 meowmeowmeow
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 190 Posts
|
Friday, October 21, 2011 5:30:52 PM
Sooo
The idiot monkey ass bush somehow orchestrated a master plot that involved somehow demolishing a building without anyone noticing anything whatsoever, despite all the work that is required. He also managed to hide anything that happened from the FBI and CIA, or somehow managed to convince them to keep quiet. Wow, Bush was a mastermind genius! |
|
meowmeowmeow
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
190 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:16:51 PM
Sooo
The idiot monkey ass bush somehow orchestrated a master plot that involved somehow demolishing a building without anyone noticing anything whatsoever, despite all the work that is required. He also managed to hide anything that happened from the FBI and CIA, or somehow managed to convince them to keep quiet. Wow, Bush was a mastermind genius! |
|
 Bullish
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
108 Posts
|
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:10:47 PM
I am also convinced of a conspiracy because of news reports from Fox and from the BBC that reported on the collapse of 7 before it actually collapsed. Look it up on you tube. |
|
 Draculya
Male, 30-39, Asia
6354 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:25:32 PM
Either it was a government conspiracy or it wasn't. I am not sure which is which.
However, the insurance companies would know. They are the big corporations most affected financially. They have procedures and systems and scientists.
Either they know the truth and were hushed up, or they know the truth and would go about reducing their risk.
Post 9/11, reinsurance spiked for terrorism risk and not general insurance fire risk applied to structural steel buildings. Make of that what you will.
Look for kickbacks to insurance companies or their management. Who got rich? |
|
 Crabes
Male, 30-39, Canada
930 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:40:03 AM
its been proven that the fire suppression system was busted by the falling towers
Some people have trust issues, some are anti-american,some anti-gouvernment.
People make their own conclusion and look for the facts that approve this conclusion. Science is objective as the science that been used on the NIST report.
Now people i looking for every tiny mistakes the media and scientific made to discredit them. We all human of course there will be some but on a 10k pages report 3 or 4 mistakes is really not that much, small irrelevant |
|
KPres
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
309 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:33:43 AM
"@Angilion "how it could have been done without anyone noticing anything."
"The Manhattan Project went on for years with thousands of people working on it, including several different outsourced companies and was only revealed when the bomb was dropped. Disbelief in the level of secrecy is always a bad excuse."
He's not talking about the secrecy of planning, he's talking about the physical act of placing the explosives.
The Manhatten Project took place in some unpopulated backwoods part of Tennessee, not the middle of New York City. |
|
 auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8696 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:49:41 AM
My point is, they didn't come on in ANY of the ones that were on fire.
|
|
 madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
6407 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:44:53 AM
No. I don't because each individual building has it's own fire codes to live up to. Would make no sense for the sprinklers to come on in WTC5 if WTC7 was on fire. |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8696 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:39:11 AM
You don't have to be a douche just because you didn't read what I wrote. |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8696 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:38:31 AM
Yes. WTC7. Part of the WTC complex. Jeez man.
|
|
madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
6407 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:57:38 AM
eyeyeye AJ, This is WTC7. Come at me when you can follow along. |
|
auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8696 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:46:18 AM
@Madest: So you don't think the fire suppression system to the whole complex was knocked out by HUNDREDS OF TONS OF AIRCRAFT SLAMMING INTO IT?! |
|
madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
6407 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:40:09 AM
Because fire codes in America are extremely stringent. In New York even moreso. I'm certain this building had a sprinkler system backed up by a powerful fire pump which was also backed up by a generator if power were cut.
It would have put out any standard fire. It may have an increased difficulty if the fire was fuel based.
WTC7 wasn't impacted. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9559 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:49:30 AM
I know for fact that a regular fire could not bring down a steel framed building.
How many skyscrapers of the same design as the WTC buildings have burned unchecked for hours after suffering massive structural damage from impact?
Not much of a sample size to draw conclusions from, is it?
So how do you know for a fact *that particular design* couldn't be brought down by fire *and massive impact*? |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9559 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:45:57 AM
This is not something you should "decide for yourself" and history has proven we cannot trust what our government says.
Random people on the internet talking about what they'd like to be true are a less trustworthy source.
I think it's important to point out that not trusting anything said by anyone in any position of authority does not require trusting anything said by anyone who says anything different. That's very often put forward as the only possible choice. |
|
madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
6407 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 7:30:18 PM
I know for fact that a regular fire could not bring down a steel framed building. It would take fuel oil or demolition charges. Wiring a building for demolition would not go unnoticed however. I trust these experts. This is not something you should "decide for yourself" and history has proven we cannot trust what our government says. WTC7 housed the CIA and Secret Service amongst other government and securities offices. There are things about 9/11 that we will never know. This (it appears) is one of them. To disregard it as the making of conspiracy theorists means you trust everything your government tells you. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9559 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 5:15:48 PM
I can't wrap my head around how an uncontrolled event created a very controlled collapse. If a quarter, half, or even three quarters of this building collapsed and you had a some structure left standing that was taken down later, I can intuitively see how that would happen. But this collapse looks like they didn't bolt any of the steel together and it was just standing there like a card house.
Buildings are heavy. Take out the support on any level and you get all of the building above it banging down under gravity. That's a hell of a lot of kinetic energy, easily enough to break the floors below. Straight down, bang bang bang as the floors collapse under the kinetic energy acting directly downwards.
You're thinking in terms of buildings you're intuitively familiar with - wider than they are tall. Towers behave differently. |
|
 Sonsglow
Male, 18-29, Western US
178 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 5:01:53 PM
This is not a "documentary," but rather rhetoric. |
|
frenchroast
Male, 30-39, Canada
381 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 4:37:04 PM
People should be concentrating on the financial collapse of the USA economy. Not as exciting as a controlled demolition, but hell of a lot more important and relevant to Americans right now. |
|
meowmeowmeow
Male, 13-17, Eastern US
190 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 4:01:06 PM
Sooo
The idiot monkey ass bush somehow orchestrated a master plot that involved somehow demolishing a building without anyone noticing anything whatsoever, despite all the work that is required. He also managed to hide anything that happened from the FBI and CIA, or somehow managed to convince them to keep quiet. Wow, Bush was a mastermind genius! |
|
 username3415
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
358 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 3:46:24 PM
put im pretty sure a piece of debris hit building 7 in the side which made it collapse |
|
 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25692 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 2:05:32 PM
We see amazing things all the time that happen by accident. We say "couldn't do that again if I tried" or something like that. But when those same random events occur on a large object no one will believe it.
There was indeed a conspiracy...by terrorists. Until someone can give me a motive for taking down #7 I can't buy into it. I mean, if it were a conspiracy then why bother with #7? They already had 1 & 2 down which were much more dramatic. |
|
 Buiadh
Male, 18-29, Europe
6650 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 1:21:39 PM
Definately blown up. |
|
Crabes
Male, 30-39, Canada
930 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 12:58:01 PM
@alfasinha @gerry i had a friend was a biologist working for a tobacco companie. Is work was to look at the impact of tobacco on the organism but i dont remember in detail, its been a long time. So obviously is report was devastator for the tobacco companie but they did publish it (they had no choice). Except it did'nt get the media attention. surprise surprise
Imperial Tobacco Health and Science |
|
 paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
985 Posts
|
Monday, September 12, 2011 12:01:50 PM
I can't wrap my head around how an uncontrolled event created a very controlled collapse. If a quarter, half, or even three quarters of this building collapsed and you had a some structure left standing that was taken down later, I can intuitively see how that would happen. But this collapse looks like they didn't bolt any of the steel together and it was just standing there like a card house. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}