Thread: 9/11 , What Really Happened ?

there are a few explanations why (mostly american) people are unquestioningly swallowing the official story despite it is clearly BS to any open minded, free thinking intelligent person.

1. they are sheep who blindly believe whatever bs the media and gov feeds them
2. they dont want to accept the dark implications of inside job,
3. plays up to their islamophobia

Originally Posted by mc2

there are a few explanations why (mostly american) people are unquestioningly swallowing the official story despite it is clearly BS to any open minded, free thinking intelligent person.

1. they are sheep who blindly believe whatever bs the media and gov feeds them
2. they dont want to accept the dark implications of inside job,
3. plays up to their islamophobia

actually, 60% of the American public no longer believe the official story and think there is more to it that they were told

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

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)

nothing wrong with the link
this is a little bit of it so you don't whinge any more

. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.

the columns that hit 7 caused a gaping hole in the side of the building; the structural integrity of the building was then severely compromised

maybe you call it a "dodgy site" because you cannot bear to read a reasonable explanation for the collapse

any structural engineer will tell you the structural support beams are in the center of a building, not the side.

and for WTC7 to collapse the way it did (free-fall into its own footprint) would require the whole building to lose ALL of its structural integrity basically at once.... you know, like they demolish a building with charges laid up and down the columns.

I really don't have my own opinion on WTC 7. Just that it seems strange the Twin Towers collapsed due to the planes hitting them and the WTC 7 collapse is totally unrelated.

But steel columns don't need to melt for a building to break down. They lose structural strength long before they melt.

I remember quite well that I took a guided tour through a swimming pool building. The roof covering the wide open space abpve the pool was made with a wooden structure. The guide told us there were two reasons to chose wood over steel. One is obviously that it looks beautiful. The other reason is that it stands up longer against fire than steel would. Wooden beams of this size burn a long time before they break. Steel would lose its strucural strength long before that.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

I really don't have my own opinion on WTC 7. Just that it seems strange the Twin Towers collapsed due to the planes hitting them and the WTC 7 collapse is totally unrelated.

But steel columns don't need to melt for a building to break down. They lose structural strength long before they melt.

I remember quite well that I took a guided tour through a swimming pool building. The roof covering the wide open space abpve the pool was made with a wooden structure. The guide told us there were two reasons to chose wood over steel. One is obviously that it looks beautiful. The other reason is that it stands up longer against fire than steel would. Wooden beams of this size burn a long time before they break. Steel would lose its strucural strength long before that.

and you believed him did you mate

The pentagon was not hit by a commercial airliner this is a very obvious given and I am far from a conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Not to mention the flammable quailities of each.

(He was obviously in on it though )

Originally Posted by Nefarious

The pentagon was not hit by a commercial airliner this is a very obvious given and I am far from a conspiracy theorist.

There are plenty of eye witnesses. Google

Pentagon planecrash eyewitness

.

Yes the hole looks strange to me too. But again it strikes me as odd that the Pentagon incident would be unrelated to the Twin Towers.

should have at least some footage of it hitting you would think

Originally Posted by mc2

should have at least some footage of it hitting you would think

or at least footage of donald rumsfield diving out of the drivers seat of the truck bomb

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Not to mention the flammable quailities of each.

Ok, I agree that a wooden structure in general is not ideal for fireproof construction.

Wooden roof structures for large support free areas are a special case as the beams used there are absolutely huge. They really can burn a long time before they break.

The point I was making was about the melting. Steel does not need to melt. It loses structural strength long before that. I am making that point as the conspiracy theorists talk so much about steel melting.

Would those people who do not believe the detailed official version please give their detailed version(s) of what they think might have happened ?

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Not to mention the flammable quailities of each.

Ok, I agree that a wooden structure in general is not ideal for fireproof construction.

Wooden roof structures for large support free areas are a special case as the beams used there are absolutely huge. They really can burn a long time before they break.

The point I was making was about the melting. Steel does not need to melt. It loses structural strength long before that. I am making that point as the conspiracy theorists talk so much about steel melting.

you must have missed this earlier post of mine



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

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Would those people who do not believe the detailed official version please give their detailed version(s) of what they think might have happened ?

i think it was inside job via the buildings security company

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by mc2

should have at least some footage of it hitting you would think

or at least footage of donald rumsfield diving out of the drivers seat of the truck bomb

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

and you believed him did you mate

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Not to mention the flammable quailities of each.

Ok, I agree that a wooden structure in general is not ideal for fireproof construction.

Wooden roof structures for large support free areas are a special case as the beams used there are absolutely huge. They really can burn a long time before they break.

The point I was making was about the melting. Steel does not need to melt. It loses structural strength long before that. I am making that point as the conspiracy theorists talk so much about steel melting.

no dude - the government line is that the plane fuel burnt at such a high heat that the steel melted - all at once like - in a nano second - just like a demolition

What about all the eye-witnesses at the Pentagon ? And all the people working there ? And the FBI investigators ?

^^^ it's the "conspiracy theorists" who say that is a load of bollocks - which it is.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

What about all the eye-witnesses at the Pentagon ? And all the people working there ? And the FBI investigators ?

Who?
Links?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty

Originally Posted by Takeovers

You think he was a 9/11 conspiracist?

No, I just think maybe you should read up a little on the strength and durability of wood vs steel

Not to mention the flammable quailities of each.

Ok, I agree that a wooden structure in general is not ideal for fireproof construction.

Wooden roof structures for large support free areas are a special case as the beams used there are absolutely huge. They really can burn a long time before they break.

The point I was making was about the melting. Steel does not need to melt. It loses structural strength long before that. I am making that point as the conspiracy theorists talk so much about steel melting.

no dude - the government line is that the plane fuel burnt at such a high heat that the steel melted - all at once like - in a nano second - just like a demolition

The buildings didn't collapse immediately on impact.