9/11 , What Really Happened ?

**DrAndy** · 13-09-2011, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by mc2

if the fall of WTC7 was caused by controlled demolition (btw thousands of engineers and architects support this theory, and are calling for a reinvestigation),

well two of them

Originally Posted by mc2

seriously, only the most blind and boneheaded sheep like boonme actually believe that "office fires" caused the collapse.

nobody says it did, but the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

read this

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 04:09 PM

interestingly, one of George W Bushs cousins/relatives owned the security firm in charge of the WTC buildings... go figure

**Morden** · 13-09-2011, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by Morden

I'm suggesting that the victims deserve the truth as a mark of respect and there is clear evidence, much of it, that the official story is untrue.

the only reason I can think of that the story may be untrue is that the building collapsed because it wasn't built to proper safety standards, and someone high up has a large share in the building company

Originally Posted by Morden

David Ray Griffin, Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California.

yes, the well known building and demolition expert

If you read his research you will see evidence from demolition experts, commercial airline pilots and others from whom he gathered information and took statements..

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by mc2

if the fall of WTC7 was caused by controlled demolition (btw thousands of engineers and architects support this theory, and are calling for a reinvestigation),

well two of them

Originally Posted by mc2

seriously, only the most blind and boneheaded sheep like boonme actually believe that "office fires" caused the collapse.

nobody says it did,

well thats the offical explanation,

if you arent satisfied with it, like many aren't, call for a reinvestigation.

they spent 100s of millions of dollars more on investigating Clinton and the dress than on a proper investigation into the cause of the collapse.

**DrAndy** · 13-09-2011, 04:13 PM

he is hardly the person who would even understand any scientific evidence, never mind hearsay from various self-interested nutters

**Albert Shagnasty** · 13-09-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by thegent

Originally Posted by Takeovers

However it is undenieable that the Twin Towers were brought down by large commercial planes hitting them. Knowing that and assuming that the collapse of WTC 7 and the Pentagon crash were unrelated staged incidents is absurd.

Probably no more so than assuming the conspiracy theorists have functioning brains.
But that doesn't stop the numpties from regurgitating gibberish they have heard second hand from post adolescents, crackpot academics entering early senility and the just plain loopy.

Who on earth really thinks the 9/11 atrocities were perpetrated by anyone else other than those known to be responsible?

The septic dickhead responsible for " loose change " and that fat, loudmouthed radio performer probably sum up the calibre of fuckwit likely to give credence to their silly dribblings.

How unsurprising that TD hosts several of their breed.

So gent - on the spot now mate

You think that a minor fire in building 7 caused the free fall collapse below?
Simple yes/no please my friend

**DrAndy** · 13-09-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

nobody says it did, but the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

Originally Posted by mc2

well thats the offical explanation,

better to include all of my sentence

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

read this

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

any engineer knows that is pure bs

watch that vid above, then consider the massive structural strength of modern skyscrapers and what they are built to witstand, then consider the official explanation about "office fires".

**socal** · 13-09-2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Amazon.com: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (9781588165473): The Editors of Popular Mechanics, David Dunbar, Brad Reagan, James B. Meigs: Books

right

just another conspiracy theory that support the government conspiracy theory

next you will show an Amazon link about that other conspiracy theory, that Saddam had WMD

Why didnt Saddam declare his innocents then ?

**Morden** · 13-09-2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by mc2

if the fall of WTC7 was caused by controlled demolition (btw thousands of engineers and architects support this theory, and are calling for a reinvestigation),

well two of them

Originally Posted by mc2

seriously, only the most blind and boneheaded sheep like boonme actually believe that "office fires" caused the collapse.

nobody says it did, but the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

read this

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

How do you account for the molten metal in the basement weeks after the event?

**DrAndy** · 13-09-2011, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by mc2

Originally Posted by DrAndy

the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

read this

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

any engineer knows that is pure bs

why?

and if that is not a reasonable explanation, the only other cause would be that the building was not built to proper standards and could not take the groundshakes caused by the fall of the towers

**Albert Shagnasty** · 13-09-2011, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by Morden

I'm suggesting that the victims deserve the truth as a mark of respect and there is clear evidence, much of it, that the official story is untrue.

the only reason I can think of that the story may be untrue is that the building collapsed because it wasn't built to proper safety standards, and someone high up has a large share in the building company

Originally Posted by Morden

David Ray Griffin, Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California.

yes, the well known building and demolition expert

^ Here's a few experts for ya - in the right field obviously

AE911Truth.org

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Morden

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by mc2

if the fall of WTC7 was caused by controlled demolition (btw thousands of engineers and architects support this theory, and are calling for a reinvestigation),

well two of them

Originally Posted by mc2

seriously, only the most blind and boneheaded sheep like boonme actually believe that "office fires" caused the collapse.

nobody says it did, but the fires weakened the building so that when part of the TT fell on it, it also collapsed much more easily

read this

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

How do you account for the molten metal in the basement weeks after the event?

exactly. office fires don't even get hot enough to melt structural steel, let alone cause massive pools of moten steel like that.

even a hydrocarbon fuelled fire with optimal fresh air and oxygen can't get that hot.

**Cujo** · 13-09-2011, 04:24 PM

Personally I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other and I sure didn,t read this whole thread because I can guarantee that everything said here in this thread has been said thousands of times over in the past ten years, and for every expert opinion there's an opposing expert opinion.
It does seem bizzare and absurd to consider that this whole thing or any part of it could be a conspiracy, it's just too huge and would have to involve too many people.
There's no question that two planes were flown into the WTC twin towers and caused their collapse. To deny that is foolishness.
On the other hand, regardless of 'demolition expert' advice (because lets face it, for ever expert on one side there's an expert on the other) their is something fishy
about WTC 7. Like I said.
A big solid building collapsing like that with out a direct hit of any sort? I dont think so.
Scampy says 95% of the wreckage of the pentagon would be on the inside.
OK, well the wings and engines would constitute part of that 95% I presume
So how did the wings get in there? (and I'm not convinced of the theory that they folded back, I can,t see that being possible at that speed)

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 04:35 PM

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing in 2009, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

WTC7

**Cujo** · 13-09-2011, 05:18 PM

The buildings were possibly connected underground by railway lines and pedestrian passageways, this would causes SOME trauma to the foundations of WT7 when the other two collapsed. Perhaps there's something there.

**mc2** · 13-09-2011, 05:24 PM

**Albert Shagnasty** · 13-09-2011, 05:31 PM

^ it's like arguing with the flat earth society

**Cujo** · 13-09-2011, 05:32 PM

Turns out it was the fucking Jews.

**Butterfly** · 13-09-2011, 06:03 PM

let's remind everyone that WTC7 held all the SEC documents for on-going fraud investigations

probably implicating the Bush family with all kind of dodgy companies

**DrAndy** · 13-09-2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by mc2

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing in 2009, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

same type of construction?

I don't suppose that Beijing building got swiped by some vast pillar falling from an adjoining building either

**Boon Mee** · 13-09-2011, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Koojo

A full sized jet flying into a building should do a lot more damage that punch a hole through, There should also be a LOT more debris.
WT7 is intrugueing though.
If this is what it would take to bring that building down

It would have taken weeks to properly set charges- support girders would have had to be weakened- the sub-structure would have had to be properly prepared-

But that didn't happen, then why DID that building fall? It wasn't hit in any way, and if it was hit by debris I can see why a portion of it (big building spread over quite and area) might be damaged or even a few walls collapse, but really, what the fuck? What brings down a big building like that< Shock at seeing its neighbours collapse?

Guess you convienently skipped thru post #16 as well as your enlightened friend mc2, eh?

Facts...never let them get in the way of a good conspiracy!

whilst Koojo may be mentally challenged, you don't seem to have read his post either

most of it is about WT7, not about the pentagon, which post #16 refers to

My post re Snopes directly addresses the conspiracy BS surrounding WT7.

**Latindancer** · 13-09-2011, 06:39 PM

I told them twice to read it, but no-one has addressed those points.

**TizMe** · 13-09-2011, 06:46 PM

**Albert Shagnasty** · 13-09-2011, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by mc2

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing in 2009, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

same type of construction?

I don't suppose that Beijing building got swiped by some vast pillar falling from an adjoining building either

What "Vast Pillar" would that be then mate - never heard of it (other than on the link to the dodgy site full of google ads you posted)

Thread: 9/11 , What Really Happened ?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions