live msnbc poll: do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies?

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

bush isn't capable of planning what to have for breakfast. he is far down the food chain. he's just the idiot they put on tv. but people close to him? absolutely. people like cheney, rumsfeld, and probably more importantly people like paul wolfowitz and richard perle.. it wouldn't surprise me if those are a few of the key players.

.

ok now I got it. cheney, rumsfield, and others sat in a room and planned the 9/11 attacks. my suggestion to you is leave the country and dont come back. you are better off joining el queda and taking up arms against who you believe to be the true terrorists.

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

some guys? who Bush/cheney? you hate them, you think osama is a better person then our president I got it. did you have a point?

so many el queda sympathizers here. well thankfully not many just you and a few others. thankfully

I equated them as the same. No sympathy was expressed for either. Please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Sorry you missed the point.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

ok now I got it. cheney, rumsfield, and others sat in a room and planned the 9/11 attacks. my suggestion to you is leave the country and dont come back. you are better off joining el queda and taking up arms against who you believe to be the true terrorists.

instead of making pointless comments about me, why don't you argue why you disagree with me? what do you think about what i said about the pentagon? does that really sound plausible - a guy who couldn't rent a cessna flew a 767 with the precison of a military jet? why didn't he dump it into rummy's side of the building? why go dangerously out of his way to hit the one reinforced wall? why not hit the white house, which they flew past on the way down? (which begs the question.. WHERE THE FUCK WERE OUR AIR DEFENSES??? did osama shut them down too??)

what about your boy bush's push for the north american union? you think he cares so much about you and your country.. based on what??

please, argue your side. give me evidence to pin this on osama.. trust me, i would feel much better about things if this wasn't an inside job.

Ahnimus

I recently watched a PBS production called "Building on Ground Zero"

The director of NIST is interviewed and he says the buildings didn't pancake as they had initially thought. Rather the trusses bowed and caused the attached perimeter columns to buckle inwards causing the collapse.

This had me convinced at first. But a few hours later I remembered a few things. The multiple explosion sounds the smoke rising from the lobby. None of that fits into that explanation. They are saying the buildings were find until the trusses bowed and that was immediately at the point of collapse.

DPrival78

Ahnimus wrote:

I recently watched a PBS production called "Building on Ground Zero"

The director of NIST is interviewed and he says the buildings didn't pancake as they had initially thought. Rather the trusses bowed and caused the attached perimeter columns to buckle inwards causing the collapse.

This had me convinced at first. But a few hours later I remembered a few things. The multiple explosion sounds the smoke rising from the lobby. None of that fits into that explanation. They are saying the buildings were find until the trusses bowed and that was immediately at the point of collapse.

you're right it doesn't mesh. and if that was really the case, did these trusses all bow and break at a speed so fast that the buildings were gone in 10 seconds each? 10 floors of a steel and concrete skyscraper turned to dust in a second.. where is the resistance?

Ahnimus

DPrival78 wrote:

you're right it doesn't mesh. and if that was really the case, did these trusses all bow and break at a speed so fast that the buildings were gone in 10 seconds each? 10 floors of a steel and concrete skyscraper turned to dust in a second.. where is the resistance?

Well one thing they pointed out was the OKC bombing dropped the building in 3 seconds. But that was a case where the main supports were destroyed.

apostolis

hi there.
i think that some of you are not looking all around them but only at whats in front of them.
look at the hole pic.... if u lived outside of the us without having your corrupt media bombing u with junk info and whatever makes them (government) look right, u would understand that its all a big set up... for the MONEY every thing happens for the money... lives get lost for money... thousands of them every day.
u think that the us gov are saints?????
fuck they dont give a damn about ppl dying even their own soldiers.
money-oil-power the do care about those a lot

DPrival78

Ahnimus wrote:

Well one thing they pointed out was the OKC bombing dropped the building in 3 seconds. But that was a case where the main supports were destroyed.

dont get me started on the okc bombing.. that's a whole other thread.

but ok, that building had it's main supports destroyed. the planes didn't destroy the main supports of the wtc towers.

or those of building 7 either, of course

Ahnimus

DPrival78 wrote:

dont get me started on the okc bombing.. that's a whole other thread.

but ok, that building had it's main supports destroyed. the planes didn't destroy the main supports of the wtc towers.

or those of building 7 either, of course

Yea, one of the things they said was that the WTC towers redistributed the load adequately. They claim only the fire is responsible, that and the lack of fire-proofing.

Funny how they continue to change their story though. And every time the scientists and physicists agree it is the only way. But if it was the only way they wouldn't be able to keep changing the story.

DPrival78

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, one of the things they said was that the WTC towers redistributed the load adequately. They claim only the fire is responsible, that and the lack of fire-proofing.

Funny how they continue to change their story though. And every time the scientists and physicists agree it is the only way. But if it was the only way they wouldn't be able to keep changing the story.

exactly. it just doesn't seem to make sense how the buildings could have just given way that quickly and fallen straight down on top of themselves the way they did. i could see if the tops, above the impacts, would collapse and maybe fall off to the side somewhat. but we have two buildings which sustained damage from plane crashes in very different places and at different angles, and yet they fall down in identical fashion. it just seems very odd.

add to that the numerous witnesses talking about explosions, and the fire fighters in the building saying the fires were almost out... and the pools of molten steel found in the basements.. and steven jone's evidence of thermate found on some of the steel.. i just can't believe that explosives weren't involved, and people who are a lot smarter than me hold the same opinion based on their knowledge and research.

Ahnimus

DPrival78 wrote:

exactly. it just doesn't seem to make sense how the buildings could have just given way that quickly and fallen straight down on top of themselves the way they did. i could see if the tops, above the impacts, would collapse and maybe fall off to the side somewhat. but we have two buildings which sustained damage from plane crashes in very different places and at different angles, and yet they fall down in identical fashion. it just seems very odd.

add to that the numerous witnesses talking about explosions, and the fire fighters in the building saying the fires were almost out... and the pools of molten steel found in the basements.. and steven jone's evidence of thermate found on some of the steel.. i just can't believe that explosives weren't involved, and people who are a lot smarter than me hold the same opinion based on their knowledge and research.

I know. I spend a lot of time thinking about it and justifying to myself how it could have come down from planes and fire. Then I remember WTC 7 and I'm confused again.

69charger

DPrival78 wrote:

exactly. it just doesn't seem to make sense how the buildings could have just given way that quickly and fallen straight down on top of themselves the way they did.

Why is this so hard to grasp for some of you?

There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure. Also the buildings did not fall down exactly on thier own footprint. Debris was spread out several blocks and damaged neighboring buildings.

The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.

A lot of this is so basic. I don't know why some have such a hard time grasping it.

Ahnimus

69charger wrote:

Why is this so hard to grasp for some of you?

There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure. Also the buildings did not fall down exactly on thier own footprint. Debris was spread out several blocks and damaged neighboring buildings.

The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.

A lot of this is so basic. I don't know why some have such a hard time grasping it.

Ok, genius...

Why did building 7 collapse?

69charger

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, genius...

Why did building 7 collapse?

Building 7 sustained major damage to at least 1/3 of the base of the structure, including major damage to a load bearing member (which eventually failed and initiated the collapse). It was also hit in numerous other places that contributed to fires throught the building.

Again, WTC was a massive building with only one way to fall...

Down.

DPrival78

69charger wrote:

Why is this so hard to grasp for some of you?

There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure.

in watching video of the south tower collapse, you can clearly see the top 30 or so floors tipping off the side of the building as the collapse begins. with all of that huge mass moving away from the middle of the building, what force was pushing down on the other side of building - opposite of the direction of the tipping - to cause it to collapse? not just collapse.. but explode out floor by floor? it would seem to me that the once the top of the building starts tipping, it would continue to tip, possibly scraping off one side of the building as it fell.

69charger wrote:

The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.

the buildings were gone in about 10-12 seconds. that's 10 floors of steel and concrete being pulverized in just over a second. the collapses weren't gradual. the buildings didn't start to give, and then gradually build up momentum as the collapse continued. the buildings were standing there, barely on fire anymore, with no one concerned about a collapse, then all of a sudden, down they go in seconds.

DPrival78

69charger wrote:

Building 7 sustained major damage to at least 1/3 of the base of the structure, including major damage to a load bearing member (which eventually failed and initiated the collapse). It was also hit in numerous other places that contributed to fires throught the building.

Again, WTC was a massive building with only one way to fall...

Down.

buildings 5 and 6 had towers one and two land on top of them. building 7 was much further away and didn't sustain damage nearly as half as bad as 7 allegedly did. yet, 5 and 6 didn't collapse. they were later - to use the term used by a demo expert in a pbs documentary - "pulled", meaning delibrately demolished.

again.. like the towers, no one expected 7 to come down. it showed no signs of doing so. then all of a sudden, bam.. straight down in 6 seconds, without so much as a scraped on any of the buildings it was tucked between. that doesn't seem like a random collapse to me.

old and in the way

HMMMMMM... It seems as though the thoughtful, sensible, open minded non victims of this thread have decided to let the elementary level, shallow thinking paraniocs think this through among themselves. They probably had to get back to work. Good luck with it guys.

bryanfury

this question is framed to make people who say "yes" sound like crackpots.

they aren't "conspiracy" theories. they are theories. they are no crazier than the "official" theory being floated around by our gvt.

DPrival78

mohammad atta - terrorist, patsy, or scapegoat?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/atta_9-11.html

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

mohammad atta - terrorist, patsy, or scapegoat?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/atta_9-11.html

again with this wacky website. i'm gonna start one called thetruthandnothingbutthetruth.com I will speak the truth there I promise.