simply watching them fall, you can obviously see that floors were blowing out before they were ever hit by the floors above, or anything else. It's very apparent, even with all the clouds of smoke surrounding them.
Second is the picture of a woman standing in the hole right where the plane entered, waving to people on the ground below, holding on to the steel beams with her arm wrapped around one. This was before the collapse happened. You can say it's circumstantial if you want, but there is no way that the steel beams on any part of that floor were heated enough to weaken the entire floor by 80%, and then cooled off enough for a woman to hold on to, in a matter of minutes. And this was at the exact entry point of all the fuel.
And if this collapse of a steel building really was such an unprecedented event, why did FEMA ship all the steel OVERSEAS immediately and melt it down, before even a single specialist could have a look at it?
Why are the firefighters - who themselves have said they heard explosions in the building - under a federal gag order from talking about the event?
The North Tower had a raging fire in it several years ago (before they even had thorough fireproofing between the floors) that burned for hours and hours on end, and still never suffered a bit of structural damage -- not a single beam even needed to be replaced. This fire caused them to add fire-proofing in the conduits between floors to prevent any fire from spreading floor-to-floor in the future.
And even beyond all this circumstantial evidence, even if you believe 19 knife-wielding Arabs did burn these buildings down with two massive molotov cocktails with all your heart, then do you not think the government should explain why they immediately removed all the evidence before it could be examined, when it was arguably the worst murder and disaster in our history?
Normally if something like this happened, the structure would be inspected, if for no other reason than purely for insurance purposes. Who told FEMA to immediately melt all of the steel, even before the rest of the debris was cleared, without even storing some of it? Shouldn't that question be asked of someone?
Last edited by R00k on Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
I concur. Why was DRuM's nose allowed to leave the scene? He could have easily cleared his name in this affair by sniffing the survivors out of the rubble. :icon33:bitWISE wrote:Well the planes surely would have had to have clearance for the airspace around his nose for the attack to occur.mjrpes wrote:Why are you getting DRuM involved in this conspiracy? :icon33:bitWISE wrote:Who nose?