Go talk to a structural engineer and they'll tell you how the towers came down. All you conspiracy nuts can argue until judgement day as far as I'm concerned. I suppose you think the Halocaust was made up too. There's no shortage of half-wits in this world, this thread proves that quite nicely.
There is many structual engineers who believe it was man-made just as those that don't......I am an engineer and have had conversations with others who are more linked to both fields and there is obvious disagreement....just cause someone does not agree with you does not make them a nut....then you could also be a nut for not agreeing with them...different opinions....that is all it is....
Wow. I'm convinced. There was a scheduled "power down" at my company's datacenter the other day. Should I be worried? Obviously there are many unanswered questions and I hope someone will keep me updated as more information arrives.
if 3 of the buildings fall straight down from fire just a few days later, then yeah, i'd say so
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
does it really matter? what i don't understand is why people think this was an attack on america. the wtc was an international target on american soil. a building dedicated to the world working together. other countries wanting to do business with the US and wanting the US to do business with them.
Ok so even if from 50 up the power was shut down and the security cameras were cut. Wouldn't there be some video from the first 50 floors of engineers carrying the explosive charges around and placing them? Is it really possible to lay all the charges needed to bring down a building of that size in 30 hours? People want to believe so badly that it was an inside job, that they are willing to skip over logic, I wonder why that is?
Isn't it obvious that the explosive planters parachuted down from Stealth fighters and then self-desctructed when they had finished their work?
Ok so even if from 50 up the power was shut down and the security cameras were cut. Wouldn't there be some video from the first 50 floors of engineers carrying the explosive charges around and placing them? Is it really possible to lay all the charges needed to bring down a building of that size in 30 hours?
maybe they had them in carts hidden under the tabloids. it sounds pretty farfetched to rig it in 30 hours, but it also said there were a lot of engineers coming in and out of the building. it could have happened. if indeed it happened, it would have been carefully planned and had to have been executed perfectly for the towers to fall.
People want to believe so badly that it was an inside job, that they are willing to skip over logic, I wonder why that is?
i agree with that to a limited extent. i catch myself sometimes leaning toward something ridiculous. but there are many claims that are so valid and realistic. and the secrecy and unanswered questions are beyond absurd.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Ok. And if two planes hit those buildings I should focus on the "power down" and just assume that the planes were part of a "power down" conspiracy?
but what of the 3rd building that a plane never hit?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
if 3 of the buildings fall straight down from fire just a few days later, then yeah, i'd say so
if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.
if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.
that doesn't apply to building 7 if it is indeed correct.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.
that's one possibilty... but not the only theory one could reasonably come to.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
but what of the 3rd building that a plane never hit?
Yes the third building fell wasn't it building 7? Maybe the fact that two of the worlds largest buildings fell practically on top of this 3rd building, or maybe it was due to the fires that raged out of control for hours, or maybe it was because the foundation were possibly damaged when the trade centers fell and the slurry wall that protected the buildings from the river was severely damaged putting a lot of pressure on those foundations. It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.
In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.
It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.
how is it so easy to dismiss that idea considering how ridiculous our current administration acts now? and how can you dimiss the VIDEO FOOTAGE of mr. sylverstein himself saying they decided to 'pull it'.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
how is it so easy to dismiss that idea considering how ridiculous our current administration acts now? and how can you dimiss the VIDEO FOOTAGE of mr. sylverstein himself saying they decided to 'pull it'.
How do you dismiss the statement of Mr. Silverstein saying that there was no controlled demolition?
Ok. And if two planes hit those buildings I should focus on the "power down" and just assume that the planes were part of a "power down" conspiracy?
if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
the facts just don't add up.
What conclusion have you reasonably come to? Please describe causal evidence you use in your reasoning.
I haven't came to a conclusion just yet. But I will neither so easily dismiss unanswered questions nor will I buy into everything out there that doesn't have merit. I'm currently leaning a lot more towards it being an inside job. Building 7 and the pentagon just don't add up to me. If it doesn't add up or it seems fishy, there's usually a reason. So I compare all the information and debunking out there and weigh them against it other. It seems like someone is covering up something to me. Here was an interesting read... http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211335
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
the facts just don't add up.
a visual no one will ever forget...another pearl harbor
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I haven't came to a conclusion just yet. But I will neither so easily dismiss unanswered questions nor will I buy into everything out there that doesn't have merit. I'm currently leaning a lot more towards it being an inside job.
that doesn't apply to building 7 if it is indeed correct.
the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.
In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.
You don't think that explosives could have been transported with out detection by elevators? by stairs? and then planted on the floors where the power was out?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.
That's not logic. That's an outlandish assumption. And an incorrect one.
Comments
There is many structual engineers who believe it was man-made just as those that don't......I am an engineer and have had conversations with others who are more linked to both fields and there is obvious disagreement....just cause someone does not agree with you does not make them a nut....then you could also be a nut for not agreeing with them...different opinions....that is all it is....
if 3 of the buildings fall straight down from fire just a few days later, then yeah, i'd say so
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
~Ron Burgundy
Ok. And if two planes hit those buildings I should focus on the "power down" and just assume that the planes were part of a "power down" conspiracy?
Isn't it obvious that the explosive planters parachuted down from Stealth fighters and then self-desctructed when they had finished their work?
maybe they had them in carts hidden under the tabloids. it sounds pretty farfetched to rig it in 30 hours, but it also said there were a lot of engineers coming in and out of the building. it could have happened. if indeed it happened, it would have been carefully planned and had to have been executed perfectly for the towers to fall.
i agree with that to a limited extent. i catch myself sometimes leaning toward something ridiculous. but there are many claims that are so valid and realistic. and the secrecy and unanswered questions are beyond absurd.
~Ron Burgundy
but what of the 3rd building that a plane never hit?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.
So I should structure my theory around an active ignorance of 66% of the event?
that doesn't apply to building 7 if it is indeed correct.
~Ron Burgundy
that's one possibilty... but not the only theory one could reasonably come to.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What conclusion have you reasonably come to? Please describe causal evidence you use in your reasoning.
awww...the sound of reasoned debate :rolleyes:
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes the third building fell wasn't it building 7? Maybe the fact that two of the worlds largest buildings fell practically on top of this 3rd building, or maybe it was due to the fires that raged out of control for hours, or maybe it was because the foundation were possibly damaged when the trade centers fell and the slurry wall that protected the buildings from the river was severely damaged putting a lot of pressure on those foundations. It just seems that these possiblities are a little more probable then to say it was blown up to get rid of seceret CIA intelligence or whatever was stored in building 3.
In a reasoned debate, people don't actively ignore valid questions that arise from their theories. They address those questions. To suggest that a power cut from floors 50+ would allow someone to access the building free of detection gives rise to the obvious question of how someone would reach floor 50 without detection. And how any means to do so would render the entire theory of a deliberate power-down to avoid detection completely unnecessary and superfluous.
how is it so easy to dismiss that idea considering how ridiculous our current administration acts now? and how can you dimiss the VIDEO FOOTAGE of mr. sylverstein himself saying they decided to 'pull it'.
~Ron Burgundy
How do you dismiss the statement of Mr. Silverstein saying that there was no controlled demolition?
if the building was wired with explosives; what was the purpose of the planes? if i had a building wired with explosives; i'd save the plane attack plan for the next attack.
there's a lot of blasting around here. when you enter a specified perimeter; you have to turn your cell phone off to avoid unwanted detonation. on the other hand; a detonator can be wired to a cell phone ringer. call that phone and when it rings it detonates the explosives. furthermore; if the building was wired; it could be detonated when the building was full of people.
the facts just don't add up.
I haven't came to a conclusion just yet. But I will neither so easily dismiss unanswered questions nor will I buy into everything out there that doesn't have merit. I'm currently leaning a lot more towards it being an inside job. Building 7 and the pentagon just don't add up to me. If it doesn't add up or it seems fishy, there's usually a reason. So I compare all the information and debunking out there and weigh them against it other. It seems like someone is covering up something to me. Here was an interesting read...
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211335
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
His statement alone means nothing when his credibility is in question.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
a visual no one will ever forget...another pearl harbor
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Inside what? By whom?
Ok. Then why do you use his other statement?
But two exploding towers is also a "visual no one will ever forget". Again, why the planes?
the shockwave from the first 2 building falling was registered as an earthquake as far away as virginia. several building surrounding the wtc were damaged so it's simple logic that the shock wave could collapse the building next to it and sharing the same basic foundation.
You don't think that explosives could have been transported with out detection by elevators? by stairs? and then planted on the floors where the power was out?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
not even close to the same amount of awe.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
can you give me a link for that? im assuming that was after the first statement,...
~Ron Burgundy
That's not logic. That's an outlandish assumption. And an incorrect one.