get your trips ready: debatin teim

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1086903]

Pic related.

a proper debate.
if I wanted a chimp shit flinging competition I would have gone to /b/, but I'm in /sci/, so I want a good discussion.
if you cant manage that, dont even bother posting.

Alright, I'll start:

On the eleventh of September, 2001, towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by means of controlled demolition, ie: explosive devices (conventional & possible use of thermite) planted previously.

[Anonymous No.1086907]

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1086911]

>>1086907

yeah.

it dont matter if you are in /sci/ or /b/, you're still on 4chan.
:P

[Anonymous No.1086912]

>>1086903
No

[Anonymous No.1086919]

>>1086911
Not exactly. I just wanted to point out that this topic has been talked over a million times, and, well, it's not likely we'll get anywhere.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1086929]

>>1086919

ah, but that's why I asked for a good discussion!
with intelligent replies...
..and well.. thought out..


this one was supposed to be different

[Anonymous No.1086934]

IT WAZ MAGNETZ

[Anonymous No.1086936]

>>1086911
>1086911
>911
>9/11
I smell a terrorist

[Anonymous No.1086939]

>didn't want a chimp shit flinging competition
>went to /sci/

[Anonymous No.1086949]

>>1086929
I'm more concerned about the pentagon one.
No pictures of the plane crashing, even thou there was a camera filming the pentagon at all times.
And there was a camera filming a plane, but they never showed it actually crashing.
Also, the plane they shot down, the images they showed don't look like a plane at all.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1086959]

>>1086949
ha!
that's the spirit.

could we get some counter arguments in here?

[Anonymous No.1086972]

>controlled demolition
Yes
>explosive devices
No. See photographic evidence with this post.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1086985]

>>1086972

yes, planted explosive devices.

workers in the towers have made public statements, both to the general population and to the official 9/11 commission report(ignored, lol) stating:
- in the weeks prior to the attacks, multiple floors of the buildings were evacuated for up to 3 days at a time. -

and
-during this time, the BOMB SNIFFING DOGS were removed from the buildings-

[Anonymous No.1086986]

>>1086949
A wizard did it with magic.

[Anonymous No.1086991]

>>1086985
See >>1086972 Chen did 9/11

[Anonymous No.1086993]

>>1086991
>Chen did 9/11

DO IT AGAIN, CHEN!!!

[Anonymous No.1087001]

>>1086993

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087006]

keep it on topic

[None !BIOTROLLTM No.1087013]

>workers in the towers have made public statements, both to the general population and to the official 9/11 commission report(ignored, lol)

Source or gtfo. I keep seeing these kinds of arguments all over the place about explosives being found and all that kind of stuff, yet I never see any proper source for any of it.

[Anonymous No.1087017]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[Anonymous No.1087023]

[Anonymous No.1087024]

>>1087006
>keep it on topic
I don't know man, maybe you're not seeing it. It's difficult to see the relevant parts so I highlighted the photo, please take a look.

It's difficult to spot but I've pointed out a possible link with the CIA's UFO coverup as well.

[Anonymous No.1087025]

[Anonymous No.1087030]

>>1086903

You guys are missing the point.

It's not how but why?

It could easily have been a bunch of brainwashed fucktards but who sent them?

I personally think it very unlikely that the US didn't at least notice something abnormal going on. In the least they knew and did nothing to suit themselves.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087037]

>>1086903
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1087039]

I'll give a well thought out argument when you come up with a well thought out topic. In the mean time I think you may be low on tin foil.

[Anonymous No.1087043]

>>1087030
>who sent them

No seriously look at the photograph here, these were highly trained CIA operatives on a covert assignment. This is some serious shit. We have photographs of the CIA's training grounds in Afghanistan in 1998. They were preparing for this.

[None !BIOTROLLTM No.1087047]

>>1087043

>That [lack of] anatomy.

Fucking anime.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087048]

>>1086985
Also I find it odd that you come to /sci/ and present what are at best anecdotes as evidence. You should learn what evidence is.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087056]

>>1087013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qUAtbkzjBQ
satrt at the 2:30 mark, eyewitness
account of evacuations.

>>1087017
strawman argument galore, logical fallacies much?

>>1087039
ad hominem

[Anonymous No.1087060]

>>1087056
It's all well and good posting youtube videos but how do you address this?

The reptilians undeniably have a hand in this.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087077]

one of the main counter arguments presented against the controled demolition hypothesis is the "demolition? but it takes a lot of time to set up all the explosievs, much more than a few hours that occured on the day" response, sound reasonable, right?
I mean, you cant just take down a building given only a few hours, of course not, its stupid to say so.
I agree with you 100%

But then we get something like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

okay, so they admit to demolishing building 7, which would have required the sort of explosives planted, but then that makes one look back on the argument of "not enough time".

This is by no means a leap of faith or any such nonsense, in order to demolish building 7, they would have needed -days- to set up the explosives,
days which were provided by the evacuations in the preceding weeks

come on, prior knowledge, inside job.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087080]

>>1087060

grow up.

[Anonymous No.1087081]

I don't think Chen would be able to tear down WTC alone.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087085]

>>1087048
it seems as though only 'skeptic' has anything worthwhile to say.

[Anonymous No.1087087]

>>1087085
it seems as though the rest just doesnt care because every single theory of you paranoid fagsd has been proven wrong thousands of times in the last 8 years

[Anonymous No.1087090]

>>1087087

[citation needed]

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087101]

>>1087087

incorrect, there is general public consensus that us "fagsd" have been repeatedly proven wrong, but it is simply not the case.

[Anonymous No.1087108]

what was the point of the planes then if they were just gonna use thermite.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087109]

>>1087077
"pull it" that's the best you've got?
"Pull the team out of there" wouldn't be a more logical interpretation? Also if this is such a smart conspiracy why would he admit to anything on tv?

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087121]

>>1087108

A government would just go ahead and kill 3000 of its own people for teh lulz now would it?

the planes provide the spectacle, the spectacle used to start a war, a war which can never end, where the enemy is you, the people, and hence, as the enemy of the state, you can have your rights taken away (suspension of habeas corpus, patriot act 1/2 lol, yanks constitution is now legally null and void).

that, and the buildings were going to be demolished in 2007 anyway, replacement of asbestos fire retardent, economic black hole for the port authority.

its just like the Lusitania, the Reichstag fire, pearl harbour (to an extent) and the gulf of ton-kin incident, all used to get america to go invade some place.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087126]

>>1087109

watch the video before commenting.

[Anonymous No.1087128]

>>1087121
and the spanish-american war

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087141]

>>1087126
I did watch the video, but like you said, "I mean, you cant just take down a building given only a few hours, of course not, its stupid to say so.".
So we have a plausibility issue here.
If you want to know what did bring down building 7
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087158]

>>1087141
This. Since security through obscurity doesn't work large-scale, our government isn't going to rely on a conspiracy. I'm skeptical of this controlled demolitions with planted charges hypothesis. It hasn't withstood scrutiny and [citation needed]

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087178]

>>1087141
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
the leaseholder of the trade centre, Larry Silverstein says WTC7 was intentionally demolished.
+++watch the video+++
now, seeing as you have watched the video, please re-read this comment:>>1087077

and if you still dont believe it from the horses mouth, I present actual footage of the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
watch it ffs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
the explosion.

And finally.
the infamous popular mechanics article?

now, if it was from new scientist, then it might have a bit more credibility (:D)

but otherwise, just look at the footage I have presented, that instantly discredits PM's article on wtc7, and by that fact, brings the validity of pms whole review into question(not that it isnt already)

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087190]

>>1087158

well, actually, it has worked large scale, such an emotionally polarising event automatically creates a public perception amongst its viewers to attempt to ignore any evidence (and I repeat, evidence) to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.1087212]

>>1087190
ironically explaining accurately why you believe what you do.

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087214]

>>1087190
I'm just going to be honest here. You tend to come off as a spastic wack job. You have no evidence ot her than hearsay, you don't seem to understand formal fallacies, and you make baseless assumptions from lack of information. It might be better to come back with some actual data.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087221]

>>1087178
>"pull it" that's the best you've got?
He says he was talking to the fire chef do firemen normally do demolitions? So I repeat.

>"Pull the team out of there" wouldn't be a more logical interpretation?

FFS

[Anonymous No.1087228]

>>1087178
>but otherwise, just look at the footage I have presented, that instantly discredits PM's article on wtc7, and by that fact, brings the validity of pms whole review into question(not that it isnt already)
What kind of argument is this?

[Anonymous No.1087238]

IT WAS A CRUISE MISSILE

I KNOW THIS BECAUSE ALEX JONES SAID SO

[Anonymous No.1087248]

>>1087221
well, that proves it

just because you don't understand basic terminology used in that career ("pull it" meaning "pull the operation") does not mean that you can build an elabourate alternative theory around this.

[Anonymous No.1087253]

>>1086903

[SodaG0d !fuckerYQuQ No.1087258]

You stupid fucking conspiracy theory fucks, I hope you all die.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087260]

>>1087178
Look at that, no less than 2 minutes of googling and I find an article with citations that debunks your video.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Larry_Silverstein

[Anonymous No.1087274]

>>1087248
Repeatedly insisting that your interpretation of a an ambiguous phrase is correct does not a bulletproof case for a controlled demolition make.

Why don't we deal in something a little more concrete?

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087285]

>>1087274
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

[Anonymous No.1087296]

>>1087285
There could have been signs that the building was structurally unsound and a collapse was imminent.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087297]

>>1087285

"the building, its about to blow up"

bbc got its news of the buildings destruction just a little early, by a matter of 20 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

[Anonymous No.1087298]

>>1087285
So they anticipating a collapse is proof of foreknowledge? Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes. If you're as correct as you think you are, it shouldn't be that hard.
Unless of course you want to switch into hardcore conspiracy theorist mode where any contrary evidence is planted and any lack of evidence proves a coverup.

[Anonymous No.1087303]

>>1087285
>>1087297
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.
>Give me some actual Goddamn evidence instead of sound bytes.

[Anonymous No.1087305]

>>1087297
That doesn't necessarily prove that it was brought down by controlled demolition. It's possible that there was a mix up in reports.

[Anonymous No.1087306]

>>1087305
You know what would prove it was a controlled demolition? Physical evidence.

[Anonymous No.1087310]

>>1087306
Yeah, physically evidence would be pretty cool.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087311]

>>1087298
>>1087303

but "sound bites" are primary sources!
how much more truthful can you get?
its there, as it happend.

[Anonymous No.1087315]

>>1087310
Physical, even.

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087317]

As a first hand witness to that event, I can tell you that a religious extremist flew a plane into a building. You'll have to do better than soundbytes. God damn, if you want a plausible conspiracy; it makes a lot more sense for our government to coerce the terrorists into fling the planes and then betray them for oil and war.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087319]

>>1087306

you are just like a creationtard.
"huur, EVILushun is wrong, I DONT SEE NO MONKEY TURNING INTO A DOG"

I have the fossils (videos) I win.

[Anonymous No.1087321]

>>1087311
If I say "The moon is made of cheese." on network TV, does it make it true? If I'm a credible astronomer and a cheese expert when I say it, does that make it true? If I'm in a position to benefit from the moon being made of cheese when I say it, does THAT make it true? On principle, a quotation alone won't suffice when better evidence might be available.

[Anonymous No.1087323]

>>1087319
Then show me your physical evidence, or link to the post where you mentioned it because I'm lazy.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087324]

>>1087321

if a strawman arguments is all what you have...

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087325]

Flying, even.

[Anonymous No.1087328]

>>1087324
It was an example. The last sentence was my actual point.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087329]

>>1087324

*argument

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087334]

ITT

watch 5 seconds into the videos provided, pause, draw conclusions, post comment.

TADAA !

[Anonymous No.1087336]

>>1087334
ITT don't make any arguments that are based on physical evidence.

[Anonymous No.1087341]

check this out

http://www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/ppt_selection.php

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087346]

>>1087336

ah, you're starting to understand the error of your ways, good!
now we can start to talk on equal terms

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087347]

>>1087334
If videos are making your arguments for you, then you're doing it wrong.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087350]

>>1087311
Do you always trust the first reports? Because if that is the case then perhaps it was all an accident. That's what the first reports said before the second plane hit. I mean come on, at least try the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel" or something.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087362]

>>1087350
you really didn't watch the videos I provided, did you.

not reports.

footage of it happening, as it happened.

[Anonymous No.1087366]

>>1087341
Not OP. I posted these ppt presentations. I'll say that it was the evidence outlined here that made me change my mind regarding 9/11. I find their scientific analysis completely convincing.

[Anonymous No.1087369]

>>1087366
I can't view beyond the first 5 slides. D:

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087373]

>>1087366

to which side of the debate did you swing?

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087374]

>>1087350
I think he's better sticking to wishy-washy stuff that can't be disproven with math. Avg steel in a building melts at 2500F. Jet fuel burns at 550F per second. It would only take half an hour to weaken a building that tall to the point of collapse with the vertical stress put on it. So of course he'll keep linking videos

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1087378]

>>1087374

straw man argument.

not once did i mention anything about jet fuel.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087386]

>>1087362

>"the building, its about to blow up"

>bbc got its news of the buildings destruction just a little early, by a matter of 20 minutes.

A bunch of people saying, "the building is about to come down" even if they use the words "blow up" doesn't mean that,
A) they knew explosives were planted
B) the building was blown up and didn't merely collapse
C) there were explosives.

Has any explosive residue been found?

[Organite No.1087388]

I like to think it was a semi-controlled demolition

[Anonymous No.1087390]

>>1087388
Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.1087391]

OP
>I wanted a chimp shit flinging competition so I have chosen to support the conspiracy shit

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087398]

>>1087369
Same, completely ignore the damage to the west and south sides of building 7 and all the diesel fuel that was in the basement. Jumps to controlled demolitions.

[Anonymous No.1087400]

If you are a rich, world dominatin sonofabitch, its easier and cheaper to just pay some angry dude enough money to get over here and then fly a plane into a building.

Doesn't need to be complicated

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087406]

>>1087378
No you didn't, instead you have said, "some people were talking while all this was going down and they said explosions".
This is the most compelling evidence you have. I am unconvinced by this evidence.

[Anonymous No.1087420]

Why would they bring down tower 7 in a controlled demolition? After towers 1 and 2, what possible benefit would demolishing anything else have??

That's what I don't get about this part of the conspiracy theory. Shit doesn't make logical sense.

[Anonymous No.1087424]

http://www.debunking911.com/

This site has some pretty good data/arguments (against the 9/11 truthers).

[TRIPFACC0T !mOXvwHw8Mo No.1087426]

>>1086911
>>1086903
>>1086919
>>1086929


WHAT THE FUCK!? YOU ARE REPLYING TO YOURSELF TROLL LOLOL

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1087437]

>>1087378
Show's over people, op confirmed for illiterate.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1087449]

>>1087437
lol'd

[Anonymous No.1087466]

I haven't actually read this whole thread, but OP, has anyone found any evidence against the idea that planes brought down the towers? Has any one of the hundreds of people who would have know about a conspiracy come out and admitted anything in the past 9 years? I see a lot of videos floating around, those aren't close to evidence, don't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.1087610]

[Anonymous No.1087636]

[Anonymous No.1087665]

2001
its now
2010
drop it
no one gives a fuck talk about
terrorist or goverment plot in the last year at least

[Anonymous No.1087835]

Structural engineer here. Despite the marvel of some people over the strength of buildings, they aren't impervious to everything. They are engineered to withstand a given stress. If a stress occurs outside of what it's been designed to do the structure will fail.

When steel is heated above 600 degrees C it readily deforms. So the whole, steel melting theory is pointless because steel does not have to melt to become worthless, structurally.

The magnitude of the fire inside WTC 7 was far beyond what it was ever designed to withstand.

The temperature of the fire isn't as important as it's size.

[Anonymous No.1088037]

>>1086903
>replying to this thread
>with logical arguments

I think you are lost brah. Its not like that has not been said before. You will never reach some people, period.

[Anonymous No.1088050]

a conspiracy would require people in the government to:
1. get something done
2. not blab to the press about it
never going to happen

[Anonymous No.1088350]

>>1086936
God, I lol'd.

[Anonymous No.1088408]

å

[Anonymous No.1088505]

>>1087317
>As a first hand witness to that event, I can tell you that a religious extremist flew a plane into a building.

As a first hand witness, you can tell us that a plane flew into a building.

[Anonymous No.1088668]

>>1086985

There is such a mountain of info that is plain censored and then another mountain of info that is suppressed by the press. You can't rely on all these myterious troofers to bring it to your attention either which really makes me wonder if 9/10 troofers are just plain shills pretending to troof whilst just positioning themselves as best possible to sabotage legitimate investigations coming from the public.

[Anonymous No.1088679]

Tower 7 didn't fall down

[Anonymous No.1088693]

>>1088505

Implying that you somehow know for sure the poster is not a black ops who planted Mohd Atta's body on a drone along with other cadeavers.

[Anonymous No.1088786]

>>1087001
fucken lol'd!

[Anonymous No.1088852]

Wait a minute.

People actually believe that the planes flew into the buildings and the government planted bombs at the bottom to explode shortly before impact?

Why? If the government truly was behind this for oil (the most common argument), wouldn't having the plane flying into the buildings be enough justification? Why would they need explosives at the base of the building too? It'd just be leaving more shit for investigators to find.

Occam's Razor, motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.1088883]

>>1087321
>If I say "The moon is made of cheese." on network TV, does it make it true?

And how do you know it isn't? It's not like anyone has ever been there...

[Anonymous No.1088915]

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job_p2.html

>Let's say they wrote 500,000 checks (hell, you've got more than 120,000 people in the American Society of Civil Engineers alone, and they'd be the first ones to speak out). Say the average payout was ten million (barely enough to live rich the rest of your life, but let's just say). So that's 500,000 times ten million which is...

>...Five TRILLION dollars.

>That's about half of the value of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. Therefore the 9/11 conspiracy was, in terms of payroll, the single largest employer in the history of the world.

[Anonymous No.1088931]

>>1088050
fuck! That was the most convincing argument ever!

[Anonymous No.1089363]

I'd just like to make it clear at this point that it seems like the OP's only evidence so far is some videos in which someone admits that he told the fire chief to "pull it" and where a few people say that the building was about to explode.

1. "Pull-it" most probably refers to the firefighters' operation.

2. Saying that the building was going to fall or explode was probably just an assumption made based on evidence of damage.

So, basically: The OP has no evidence.

[Anonymous No.1089556]

>>1087030

I think the word you forgot to put in there is patsies perhaps? And the WHY is quite simple...the patsies where there to take the blame for the war on/of terror against terrorists/muslims which were actually a side issue to distract from the real purpose of the war on terror, i.e. the end game.

Hint: sift excuses and reasons and think patriot act.

[Anonymous No.1089575]

>>1087056

The best page in the universe ir run by a jewfag. Jewfags are disportionately very anti troofer whether they are vocal about it or going under cover as troofers to fuck things up for the curious and openminded.

[Anonymous No.1089597]

>>1089363

No, basically OP is presenting no evidence or just flinging unconvincing evidence.

[Anonymous No.1089634]

>>1088852


Investigators? Find? Lulz...all the rubble was whisked off to china to be recycled.

On that note I donno why everyone insists that the US govt planted those explosives. I mean wtf? This was a privately owned building don't you think a private contractor would have been hired to rig it up with boomboom? It's actually ten times more plausible that a private contractor/goon squad/whatever was used to rig the WTCs with explosives. Or if it was a govt then it was more likely special ops from another country as much as it could have been moles in the US govt.

[Anonymous No.1089651]

>>1087398

Since this is /sci/ can you please describe how diesel fuel explodes? Outside of a diesel piston cylinder that is. A youtube video of exploding diesel would be welcome too.

[Anonymous No.1089688]

>>1087835

Mr Structural Engineer could you also explain to us how a fire can magically disable the sprinkler systems in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7? Or...did someone decide that throwing water on fire would actually cause the fire to burn faster and thus decide to disable all the sprinklers?

Oh..and since this is /sci/ could you also explain how a fire can burn wildly inside WTC7 but somehow not give out any smoke? Was this some special type of non-polluting diesel inside WTC that burned without any smoke for 7 hours and then poof! suddenly made the entire building crumble into dust as we watched all four corners of the building hit the floor simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.1090283]

As an aerofag and an individual with an interest in metallurgy; metal does not have to be heated to its melting point to lose strength; whether it be sheer, bearing, yielding, or otherwise. In fact, it doesn't have to come anywhere close to its melting point.

Concerning the possibility of demolitions; It seems a building falling from top-down would cause a huge pressure spike in the lower floors, thus causing the windows to blow out, as seen. Also, seeing as how the structural integrity was not compromised at the base, this would increase the likelyhood of the building collapsing top-down, seemingly in its own footprint.

[Anonymous No.1090326]

.>>1090283

Also, the WTC buildings did not collapse in their own footprint. In fact, part of one WTC building hit WTC 7, causing IMMENSE structural damage and ignited an inferno that lasted for hours. Don't believe me? There are pics of WTC7 and the damage sustained all over the internet. Google it, I can't be bothered at the moment.

[Anonymous No.1090391]

>>1090326

<---- WTC 7 damage. Looks pretty extensive to me.

[Anonymous No.1090422]

>>1089651

Diesel is very dense, but not as dense as jet fuel. Diesel fuel is also VERY volatile. Burns pretty awesome, but would still need to be under pressure to explode.

[Anonymous No.1090745]

>>1090283

At 9.8 meters per second EXTRA each second for 14 seconds in a row because besides weakening metal a temperature of 500C can also "sadden" metal to the point where the sadness travels like an electric current up and down the skyscraper ensuring that the actual strength will go from X to ZERO at a given moment in time, usually 45 minutes after the first sad spell thus explaining why 110 stories can collapse vertically into a dustheap rather than tilting the building.

Metaphysics!

[Anonymous No.1090762]

>>1090391

Missing the flames and smoke one usually associates with fire. Fire being what one usually associates with heat. Heat being what one usually associates with discomfort which is apparently what people inside WTC didn't really feel until hours after this so called "extensive damage".

Evidently they didn't feel this other thing called a "sense of danger" or impending doom either since city government was coordinating lets say "stuff" from within WTC for hours and hours after the plane hits

[Anonymous No.1090766]

>>1090422

diesel is not "very" volatile or dense, it is pretty mid tier on both counts as far as fuels/petroleum distillates go.

[Anonymous No.1090785]

>>1090422

Does diesel burn better or worse when mixed with water? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out if they turned the sprinkler system off in order to prevent the diesel from exploding.

But then again they may have turned they may have turned the sprinklers off so as not to create any electrical fires.

But then, why do people install sprinklers in buildings anyway?

[Anonymous No.1090788]

>>1090766

Diesel is pretty syrupy, I think that is referred to as dense. It is also very volatile relative to gasoline ;p

[Anonymous No.1090806]

>>1090785

Given how it is more volatile, it would burn hotter. If in fact they did turn the sprinkler system off, maybe it was because the fire was burning too hot for the water to have a beneficial effect? As in the fire would pretty much instantaneously evaporate the water, separating it into its base constituents; oxygen and hydrogen. Oxygen being able to fuel a fire on its own.

[Anonymous No.1090813]

>>1090788

i don't think so, diesel is a couple steps heavier than gas as far as the "levels" they distill off from crude oil which means it takes a higher temperature to boil it off and it should be substantially less volatile...

[Anonymous No.1090838]

>>1090813

You would be correct. Its been a few years since I had taken AMT classes. Here is sauce; http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-gasoline-diesel-fuel-and-fuel-oil.htm

[Anonymous No.1090848]

>>1090806

Which sort of begs the question, why install sprinklers in an office building at all if you will never use them in a fire. Presumably they had a way of turning sprinklers off just for the floors that stored diesel and batteries and what not versus floors that just had office furnishings?

I mean that's what one would expect from a fire prevention plan where the security personnel have different scenarios worked out and different ways to tackle various types of fires.

I'm assuming the goal here was to snuff the fire and not fan the flames of course.

[Anonymous No.1090855]

The only true fact about 9/11.

90% of the "major" truthers, will not have to work against for the rest of their lives.

[Anonymous No.1090858]

>>1090848

Just to correct myself, the fire would burn hotter and longer due to diesel fuel producing more BTUs than gasoline. Has nothing to due with volatility.

Okay, now that we've cleared that up, proceed =P

[Anonymous No.1090859]

Aren't both Jet fuel and Diesel both one of the most slow burning fuels around? Very dense and very hard to burn unless heated *and* atomized?

[Anonymous No.1090865]

inb4 BP oil spill is some kind of crazy CIA conspiracy

[Anonymous No.1090869]

>>1090865

DAMN!
Why i haven't thought of that myself?

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1090874]

>>1090785
I'm pretty sure you'll find some planes hit the buildings, this severed the pipes feeding the sprinkler systems. The diesel was pressurised as it ran emergency generators within the building.

[Anonymous No.1090876]

And the Pentagon? Oh, that's right, you can't explain what was a cruise missile attack.

The plane was not in a position to hit that structure. It was a missile.

Sage for governemnt lies.

[Anonymous No.1090890]

>>1090855

Implying that a truther couldn't possibly have secondary objectives to earning bank such as diverting attention or popularizing straw man arguments for the mainstream media to exploit.

[Anonymous No.1090897]

>>1090876

So, what happened to the plane that is supposed to have crushed in the Pentagon?

[Anonymous No.1090902]

>>1090865
Welcome to last month

[Anonymous No.1090907]

>>1090897
GOVERNMENT LIES

[Anonymous No.1090917]

>>1089688
This.

Skepticfags just got TOLD! Plus, there's no way the building could fall at free-fall speed like it did without explosives.

Don't give me that pancake shit. It wouldn't have fallen so fast.

[Anonymous No.1090918]

>>1090876
> Implying a passenger jet flying in at 500+ MPH with a full load of fuel isn't a goddamn missile

[Anonymous No.1090926]

>>1090917

No building fell at free fall speed.
It's not even possible to fall at free fall speed even with explosives.

No, the buildings weren't even near free fall speed. Take 20 different videos and a stopwatch and find our yourself.

[Anonymous No.1090934]

>>1090874

Okay so both planes managed to hit at that sweet spot which blew out auxilliary diesel power hence no sprinklers and then the chunk of concrete that hit WTC7 also blew out the diesel generators that powered the sprinkler system in 7?

Ahh and I suppose the generators were placed on completely different floors in both towers by security in order to foil possible saboteurs yet that nefarious Tim Osmond knew where they were and managed to take them both out anyway.

[Anonymous No.1090935]

>>1090897
Nothing happened to the plane. Most of it was buried in the Pentagon, while there were huge chunks of it all over the outside yard.

[Anonymous No.1090938]

>>1090926
What about tower 7? What about the smoke? Where's the smoke, skeptic?

Also, they did fall at free-fall speed. Alex Jones had a special on it and he said it fell at free-fall and the govenrment messed up the tapes it was a false-flag

[Anonymous No.1090942]

>>1090918
> Implying a passenger jet flying in at 500+ MPH 12 feet above ground with a full load of fuel isn't a goddamn missile

Corrected

[Anonymous No.1090947]

>>1090934
WHAT NOW?!

[Anonymous No.1090952]

>>1090935

Yes I am sure they gave it a decent burial. I've seen pictures of them carrying a huge casket with solemn experessions on their faces.

[Anonymous No.1090953]

Anytime a conspiracyfag trys to tell me the government is lying to us and blah blah truth blah blah. I tell them ignorance is bliss and I'm happy the way things are, lies and all.

[Anonymous No.1090960]

itt; /b/tards ignorant of physics

[Anonymous No.1090961]

>>1090953
WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Anonymous No.1090970]

The thought that the sprinklers were damaged never crossed your mind

[Anonymous No.1090975]

>>1089688

Special diesel that doesn't give off smoke? This is news too me. Diesel produces hella smoke.

[Anonymous No.1090978]

>>1090970
He thinks a quarter inch water pipe can douse 5000 gallons of burning jet fuel!

[Anonymous No.1090980]

>>1090970

Oh it did. Just didn't realize until now that all sprinklers in all floors in all three buildings were "damaged" to the point of being totally useless.

[Anonymous No.1090982]

>>1090938

While i don't agree with this video (or any other "truth" or "debunking" video as they are mostly a low for of propaganda) you can check this link for times on WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

About the smoke, i believe that a small Google image search about WTC 7 will produce hundreds of images that are filled with smoke (especially after the WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed, as most of the back smoke from that part onwards is from the other buildings that are on fire)

Take care :)

[Anonymous No.1090983]

>>1090975
Exactly.

Skeptics can't explain this.

[Anonymous No.1090986]

>>1089688
Nope, no smoke here.

[Anonymous No.1090996]

>>1090980

If you cut a pressurized pipe system at any point, you can expect that the whole system will work sub optimally.

[Anonymous No.1091015]

>>1090996
You idiots think that a sprinkler system is made to handle jet liners? Show me the building code for that.
Sprinklers CONTAIN small fires so they don't get larger. You can't contain an explosion that sets 4 floors ablaze.

[Anonymous No.1091018]

>>1090986
THAT'S NOT TOWER 7!

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1091029]

>>1090934
You are obviously another illiterate,
>this severed the pipes feeding the sprinkler systems
a sprinkler system that isn't pumping water is not going to do any good.

>>1090938
>Alex Jones
Obvious troll.

[Anonymous No.1091044]

>>1090996

This.

Lrn2hydraulics people. Or if you have a background in pneumatics or electromagnetism, that works too. All three fields work upon principles that are strikingly similar.

[Anonymous No.1091047]

Sprinkler systems aren't made to cushion the impact of getting sliced down the size by a 500 ton falling beam of steel.

[Anonymous No.1091049]

>>1090978

5000 gallons of jetfuel that tightened their belts, took a deep breath and ran past the people at the point of incision(leaving them all as bewildered as this woman), dodging doors and walls until they reached the stairs at which point they split up into 40 teams as they had been trained and entered each floor VERTICALLY finally self igniting for maximim effect.

Silly me. Yeah what could a lowly sprinkler do against that type of assault, heck even thousands of sprinklers...

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1091050]

>>1091018
12 seconds in google.
FFS try and disprove something yourself before proclaiming it as gospel.

[Anonymous No.1091062]

just curious,

most of the 9/11 "truthers" are currently 20 or younger and weren't really old enough to understand what was happening on 9/11 right?

if the government is faking this then they did a fuck ton better job of it than they have done on ANYTHING ELSE EVER

[Anonymous No.1091065]

>>1091015

The building code is 7

[Anonymous No.1091076]

>>1091065
Oh, well in that case...
The owner took advantage of the chaos, and burned the building down for the insurance money.
Doesn't take a huge conspiracy to pull that one off.

[Anonymous No.1091078]

>>1091044
>>1091047
Exactly. Skeptics think that there was smoke, but there wasn't. We've got them on the ropes now!

[Anonymous No.1091087]

Alright guise, I'm probably more of a conspiracy nut than most in here. But calling 9/11 an inside job is a bit too much, even by my standards. The most convincing arguments I've heard actually have nothing to do with the building collapse, but the owners of the buildinds, insurance claims taken out, and ZIONist lobbyist connected to the situation. Even then though, I highly doubt it was MOSSAD. I think in this case, shit truly happened.

[Anonymous No.1091088]

>>1089688
>somehow not give out any smoke?
What? There was no smoke? That's fucking impossible.

[Anonymous No.1091090]

>>1091087
Don't believe the gubment lies. NO SMOKE

[Anonymous No.1091091]

>>1091047
But has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.1091104]

>>1091047

The second jet just nicked a big corner off two or three floors. Are you telling me that the entire freaking building, all it's floors, had it's sprinkler system going through pipes on ONE CORNER of the skyscraper?

And that also happened to be the corner spot where they had hidden the generators? So if someone takes some pliers and cuts a 1/4 inch pipe the entire building's sprinkler system will lose pressure?

Ahh well...you learn something new every day. Here I was thinking that they might have progressively thicker pipes feeding the sprinklers water with *gasp* possibly even a valve system but no...

Nope I guess they don't design any sprinkler systems with valves.

[Anonymous No.1091118]

>>1091104
Exactly. SMOKE.

[Anonymous No.1091127]

>>1091104
You realize that a valve only WORKS when someone is there to use it? And perhaps no one would want to play the valve game because there as a 50 foot wall of rubble and smoke billowing their way?

[Anonymous No.1091131]

>>1091088

In that picture I don't see smoke. Yet...according to the Structural Engineer while there was no smoke or no flames the metal in WTC 7 was getting progressively weaker and weaker allegedly with the help of a diesel fueled FIRE.

So I'm asking, if there is that fire then show me the smoke AT THAT TIME. If no smoke then no fire. If no fire then no heat. If no heat then no metal weakening further and further. If no metal weakening further and further than what the goddam hell turned WTC into pulverized ash in seconds?

[Anonymous No.1091134]

>>1087306

You know what would bury proof that it's controlled demolition? Destruction of physical evidence. Oh and couple it up with barring crime labs from running forensics on rubble...

[Anonymous No.1091154]

>>1091104

You are correct, the entire system would lose pressure. Given out extensive the damage was, it would seem plausible the sprinkler system.would lose pressure entirely.

Also, someone has to work the valves. Would you have the presence of mind to turn off a valve while being trapped in a 110 story raging inferno on the verge of collapse? Any normal person would be overridden by a flight response and just want to GTFO of there as quickly as possible, hence; people jumping from the building to their deaths.

[Anonymous No.1091155]

>>1091131

And this is the east side that was further away from the WTC complex (therefore received less damage by the debris)

[Anonymous No.1091163]

>>1091127

Oh yeah valves only work when someone takes a pipe wrench, climbs up in through the asbestos and turns a creaky rusted faucet. There couldn't possibly be a system with modern star trek like technology that can shut valves off by REMOTE CONTROL. Omg you would need stuff like wires, magnets and a massive gigantic futuristic computer to coordinate all that.

And even if such technology had been possible when the building was constructed you would need to actually DESIGN the building to take advantage of said tech and be imaginative enough to prepare against a fire that covered more than 5 square feet.

Yup...that explains it.

[Anonymous No.1091175]

A building engulfed in flames that produces no smoke seems mighty impossible. Just saying. If you truly believe this, what are your alternatives?

[Anonymous No.1091179]

>>1091154

Yeah that makes sense. Little did I realize that all the secreraries and managers did double duty as professional building security personnel trained in fire control ALL FROM THE SAME FLOORS THAT THE PLANE HIT. Yup...now it all makes sense. Those plane attacks were a lot better planned than I previously thought.

[Anonymous No.1091190]

>>1091163
You might even need ELECTRICITY, which anyone could tell you was in short supply on account of two huge planes hitting the WTC.

[Anonymous No.1091197]

I love who people argue about smoke and splinter systems.

It's like the have agreed on EVERYTHING ELSE and are now looking at the fine details.

Get a life :D

[Anonymous No.1091202]

>>1091163

Face it dude, the real world is not as advanced as you would like to believe. Probably due to the people involved with funding the construction of the WTC buildings wanted to do it for as cheap as possible.

Just because we have the technology does not mean we implement it. Quite the contrary actually, mostly due to financial reasons. Regulation gets in the way of profit.

[Anonymous No.1091209]

> Implying WTC 7 was built to code.
> Implying WTC 7 wasn't built out of absolute shit materials.
> Implying WTC 7 didn't just get a lucky hit.

[Anonymous No.1091221]

>>1091179

Yeah, because all fire safety training courses cover your place of employment being hit by two massive planes. Silly guards, they should have known better.

There's a point where damage control ends and self-preservation begins. Usually around the moment your building is hit by a plane. I would have gotten the fuck out of there too.

[Anonymous No.1091222]

>>1091209
fuck your gif

[Anonymous No.1091247]

Even built to code, there isn't shit you can do when its hit by a large plane. Buildings aren't designed to withstand impacts from planes flying over 500mph. Maybe an earthquake... but not anything of that size traveling at a high velocity. A bomb may as well have went off.

[Anonymous No.1091275]

>>1091247
Actually WTC towers were designed to do just that, withstand multiple plane strikes without collapsing. They performed quite well, if not for all the thermite...

[Anonymous No.1091286]

Also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
Am I mistaken or do I see 6-8 out of 48 core columns breaking?

[Anonymous No.1091296]

>>1091275

They were created (just WTC 1 and 2) to withstand the impact of the era's largest airliner at approach speed.

Nowadays airplanes are like 20% bigger, 40% heavier and carry more than 500% the amount of fuel.

But nice troll attempt :)
(seriously, is it so hard come up with a proper explosive? It's like saying it was demolished by using toasters)

[Anonymous No.1091301]

>>1086903
>Implying /sci/ has good, intellectual debates.

HAHAHAHA, OH WOW.jpg

[Anonymous No.1091308]

>>1091301

We do! Sometimes. This one is going quite decently actually, relative to the normal BS we're spammed with. Don't hate =P

[Anonymous No.1091315]

>>1091308
Nah. /sci/ is full of raging nerds who are wrong about everything most of the time.

[Anonymous No.1091322]

if it was a controlled demolition, how come it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition ever?

[Anonymous No.1091326]

>>1091315

Just because no one in here is a scientist..

[Anonymous No.1091338]

>>1091322

To add to this why wasn't there any explosion sounds echoing throughout the city, other than the floor hitting floor hawt action. All other demolitions make a huge window shattering noise that seems to be missing in 9/11.

[Anonymous No.1091354]

The WTC towers WERE designed to survive plane impacts.
Pic related.

Oh, you meant fully loaded jet liners....
Never stood a fucking chance.

[Anonymous No.1091363]

>>1091296

Ok so the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a smaller jetliner but the jetliners that did hit just happened to be soooooo much larger that they did what nobody had the slightest idea could be done: disable the sprinklers on all 110 floors simultaneously. In both buildings. And then through a chain reaction building 7 as well.

And the second jetliner managed to do that even though it just nicked the corner off one building as opposed to hitting it squarely in the spine like the first jet.

Interestingly enough the second jetliner which nicked the corner off also happened to fell that building FIRST. Yeah the more I think about it the more everything fits together neatly.

[Anonymous No.1091380]

>>1091363
The WTC towers didn't have a spine you worthless retard.
> Implying that sprinkler systems didn't simply melt down and malfunction under the intense heat.

[Anonymous No.1091382]

>>1091354

Uhmm no, pic unrelated. Please refer to:

>>1091296

[Anonymous No.1091387]

>>1091296
>era's largest airliner
Yes, something like 747, which is twice as large as 767.
>at approach speed.
Nope, at top speed.

[Anonymous No.1091399]

>>1091175

Kaboom! in 4 seconds would be one alternative. Can't think of any others off hand.

[Anonymous No.1091404]

>>1091363

I believe that you are either trying to troll (and fail badly), or actually have some sort of mental condition that forces you to think in a special way.

While I feel sorry if the latter is the case, I will not try to explain your observations, mostly because a) I believe that you lack scientific knowledge and b) I doubt you will even consider (or shall i say, read) what i would have written.

Have a nice day, i hope you manage to find the truth in what you are looking for.

[Anonymous No.1091407]

>>1091354
>>1091296

Neither are correct. Design was for a Boeing 707 at minimum cruise speed (it was assumed if a plane did impact, it would be lost in fog, not an intentional crash). The largest plane of the day was the 747, but no major 747 routes flew them through the region.

[Anonymous No.1091410]

>>1091380

I bet they didn't have scales or wings either. But so what?

[Anonymous No.1091418]

>>1091387
lol wut

[Anonymous No.1091425]

>>1091387
Uh. The towers DID stand after getting hit by a jet liner.
They lasted at least an hour, during which time many people were able to evacuate.
So yes, they met the claim. They just weren't built to survive a jet liner AND be set on fire.

[Anonymous No.1091426]

>>1091363
>>1091363

Nicked? Define nicked, good sir.

[Anonymous No.1091430]

>>1091407
So now it's all about speed, not fire?

[Anonymous No.1091435]

I'm all outta energy for this convo. Here is another beautiful black women. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.1091440]

If the US Government wanted to destroy the towers and blame it on terrorists, then why didn't they just blame the apparent controlled demolition on terrorists? Why would they bother planting the explosives, then hijacking a plane?
>
>"Okay, the explosives are set, but, I'm mean, bombs? That doesn't sound like Islamic terrorists. Get the boys on the phone and tell them to hijack a plane. Yeah, that's right, fly a fucking plane into the building. $50 says you can't push the demolish button the second it hits the building. What do you mean that sounds relatively retarded when you think of all the planning that would beneeded to demolish the buildings in the first place? I said fly a fucking plane into it, and that's that."

[Anonymous No.1091441]

>>1091435
Keep them coming.

[Anonymous No.1091443]

>>1091387


First 747 was produces in 1969. 3 years after the construction of the WTC began.

But nice try :)

[Anonymous No.1091444]

>>1091404

No mental condition forces me to use critical thought. I just choose to do so when or sifting through lies. BTW more than 70% of all Americans think the mainstream story is a lie according to a "legit" survey.

[Anonymous No.1091447]

>>1091410
> I know fucking nothing about buildings
Most buildings are built with a heavy duty core (the SPINE).
The WTC towers were built as a giant shell. All the load bearing structures were on the outside of the structure. That's why the building was so damn popular, because the design left a HUGE amount of office floor space without placing pillars everywhere.

[Anonymous No.1091448]

No fag, no government in the world would have the ability to keep anything close to this secret. Not to mention that the explosive would have to have been nothing like those used in any controlled demolition.

[Anonymous No.1091453]

>>1091430
Why would a plane, if friendly, be flying through Manhattan at low altitude at low speed? Because it's looking for an airport. Which means it wants to land. Which means low fuel load. Which means negligible fire. Which means the majority of the energy the building must withstand is kinetic. Which means the WTC was designed for an entirely different scenario from the one it encountered.

[Anonymous No.1091467]

>>1091453
"I wonder what would happen if someone flew an air liner into it" doesn't really pop into peoples' minds until an air liner flies into it.

[Anonymous No.1091471]

>>1091443
Because Boeing totally kept it secret that they designing a large plane. Nice try.

[Anonymous No.1091474]

>>1091441

Another fine darkie for you, good sir. I dated a Kenyan woman last year. Was very eye opening, it put a lot of preconceptions to rest. Also, lots of fun! If you haven't dated a black woman, or even hooked up with one, I suggest trying it at least once. They're no different than any other woman really, but the taboo makes it all the more exciting.

On a different note; I don't think this argument can ever be reconciled. Its a matter of different perspectives. I for one; have a hard time even attempting to justify 9/11 as a conspiracy due to my respect for all victims involved. Its tragic, man. Even if it was a conspiracy, I think it might be better to just let it lay. We know now what to look for.

[Anonymous No.1091475]

>>1091467
They knew that the Empire State Building was hit by a small aircraft lost in fog. So they were aware of the possibility, and designed for the possibility. They just never considered the possibility of an intentional attack.

[Anonymous No.1091481]

All these conspiracy nuts keep forgetting one thing.
For the government to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude, it needs to be COMPETENT and EFFICIENT.
None of which describes the US government.

[Anonymous No.1091488]

>>1091387
>>1091275
The buldings were designed in the seventies to withsand the impact of the largest airliner of the time, which was a 707. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.1091494]

>>1091440

Errr maybe because if the official story had terrorists planting exposives inside the building it would scream INSIDE JOB to every Tom Dick and Harry that heard the story?

In order to get into the buildings and plant explosives you have to be screened and allowed to walk in and out with uhmm hundreds of pounds of mysterious baggage REPEATEDLY whereas a building hit by a plane creates the impression of helplessness and no foreknowledge along with no chance of collusion with said perpetrators.

So if you actually are planting explosives then it's easier to convince morons that a plane did it since a moron would be more likely to disbelieve a terrorist snuck in and planted explosives without any help.

Evidently people aren't as gullible and moronic as someone thought.

[Anonymous No.1091497]

>>1091444

I will only reply since you got triples :D

If you are actually critically thinking, I believe that you should focus less on arguments of the style "there is not enough smoke" (really, how can anyone tell how much smoke should be there?) or "the fire extinguishing system failing" (don't you believe that if they were capable enough, we would have no need for the fire brigade?)

If I were you, I would start the rational thinking with simpler things. Take one of the two main towers.
Ask yourself, "How(why) did it fell?" Since you don't believe the airplane story, and you support the explosive idea, ask yourself "Do i know anything about explosives?". If not, do some reading. What kind of explosive they suggest that was used? Is it possible?

From my knowledge, I know that I can exclude thermite. Can you?

[Anonymous No.1091502]

>>1091474
All black women in my area are nuns. Tough luck.

[Anonymous No.1091508]

>>1091481

This.

Although the most plausible conspiracy theory I've heard on the matter actually pins 9/11 on Israel. Regardless, I still think it is highly implausible. As previously mentioned; shit happened that day. The only thing we need to fear is our own incompetence.

[Anonymous No.1091521]

>>1091453

That makes perfect sense. Most people don't realize that all MODERN jetliners now take off vertically from airports until they reach 10,000 feet and then switch to horizontal flight patterns whilst when they need to land they always sort of glide in at an angle.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1091532]

>>1091444
Lol, thinks that reading a bunch of conspiracy crap and swallowing it hook line and sinker is critical thought. Then makes an argumentum ad populum.

[Anonymous No.1091534]

>>1091494
Because a bunch of guys in suits with identification is any less suspicious when they're carrying hundreds of punds of mysterious baggage? Do you think that just because you have a piece of paper saying you work for the government, that you are any more likely to be allowed to carefully lay explosives throughout an extremely populated bulding? The residents of the WTC weren't in on the demolition. If they were, then that's 2000 American and international martyrs willing to die to help the US Government cover their ass. That's commitment.

Terrorists had equal oppurtunity to plant explosives than the US government did.

[Anonymous No.1091535]

>>1091488

Implying that they were obviously thus designed to turn into powder in 45 minutes if hit by a plane exactly twice as large.

[Anonymous No.1091547]

>>1091534
Because a bunch of terrorists planting explosives in the lower levels will cause the towers to pancake down.

[Anonymous No.1091551]

>>1091502

Ahh, sucks man. I wish you all the luck in your future exploits of black women. The contrast alone is worth it ;p Black women are surprisingly easy to mingle with, you just have to pry them from their shell. A lot of them tend to be rather sheltered when it comes to white men. But really, they're just as excited as we are about the prospect of a relationship. It definitely works both ways.

[Anonymous No.1091553]

>>1091547
How was that related to my post at all? My post was saying that, assuming all this planned demolition crap was correct, that terrorists had equal oppurtunity of doing it as the US Government.

[Anonymous No.1091556]

>>1091535

Without being an engineer / architect or Physics Major (my degree is in Forensic science), I would say that if a 747 hits any other skyscraper in the world, the building will collapse either instantly or in less than 10 minutes.

[Anonymous No.1091561]

>>1091535
>implying implications

>>1091488 was stating facts and wasn't biased whatsoever.

[Inurdaes !bhTvNIPhlI No.1091571]

1) Blow up some buildings in america with 'planes' blame it on terrorists
2) Declare war against Iraq and Afghanistan
3) take oil
4) Blow up entire country
5) Halliburton comes in to rebuild shit
6) ???????
7) PROFIT

[Anonymous No.1091573]

I never got why the buildings would have to be demolished. Apparently the whole conspiracy would fail if WTC 7 didn't collapse.

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1091584]

>>1091571
Post hoc ergo procter hoc.

[Anonymous No.1091602]

>>1091448

Implying that the demolitions being an inside job is a secret. Well maybe it is to an amazon pygmy but then again so was the existence of the buildings in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1091628]

If it was a conspiracy, why hasn't one single person who was in on it come out and said so?

[Anonymous No.1091640]

Interesting fact:

A full 747 (average weight between different models) hitting a target with a full tank at full speed ( average speed between different models ) will produce 14.5 TeraJoules of energy.

And this doesn't take into effect the fuel (other than their weight, that is)

Ouch :/

[Anonymous No.1091648]

>>1091447

Wait, are you telling me the towers were hollow? And are you also telling me there was more steel density on the outsides of the towers than the inner core? And what is this relevent to anyway since a plane would have to pierce the outer shell regardless.

[Anonymous No.1091692]

>>1091640

This is kinetic energy converted to heat and shock waves I presume? Assuming this little factoid is true it doesn't really fit into a "time delayed" collapse of a damaged structure if you postulate that shock and impact damage is a major factor in "toppling" a structure vertically.

So I fail to see how this little snippet is relevent anywhere.

[Anonymous No.1091724]

>>1091692

It's not relevant. That's why i wrote "interesting fact". Fact being, that it is true, interesting being that it's something interesting :p

But yes, those 14.5 TJ affected the building hundents of various ways, so I wouldn't argue that "the building recieved 14.5 TJ of energy.

Yes another interesting (and useless) fact. 14.5 TJ is about 1/4 of energy the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

[Anonymous No.1091736]

>>1091692

also you are forgetting that 747s are pretty much 10 times as massive as the planes that hit the trade centers >_>

[anonymous No.1091739]

yep. pretty much, OP.

[Anonymous No.1091749]

>>1091628

You got me there. Why don't we see George running out in the street screaming "I can't take the pressure any more I'm coming clean I didn't do it I just went along with the story" and why don't we have Larry releasing a statement that he was well aware who it was that rigged the towers up with explosives because he brought them in after taking the lease over and doubling his policy.

After 10 years you would think everyone would just get tired of playing this joke and just come clean

[Anonymous No.1091766]

>>1091724

That makes the Hiroshima bomb look really really weak. I mean it would have turned manhattan into a parking lot amirite?

[Anonymous No.1091803]

>>1091766

Not really, if you consider that the bomb that can do that weights 4 tons, while the 747 weights 400 tons and must travel at 270 meters per second.

Also, a bomb is built to have a wider area of effect.

[Anonymous No.1091813]

>>1091766

Nah, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions were relatively weak compared to other nuclear bombs we've developed. No way either bomb could have leveled NYC. Also, I think there may be a difference between the method of delivery; explosion vs high velocity impact.

[Anonymous No.1091814]

>>1091556

Using your knowledge and experience in forensic detectivology would those other buildings collapse vertically or could one of them just possibly keel over like timber?

Also, would those other buildings turn into dust from top to bottom or could they possibly just lose maybe 1/4 or even half of their structure to collapse on the side?

I'm assuming all those other buildings around the world would self pulverize vertically into their own footprint but just checking :)

[Anonymous No.1091845]

>>1091813

Well it's just that manhattan looks so small and narrow compared to what I thought Hiroshima looked like and didn't most of the buildings in Hiroshima get like half knocked down or something? Excuse the ignorance but I never really looked carefully. Just assumed that at least a square mile or two were just flattened to nothingness. As in 20 to 30 city blocks just poofing into a parking lot and the surrounding areas starting to get taller and taller as you moved out...

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1091854]

>>1091814
If you watch videos of the twin towers collapsing you will see they fall from the point of impact down.

[Anonymous No.1091890]

>>1091845

Well yeah, you are correct as far as the area of Manhattan. If I am correct though, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both comprised of shanties, huts, and rice partitions galore. Manhattan was built with concrete and iron, the builds have a lot more structural integrity.

[Anonymous No.1091908]

>>1086903
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI
/thread

[Anonymous No.1091914]

>>1091814
I will be using some 9/11 terms, since we all know what they are supposed to mean.

I believe that most "small" buildings (i know it's a relative term, but it's the best i can come up with) would have something like 4-5 floors completly blown off, with remaining top side of the building falling at a random angle towards the ground.

If, as it fell, it hit the bottom (unaffected) part, then I would expect a collapse of that area in a "pancake effect". Note that the falling would be extremely random depending on the area where the top hits the bottom. It might be a "own it's own footprint" or it might just "lick" a corner of the building and fall down.

For bigger building, like the WTC, i would only expect an explosion. After that I believe that everything is random. Most common scenario it would be a C shape (if you understand what i mean) on the building, which will collapse, again randomly, in a mater of minutes.

All those, with no knowledge of engineering or anything related.

tl;dr I can only speculate. I believe in numbers, so everything has a chance :D

[Anonymous No.1091916]

>>1091497

Eh? That picture of WTC 7 has no smoke. Zero. Nada. And besides that whilst that building was supposedly melting away into a pulp the city of NY had an entire floor MANNED in that building "managing" various aspects of "damage control" with just a skeleton crew bravely running things.

So here's my process of critical thought. If there's smoke then there's a fire. If there's smoke and a fire and then no smoke then the fire has been extinguished. If the fire has been extinguished and people are WORKING in the building for hours on end then the fire couldn't have been so terrible as to melt the entire steel skeleton of the building four freakin hours after the fire was snuffed out lol.

If the fire was snuffed out but mysteriously relit itself then that's just incredible.

[Anonymous No.1091999]

>>1091916

Again, i do not recommend watching videos for this kind of things, but this one has some rather good footage of the WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4

Go to about 5:40, so you get to skip all the things that will make you mad (spooky sound in the background, letters popping out quoting someone and the like. I believe you know what i mean).

If you ask me, it has a crap load of smoke.

[Anonymous No.1092019]

>>1091999

Typo, i was about to write 6:40

[Anonymous No.1092024]

>>1090806
>>1091087
>>1091202
>>1091221
>>1091308
>>1091508
>>1091551
>>1091890

holy shit, black woman poster, you would make me SUPER SUPER HAPPY if you gave me sources on these!

[Anonymous No.1092052]

>>1090806
>>1091087
>>1091202
>>1091508

If that's too much, sources on at least these 4 would be greatly appreciated :)

[Anonymous No.1092069]

>>1092024

No sources, sorry 8( They're just notable black women I've happened to collect over time. I've developed somewhat of a fetish for them ever since I engaged in a relationship with a Kenyan woman.

[Anonymous No.1092077]

>>1092069

Damn, I feel SO bad for you.
No really!

Could we have some more later on please? :D

[Anonymous No.1092078]

>>1086903
10/10 OP

[Anonymous No.1092079]

>>1091999

Ok once again that picture has no smoke. Conclusion is that at some point in time there was no smoke hence no fire! Video has smoke but there were many many hours that elapsed between when 7 was hit by rubble and when it finally self-pulverized into talc and I'm assuming the pic was taken during that time since 7 is standing and damaged.

So...how can a fire be put out and then suddenly come back to life and turn a 47 building into smoke and dust? Does your video(which I didn't watch) explain this?

[Anonymous No.1092090]

>>1086903
look, an americoon said eleventh of september...

11/9....

[Anonymous No.1092091]

>>1092077

I'm about 5/13ths through the collection on the current PC I'm using. I have loads more on a portable hard drive.

[Alice !qDX6ZJK88k No.1092092]

Why the fuck is this thread still here?

OKAY GUYS, NEW THEORY (a guess). ALL 0.9 TROOFERS ARE THE REAL CONSPIRATORS.

THAT'S RIGHT. The truthers have been making up false claims and going to ridiculous lengths to forge half-assed evidence and sound-bytes for a larger agenda. What is their motive? To TROLL AMERICA AT LARGE.

Oh, you heard me. Every new truther that they recruit buys into the lies and half-truths! It's so clear to me now. They go around preaching their new inside-job religion and jerk off to pictures of buildings exploding with thermite. I bet they even think the real ending to Fight Club ended with the credit bureau being blown up.

All it took were a handful of powerful wealthy men at the top. Ultima-trolls. The final boss of trolls. And now they have a whole army--a LEGION of devoted followers who don't even know they're being trolled.

Truthers. Let this be our FINAL BATTLE.

[Anonymous No.1092106]

i'm pretty sure it was aliens

[Anonymous No.1092107]

>>1092092
>0.9
I fucking see what you did there.

Goddam was that clever.

[Anonymous No.1092111]

>>1092079

No, the video (which is manly about the fall speed on WTC7) shows some footage with smoke from an unknown time and from the collapsing time.

Since i believe i have confused myself and actually lost the topic, do you mind repeating what photo shows no fire?

Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.1092117]

>>1086903
op is surely a nigger

[Anonymous No.1092123]

>over 9000 posts

Official troll power rankings:

1. 9/11
9001. everything else

[Anonymous No.1092131]

>>1092069

no names or anything? I know the last one you posted is bria myles

[Anonymous No.1092132]

>>1092092
my eyes...are open

[Anonymous No.1092146]

>>1091534

lol wut? Who said GOVERNMENT would be involved in mining the building? It would be regular security and maintenance detail that would do this and they wouldn't freakin bring everything in suitcases lol..the explosives would come in via service elevators in crates or cartons that get deposited in areas from which they would later be taken from and then installed within the elevator and vent areas.

The entire security detail of that building was changed 6 months prior to the day if I recall correctly so why the hell would someone go through all the trouble of putting in place dozens of opteratives in security, custody etc in order to make GOVT employees come in, looking like sore thumbs and planting bombs?

There was no govt involvement in the towers period. Unless you consider intelligence agency moles and special ops "govt employees/contractors" but then those would be foreign governments.

Pentagon yeah a lot more likely but towers no.

[Anonymous No.1092160]

>>1092111

The picture in this post:

>>1090391

[Anonymous No.1092173]

>>1092131

This chick is actually a nigerian model if I'm correct. Or Kenyan, I can't remember. I don't know her full name, but I think Onigawa or something to that extent is definitely in there. No sources, am lazy. I was content with the visuals and didn't bother to ask for names or catalog.

And nah, don't feel bad for me. I get mine ;p You'd be surprised how receptive black women are to white guys. All ya gotta do is speak up ;p

[Skeptic !!Q8iBr0i36HY No.1092225]

>>1092160

see
>>1091155
>>1091050

[Anonymous No.1092241]

>>1092160

That is not WTC 7.
While I cannot confirm which building it is (i have seen the picture before, will look it up), it is clearly not WTC 7, since it has a different window pattern.
The one in the picture is Column-4 windows-Column while WTC 7 is either column-window-column (small sides) or just windows (long sides).

Pic related, you can look for more in Google.

Other than that, that picture must bee taken another day, since both the angle of the shot (high, top of a building or helicopter) and the lack of smoke (smoke lasted for days). I would deem that it's almost impossible to have been captured on 9/11

[Anonymous No.1092299]

>>1092241

Found it!
It's Banker's Trust, between Liberty and Albany streets.
South of WTC 2, next to the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

[OP No.1092406]

Why is this gif not here before this?

[Anonymous No.1092418]

>>1086901

irt gyx s z s zmijjvqx y fy djgyy t j aolab gmCHRrIdSTOPHgEzR POOLeE (AKAp MdOOrTj, AKAj TlHE ADmMIN OtF 4CdHANg) IhS A DAeNGsEmRpOhUuS,l MqEcNhTAyLLY ILL THpIEFn.u RmEhAxDc AdLpL AoBeOUT ITz HxEREv: HuTTP:r//88q.h80.2y1.12/ OR HTTPd:a//WWW.vANmONsTcALxK.SE/ OR HTTiP:d//sApT.KIMMOA.SEh/stu pdgnlb wimkr n m yk

[Anonymous No.1092425]

>>1092225
>>1092241
>>1092299

No idea who put that picture there but it was placed by someone AGAINST the idea of demolitions/inside job judging by the tone of their post.

Anyway without going through the bother of looking at any vidoes I will repeat my rationale:

WTC 7 collapse was censored by the mainstream. They kept replaying the big towers but totally forgot to tell their viewers that 7 wasn't hit by anything besides a bunch of rubble and on top of that was MANNED for hours upon hours upon hours by city employees and on top of that it had fire crews working in it and even then despite all these oddities after a mysterious 6 hour battle with fire the entire building just crumbled within 8 seconds into dust with all 4 corners neatly collapsing together slightly tilting inwards towards a crimp close to the middle just as you see in controlled demolitions.

There isn't a freakin whole lot that anyone can do to convince me nothing fishy happened there.

[NuBlackAnon !!z6ldXGL61Wm No.1092438]

>>1086903
My dad worked in the building next to WTC, and my mother at the time was in the WTC, if there were controled explosives, the people there would have been noticed by both of them, since they manage operations for companies. To take down a large office tower... put it this way, the largest controlled explosion of an existing building took weeks and required extreme care to not cause the explosives to half detonate.
Seven went down because it was hit by a wall of burning ash and building matter which destroyed it, a perfect storm.

[Anonymous No.1092449]

I can't help but lol at the people who think that the government was responsible for 9/11.

If any single one of these conspiracy theorists knew America's history with the Middle East, they'd have no reason to believe Bush needed 'an excuse to go into the middle east' because the five presidents before him were already occupying it.

[NuBlackAnon !!z6ldXGL61Wm No.1092459]

>>1092425
that is what happens with fire, the fire can be fought for hours, but then the building's support or frames give out.

[Anonymous No.1092500]

>>1092449

Not everyone believes that's the only reason or even the main reason. After all when people speak of hitler's Reichstag<sp> scam they don't mention it as being his reason to invade Russia or Poland as opposed to something else, do they?

[Anonymous No.1092514]

>>1092425

Good that we cleared that misunderstanding out. I really don't know why would someone show that pic as WTC 7, especially if he supports the original story.
Anyway.

I haven't heard anything about personnel being inside the building during the fire. Do you happen to have a link? I believe that since we are talking about a high-profile building, some people might be allowed in along the firefighters, to secure important documents or something similar.

Other than that, the only thing i can point out is that the building collapsed at something more than 14 seconds (sorry, if you want a source for that you will have to see *bad* video), and that despite popular belief, the collapse of WTC 7 DOES NOT look like a control demolition.
Moments before the collapse you can see random windows braking, which is an individual characteristic of progressive collapse.

link to that *bad* video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ&feature=related
Once again, i suggest not to bother with that kind of "education" as they only turn you stupid.

Take care :)

[Anonymous No.1092537]

>>1092459

Yes but that building just had some rubble scrape the side of it. I don't see how some rubble is enough to suddenly light the entire floor EVENLY on fire so as to EVENLY weaken all the steel in the building up to the point where it's impossible to control the fire(whilst city employees are happily using the building to manage 911). Oh and then suddenly everything gets really hot and unbearable and the entire building falls into it's footprint.

I mean damn I would have expected 1/4 or 1/2 or even 3/4 of WTC7 to fall while a corner stood but no...it morphs into grey talcum powder and then turns into smoke.

[Anonymous No.1092612]

>>1092092

[Anonymous No.1092625]

>>1092514

Cannot find any reference to people working out of 7 during the fire and now that I think about it it may have been someone like Alex Jones who said something years ago that stuck in my head and got mishmashed and misinterpreted but it appears people believe WTC7 may have been demolished because it contained the former "control center" which guided the planes to the two towers.

So anyway for an undetermined period of time some city employees definately were in 7 after the planes hit the towers but I don't have the exact schedule.

Still, regardless of videos and testimonies I find it close to impossible to believe that a big slab of concrete hit the side of WTC7 and turned into an uncrontrollable fire which the built in fire retardants could not handle. I was just on wikipedia and wikipedia says that the sprinkler system was "broken" in WTC 7 due to impact and had to be manually turned on yet nobody turned it on even though a fire was being fought.

And then..the damage from that one slab managed to spread the fire EVENLY throughout WTC 7 and turned it to powder within hours. I've seen many other buildings on fire around the world and they just don't go up in smoke as if David Copperfield made it happen. The fires rage for days and days on end and it doesn't weaken metal to the point where the whole thing goes poof like a house of cards. It just doesn't happen that way with fires. It does happen with explosives though.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1092645]

>>1088050
stop appeasing to stereotypes, despite being officially run by what appears to be a retard (bush), the general rule of thumb for the American Government is: if they want it, they get it, keep that in mind for all things they do.
2, there were bomb threats leading up to the attacks, and there have been people from within the administration who have actually blown the whistle, nothing is airtight, "truthers" do have friends in high places.
other than that, gag orders were placed on many firemen who were in the towers at the time, this of course has not stopped some of them revealing what they saw.
>>1088852
The centre was a financial mess, it was due for massive refurbishment, flaking asbestos fireproofing, dodgy fire management systems, the owners of the building complex actually wanted to demolish the towers anyway due to the massive cost overruns.
the "attack" actually did them a favour.

>>1088852
not just the base of the towers
and yes, suspicious evidence was indeed found in the building wreckage and in the surrounding streets (like that magical terrorist passport...)
and then a lot of the wreckage was hauled to scrapping yards around the US and to china where it was disposed of amazingly quickly.

>>1089363
the firemen tend to think otherwise
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506bomb.htm

>>1089688
loose change: fireman audio stating that the fire in wtc7 was almost under control, not exactly a raging inferno, eh?

>>1090391
but not a raging inferno, see above.

>>1090855
because they died in the buildings?

>>1090865
CIA, who do you take us for, crazy lunatics?
its the Russians, obviously.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1092658]

>>1090897
they give us some conflicting reports here, first they state that they got the fingerprints from the passengers, then they say that the reason there is very little of the plane left is because it vaporised on impact...

>>1090961
I hate that term

>>1091049
perhaps fireproof clothes? (i was looking for that picture)
shoulda made the towers out of that stuff.

>>1091062
the us gov is not some bumbling cluster-fuck, at the lower levels, yes, but they work pretty well the higher up you go, your point is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

>>1091134
not all evidence was destoryed

>>1091221
emergency evacuation drills carried out days before attacks, as in, these evacuations were they first time they had ever happend (also, bomb threats, tip offs, phone calls to people in higher places saying not to go to work that day)

>>1091440
the original official story was that of planted explosives, but as people wised up, the story changed.

>>1091448
not a secret, bud damn they are trying.

>>1091475
small aircraft? it was a fucking b25 Mitchell bomber

>>1091628
must i say this once more, PEOPLE FROM WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE SERVICES HAVE BEEN SCREAMING "THE GOV DID IT" SINCE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ATTACKS OCCURRED.
cruisecontrol

>>1091640
wasnt a 747, much smaller aircraft.
747 would have sliced the towers in half.

>>1091749
Reichstag fire/gulf of tonkin incident, using false flag attacks to start wars are nothing new.

[Anonymous No.1092735]

>>1092625

I believe that you were experiencing concrete building being on fire. On them, only the roof collapses. Steel frame buildings, on the other hand, will collapse, as they have nothing but steel to support them, and the latter looses integrity as it is getting hotter. If the fire will be hot enough to do something like that, that's another point.

According to reports i have read, WTC 7 only had full sprinkler system on the first 5 floors. It said that after that, the building only had them on key areas that actually need to be protected from fire (file cabinets for example). Out of those 2 "reports" I think i will take Wikipedia's opinion.

About fires, I really don't know enough (enough to be an expert, i know forensic stuff that have nothing to do with what we are talking about). I don't believe that caught fire evenly, but rather "slowly" moved from the point of impact to the rest of the building.
Despite that, I can confirm that sometimes fires cannot be beaten, no matter the effort you put into them. A particular case comes into mind, in China, where more than 5 thousand firefighters were fighting for over 70 hours on a chemical plant. Finally they called the army to bomb the place.

Now, i will play the devil's associate and ask you:
If we exclude fire, what do you think is the reason why WTC 7 fell?
As far as I know, It cannot be a control demolition, since neither explosive residue was found, nor the building behaved in the correct way (total lack of explosions, sights of progressive collapse on windows).

Loved the Copperfield line by the way :)

[Anonymous No.1092844]

Dear tripfag,

We had such a nice conversation here before you came with your wall-o-text.

Besides that, I don't think it's worth discussing your "facts".
You quote Loose chance three times, which is NOT even supported by most of the 9/11 truthers.
You made claims about things you can't possibly know about (fireman saying fire was under control? which floor he was on? Do you really believe that there was only one firefighter group in there?).
You imply that a b25 is not a small aircraft (it's 16x20 meters with a MTOW of 20 tons for fuck's shake).
Last but not least, you are talking conspiracy nonsense with nothing to back it up. Yes, it's cool to say that CIA is working against us, now prove it.

The 747 example was for another thing we were talking about. You kinda missed that part of the discussion.
On the other hand, a 767 produces 4.8TeraJoules, which is 1/10th of the Hiroshima atomic bomb :)

Thanks a lot for reading this message,
Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.1092905]

came to watch trolls battle it out, stayed for the porn.

or came again, if you want to put it that way :3

[Anonymous No.1093059]

>>1092658

Err you have me marked wrong. I was being sarcastic.

>1091749
>Reichstag fire/gulf of tonkin incident, using false flag attacks to start wars are nothing new.

Yes I know false flags are as natural as breathing but my post was in response to him:

>>1091628
>If it was a conspiracy, why hasn't one single person who was in on it come out and said so?


My point was simply that it's ridiculous to expect career criminals to whom genocide, embezzlement, usurption, assasination and biowar is just part of their business to suddenly flip out and blow the whistle on a conspiracy for which they were specifically recruited and trusted to keep under wraps "in plain sight". My unmentioned reason as to why we do not see George and Larry spilling the beans is because we aren't in grade school, we are in hell.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093088]

>>1092735

not all specifically related to wtc7, bud you get the idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxJwOwC8ljE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZdulv66n8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdOeshgyCf8&feature=related

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093104]

>>1093059
I didnt make any claims to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.1093137]

>>1093088

Don't answer. Just think.

Do you know how many things exist in a huge building that can explode?
Even IF they were explosives, why do they explode at random times?
In order for the building to collapse at that "control demolition that imploded on it's footprint", all explosives have to be triggered virtually at the same time, in a specific pattern.

But I guess you have a good answer for that, right?

[Anonymous No.1093140]

>>1092735

I'm not sure what the trusty source is that you have which claims explosive residue was not found but the fact of the matter is that most if not all of the WTC rubble was shipped off to china and india to be lost.

George had the audacity to nominate someone like Henry to head an "investigation" into the whole deal so to suggest that there was no explosive residue found when that "report" comes from the very crew who is being accused of masterminding the demolition is like taking Jack the ripper's own testimony as an acceptable alibi.

It's also possible that certain types of explosives were used which were different than those tested for, or the building was subjected to incendiary "help" using chemicals that leave little to no trace. The possibilities are varied but I just don't buy the story that a slap of concrete started a chain reaction that culminated in 47 stories turning to powder.

I've never ever ever seen a video of any building on fire that just pulverizes like the WTCs did. I'm sure many steel buildings have caught fire in history yet there isn't one single fairy story out there which matches this one.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093154]

>>1092844

facts are facts, deal with it.

yes it is

Audio recordings and transcripts, straight from the firemens mouth. they said the fire was under control at the time of the demolition.

sure as fuck isnt a cessna.

>Last but not least, you are talking conspiracy nonsense with nothing to back it up. Yes, it's cool to say that CIA is working against us, now prove it.

>implying I hadn't proved it already.

[Anonymous No.1093160]

>>1093104

You were acting as if I was ridiculing the fact that governments or even any group can keep a secret and hence carry out a conspiracy involving death and destruction. I was merely clarifying that I think it's a piece of cake for a lot of people and *those* are the only type of people who would be trusted to be this ruthless anyway so the argument that nobody can be this "mean and ruthlessly efficient" is rubish.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093179]

>>1093137

>In order for the building to collapse at that "control demolition that imploded on it's footprint", all explosives have to be triggered virtually at the same time, in a specific pattern.

yup, that's the general idea

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093192]

>>1093160

i understand that the tone of comment is hard to judge by mere letters, but I sincerely meant no offence.

[Anonymous No.1093209]

>>1093140

First of all: When you are looking for residues you are not looking "for a specific type". What you do is find any particle on that milligram of e.g. dust. Contrary to what you might believe, they only needed something like 10 grams of dust per building from different areas.
These were collected the very SAME day, on 9/11.

Besides that, no matter how much you try to ad hominem, there is a report that states something. Until you come up with a better report, this is what people will believe. Talking does nothing.

Thirdly, hundredths of steel framed building have collapsed due to fire. The problem is that none was that big, so we don't have that large debris piles to show you.

When someone comes up with a believable scenario, we will stick to the official story.
And no, having a conspiracy that requires a 1000 bottom feeders, is not good enough when the US.A couldn't keep secret a blow job or 6 guys braking into a hotel.

Thanks a lot for reading,
Take care and have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.1093229]

>>1093192

I know you meant no offence, I just got the impression that you totally misunderstood my post due to it being dipped in so much sarcasm and just wanted to clarify my meaning to everyone reading.

[Anonymous No.1093240]

>>1093154

As i asked, please tell me:
WHICH FUCKING TEAM THAT FIREMAN WAS IN?
WHAT WAS THEIR AREA THAT WAS "UNDER CONTROL"? WAS IT THE WHOLE BUILDING?
HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT?

Other than that, "Fact" by definition is something that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's exactly what they ask from me when i am expected to testify.
Show me something that rests in that definition.


caps for cool control and because i am mad >.<

[Anonymous No.1093254]

>>1093229

We are only, like, 4 guys here, so don't worry.

>>1093179

Then why do they blow up at random times?

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093288]

I am sure someone made the comment to the effect of "if the gov has no trouble killing 3000 people, why arnt the truthers being killed, HA CHECK MATE derp"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=fvw

they are being killed off.

[Anonymous No.1093308]

>>1093288

I was so eager to watch the video, but after the first 3 seconds of epilepsy-picture changing i had to stop.
Because, if you are speaking the truth you really need spooky theme song, flashing picture-in-picture and all that kind of shit that you expect from propaganda (pro-Jews anyone?)

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093347]

>>1093308

you are like a creationist who refuses to look at the fossils

just watch the video, all the way through, dont comment on the colours, or the music, or the feng-shui or any other such excuses, just watch the damn video.

[Anonymous No.1093391]

>>1093347

Sorry mate, but I just will not.
I have seen countless videos since 9/11, i can't stand it anymore. No matter if they are pro or against, all of the are terrible.

I am willing to bet that this video will hand me with 3-4 rhetorical questions, then proceed to talk about 5-6 victims. For each one it will state what the witness knew, how he died mysteriously in an unfortunate turn of events, and the top it up with a semi-related action of some secret service.

Big red letters, COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE!

Drums, curtains, end.

Right?
Believe me, i cry deep inside. I wish they could produce useful things, the Internet is such a powerful medium.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093424]

>>1093391

pic so unbelievably related

[Anonymous No.1093470]

>>1093424

I trusted you since you talked about creationists, and said "what the hell".
Lasted untill 4:11, on yet another rhetorical questions with front 22 letters "What did she know?".

Sorry mate, it's exactly what I was talking about. To be honest it's slightly worse, since it's not even narrated.

This video aside, i still stand on the previous argument. Create me a possible scenario that has the potential to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and I will take it to a court of law myself.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093487]

>>1093470

watch it. all. the way. through.

[Anonymous No.1093524]

>>1093470

I won't. I have way more important things to do with my time, sorry. Even the video description writes "This all can't be a coincidence.". Well, guess what Sherlock, the chances of ME taking to THAT particular anon on 4chan is 1 over 7 billion times 1 over 7 billion-1. Talk about a coincidence.

I also feel bad about the time you wasted yourself watching this video, because you really sound like a rational individual (no matter that we believe different stories, no one is perfect :D).

Do you have anything else that we might discussed or shall i go to bed? It's 7:35 here, and I have a case in about 23 hours, need to sleep and revive for it.

Love, anon.

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093565]

>>1093524

[Anonymous No.1093585]

>>1093288

One sick factoid that people haven't mentioned is concerning the very first truthers who were ever killed. You know, the 200 or so expert witness professionals who would have become the biggest stars of the truth movement had they not been killed off on that day itself. The firemen.

[Anonymous No.1093593]

>>1093565

Is that a mouth, tongue, or you are a human-like beaver with a really large tooth?

I believe we are done debating about the what-not of conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attack.

Good luck on your request for truth mate. Remember, sometime, things are just simple.. plain simple..

[None !kuRzaA2VEk No.1093643]

>>1093593

and sometimes things are just STARING YOU IN THE FACE and require ONLY THAT YOU LOOK AT THEM.

[Anonymous No.1093665]

>>1093565

I am a forensic scientist, I am payed to think complicated.

As I said, find me a scenario and we will work on it.
Tripcode saved for future Love.