new 5 min. video on explosions at the WTC
DPrival78
CT Posts: 2,263
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
DPrival78
CT Posts: 2,263
Comments
So did you have anything to debate about the video posted?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
All the comments people made at the end of the video are day of comments all including refrences to "what might have, could have maybe was" sorta talk, and it says "why was this never investigated" because it didnt pan out...you want some good day of rumors check out Pearl Harbor...(poisoned water supplies, arrows cut into cane fields, japanese invasions...you name it people thought it was going on, and it got reported on the news too!) All in all if our government was really capable of pulling this off we are pretty much fucked no matter what! Enjoy the ride!
Everything is going just well for the money makers in Iraq. The only thing wrong is the people who think it is right to be there, aren't there.
Thanks for the new footage.
coming from a guy that quotes 1984 in his sig...
zzzzzzzzing....
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
and of course the media tries to manipulate things to get a desired outcome...that should be no surprise.
there's a video that proves the existance of ghosts too.
it's called ghostbusters.
that "explosion" sound could have been any number of things.
a slab of concrete falling onto a car, a gas tank exploding, a firemans oxygen tank exploding....
but you believe it was a government bomb?
2 of the tallest, heaviest structures man had ever built had just fallen to the ground. many things will be damaged in that area.
this proves nothing and gives nobody anything to chew on.
"She fell funny"
"Klaus Daimler, 40, engineer, calm, collected, German"
the buildings were anchored to the bedrock in the basements. there were pools of molten steel found in the basements for weeks after the collapses. what in those buildings generated the amount of heat necessary to keep steel liquified for weeks? burning office furniture wouldn't do it. nor would kerosine/jet fuel.
somebody email Mythbusters...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i just laugh at these people. i can modify a video on my computer and almost 6 years later a majic video appears and everyone jumps on it. sure; it was some secret special bomb that causes a building to drop straight down. must have been the only one cuz we could have used it in iraq.
How about we just accept for a second here that all those explosions that sounded like explosions were actually explosions instead of coming up with excuses with what they could be.
And forget about thinking it was planted by the goverment cos i bet that is the only bit of the whole explosions theory that you find hard to swallow. I bet you wouldn't question that they were explosions if no one had come out with the theory that it was your goverment who planted them there. If someone said it was the terriosts that rigged that building up you would swallow it no question i bet.
It's easiest to believe the simplest answer and that is controlled demolition, thats what it sounded like and thats what it looked like. And it seems silly to try going all round the houses trying to come up with reasons for why they collapsed when the answer is obvious.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
no one is questioning the sound of explosions.
well I hope you arent a betting man. I would laugh if the government told me terrorists somehow got into one of the most secure (and largest) buildings in the world and planted bombs throughout.
to you maybe. to me it looked like 2 big ass planes full of thousands of gallons of jet fuel slammed into the center of them.
its not obvious to me. well except for the planes crashing into the building and those buildings falling down on top of itself.
but tell me other then those facts, what is so obvious?
looked that way to me too...............
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Understand that much if anything.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
this sounds like questioning the explosions or rather excuses for what they might have been instead of what they were.
Well i laugh at the rubbish reasons they have come up with for why 2 building collapsed at freefall speed. When it clearly looks like a controlled demolition.
Yep and the buildings were built to withstand that.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
i've played with explosives all my life. it was a necessity. there's not an implosion expert anywhere that would claim they could bring that building down in that manner with explosives. it's impossible.
however; the workings of a jet engine proves the original theory.
you're dead wrong there. the buildings were designed to withstand a strike from THE AIRPLANES AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. or is this another majic occurence where the engineers saw into the future?
ill fix it up in a minute, but im taking it off for now
~Ron Burgundy
Apparently there is no decent surveillence system in place at the.....Penatgon, for christs sake!!! Not one video of clear footage of a plane hitting the building. I'm calling bullshit. Also security videos were confiscated from a nearby gas station and hotel. We never got to see these either.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
how can you prove what they are? you cant. my explainations are perfectly logical
these were 2 of the heaviest largest structures ever built. as soon as they fall, they have no where else to go but DOWN, and fast.
looks like it failed. besides they planes they were talking about where not the same ones that hit the building. they werent around back then
there are also the DOT tapes that would have had a perfect view,... there is no reason to keep those from public eyes. it is not a matter of national security.
~Ron Burgundy
As the steel in the building is failing it would be very loud and would probably resemble gunfire or maybe even a bomb. As for the loud explosion sound when the guys are on the phone...that could be some many things considering a building of that size had just collapsed.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
there are witnesses claiming to hear explosions well before the building collapses.
and also, why is it okay for you to assume that it would probably resemble gunfire or a bomb? why shouldn't we investigate (we being the commission report) multiple eyewitness testimonies?
if in fact there were explosions, assuming it were the terrorists, wouldn't that be failure to protect our citizens in a different category,...? EDIT: as in not just the FAA and NORAD
they could at least investigate it, but it is nowhere in the official reports,... at least the small portions i've skimmed over. but hey, if you find it, ill gladly shut up about it
~Ron Burgundy
i was watching the news last night and they were interviewing an eyewitness to a killing. she said she heard 3 pops like a FIRECRACKER. there is no gun in the world that sounds like a firecracker. turns out she didn't actually see anything; just heard 3 pops.
secondly; have any of you ever seen a building implosion? you see a series of explosions. a 3 story building could take over 100 explosions to bring it straight down. and you see every one. not the explosion but the shake or shutter of the building. maybe you should view some implosions and see why this is absurd.
that does not nullify the 9/11 eyewitness reports
i do not claim to know much about implosions, though i have researched enough be somewhat educated since i started exploring 9/11. the gov't has done a terrible job explaining and being held accountable for what happened on 9/11. you have your theory, which i just can't settle with. i have my theory, which i don't know what it is and im really looking forward to NIST's new report on wtc 7,...
~Ron Burgundy
"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
yes, a 767 is larger than a 707, but not by a huge amount. also, the 707's top speed was about 100 mph faster than a 767. the two planes also had about the same fuel capacity. so while the 707 gives up some size, it makes up for some of that with increased speed. the difference isn't as much as you may think.
MSG 2 08, Buffalo 10, Hamilton 11
_____________________________
KEEP OUR COUNTRY ....COUNTRY