Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Dark Wizard

What really happened at the Pentagon?

Recommended Posts

http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm

 

No explosives necessary.

 

The inner support columns had help, If you apply even basic math, that building should have taked about 45 seconds to collapse, not just 10 seconds.

 

Help, like the kinetic energy from a plane, the subsequent damage by it, and the stored kinetic energy of it simply standing there being all big and tall?

also explosions as in dynamite or C4 slicing through steel columns.

 

What? Where?

it didn't deviate off it's vertical axis it fell into it's own foot print (Veritical resistence from that extremely well built and reinforced central core would have caused it to deviate to one side or other), the building fell without any resistence (There was no deceleration, the strong central core would have caused the building to decelerate while collapsing), also it wouldn't be powdered concrete falling, there would be boulders raining down on the streets below.

 

The core collapsed before the outside showed it. The building did not fall at free-fall speeds. In all videos of the collapse, you see debris clearly falling much faster than the top of the building. Most conspiracy theorists stop the timer when the top of the tower disappears behind the 40-story debris cloud. The problem with doing so is that it is still collapsing.

 

also it isn't necessary to repeat anything anybody else said when we all seen that complex go down man...

the insurance on that building specified acts of terror/acts of war, it didn't specify controlled demolition, in order to get that money the buildings had to burn abit before they were pulled.

 

No company would insure demolition. And why wouldn't you insure for terrorism on that building? It's been the target of several terrorist acts in the past. The insurance policy likely also had fire provisions and the like in there.

 

also the skin of that building served a reinforcement purpose, it wasn't built like a normal skyscraper, in a typical skyscraper, the steel skeleton is it's reinforcement, in WTC, the outer skin and the central core were that buildings backbone.

 

So, just like every other skyscraper built in and after the '60s. Why is it different?

maybe fanatics did hit the building, but for all intents and purposes it should have burned for hours before collapsing, than it should have only been a partial collapse.

 

Why is is that? You don't think a large commercial airliner going as fast as it probably could did anything to it?

the Empire state building was hit by a B-29, it's still here, planes have hit buildings before they didn't collapse.

 

The plane was also going at far less speed. Also, the Empire state building was built completely different.

WTC had help. they had to induce structural failure.

 

Why do you say that? Some proof would be nice here.

It don't matter who hit it, what killed everyone is what happened in the moments after the impacts.

 

Just a few sentences ago you were saying it might have been hit by something.

Do you actually think

when they designed that building they didn't take into account that it might experience a prolonged blaze?

Fire was not the only damage that building sustained that day.

also anyone that has ever lit a grill knows that hydrocarbon based fuels burn off quickly, the remaining fire was from building contents. also do we have any firefighters? Can you tell me what was wrong with that fire? Black smoke dude! That fire was oxygen starved. it wasn't burning near as hot as they sold it off as. and not near hot enough to melt steel.

 

Fire was not the only damage sustained that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS are you really going to forget all you ever learned about Physics and science and modify facts to make NIST's shaky and neatly packaged theory work? when other engineering firms have said the gov's version of events simply can't happen?

What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass. It's going to slow down substantially isn't it? It's going to lose it's kinetic energy isn't it? end result your going to have large pieces of the building (including entire mostly intact floors) left.

 

Wow, this portion is a whole load of bullocks. Maybe you forgot everything about physics or some such, but none of this is the physics I know.

What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass.

This simply did not happen. Also, there is no law or rule for what that sentence says in physics. If anything though, the top portion of the collapse will gain mass and have more kinetic energy as it falls, since each floor that is added to the collapse doesn't just magically disappear as what you said imply.

 

wanna know what a pancake collapse is, look at the after math of the haiti earthquake, or the aftermath of major quakes in california. HAD that collapse been caused by the planes and fires alone, common sense tells us they should have collapsed at a way slower speed and large intact sections of the buildings would remain in the rubble pile, that didn't happen, them buildings were pulverized, now that is only going to happen of the vertical resistence (the frictive force) is removed ahead of the blast wave, the best way to do that is with shaping charges. sure AQ hit them, but that collapse had help, countless engineering firms that were unaffiliated with the government have said that. even some demolition firms have said that.

Earthquakes are a different matter entirely.

no I won't post sources cause I'm not gonna flood this forum with links, I'm gonna let you do your own research.

That's unfortunate, since it seems you have not researched this thoroughly yourself.

If you don't want to accept how crooked our gov is, that is your prerogative, also it didn't stay quiet, lots of people have come forward, the gov has made you believe your an unpatriotic sugar if you believe them, they have embarked on a massive smear campaign. you have every right to forget everything you learned in school and believe NIST's bogus theory. I'm not stopping you.

Lots of people have come forward, huh? Like non-experts talking about things they do not know and conspiracy theorists taking everything they say completely out of context for their own purposes?

also unless they put them things together with Rivets, steel under stress bends (makes a creeking sound) it doesn't make powerful explosion sounds.

 

So it makes a "creeking" sound when it snaps as well? What sound does it make when it snaps several hundred meters away and the sound is transmitted through the air? How about the sound it makes when it snaps and is transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object?

 

Also watch the 2 videos I posted, one of the guys that reported them loud explosion sounds was the building's structural engineer who was working in one of the sub basements when the planes hit, he was also one of the first to question the official story. a guy with an Engineering degree, not a layperson made that initial claim.

he compared the sounds to Dynamite. Not bending and breaking steel.

 

A plane just hit the building. Do you know what the sound of an airplane hitting a building sounds like transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object? Also, that interview is always taken out of context. That interview took place after the first plane hit, but before the second. He doubted that a plane hit the building because that was absolutely unheard of before that day. Low and behold, seconds later, the second plane hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A plane just hit the building. Do you know what the sound of an airplane hitting a building sounds like transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object? Also, that interview is always taken out of context. That interview took place after the first plane hit, but before the second. He doubted that a plane hit the building because that was absolutely unheard of before that day. Low and behold, seconds later, the second plane hits.

dynamite and plane impact into a building are two VERY different sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember IS, not only is that 15 floor block crashing down at roughly 90mhp, it is also breaking up (Losing considerable mass) as it goes and the remaining 95 floors/central core and reinforcing skin are pushing back.

 

Okay, so the top is breaking up. Where do it go? Oh, wait, still down with the rest of it. It doesn't lose mass at all.

 

wanna get an idea of the forces involved? imagine a Ford Short bus going full on into the ass end of a parked full sized Greyhound bus from 1 block away and tell me who loses. Get the picture?

 

According to physics, both. However, that's not what happened in the tower collapse.

 

A collapse originating atthe top of the structure simply couldn't produce the devastation we seen

due to numerous factors, if you really want to duplicate what we seen, you'd have to start the collapse on the lower floors, thus removing any resistance, that would ensure that your 15 floor block doesn't lose it's kinetic energy, it would accelerate, you'd make that 15 floor block into a pile driver. same with tower 2. oh and building 7, building 7 didn't take near the asswhooping buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 did. It collapsed while 3, 4, 5 and 6 were still standing. the official story was that building 7 collapsed due to buckling of one column, really? it would have caused whatever side that column was on to start falling first, the building would have fell with a list to one side. it fell on it';s own foot print.

 

Source please. And if you so happen to be an expert in the field, I wish to read your published peer-reviewed paper about this incident as well.

 

Now like I said, you can forget everything you spent years and money learning including basic common sense and believe NIST's theory or you can wise up and do your own research using non government, independent sources. A better idea is to head to your library, get some books on demolition science, watch some videos of building implosions, burn it into your brain, than watch the WTC towers come down, I tell you what, the similarities will jump out at you like a deer on a highway. Funny how that happens :P

 

I truly wish you would heed your own advice instead of believing everything you see and hear on the Internet or in movies/television.

 

Also a building falling due to loss of one column means whoever designed that building was completely stoned or shouldn't have been designing buildings to begin with. they should've deemed that building unsafe and brought it down years ago if it didn't have enough redundency to survive the loss of one column.

 

If it was only a single column, it likely wouldn't have collapsed. Tell me though, do you know how many were damaged from the impact of the plane?

Hell they should have brought the entire WTC complex down years ago if they knew it couldn't survive a 5 floor medium temperature fire. :P

 

Because a plane hitting the building did nothing more than set a campfire in the hallway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dynamite and plane impact into a building are two VERY different sounds.

 

Are you sure? Even through hundreds of meters through a semi-solid object? A lot of finer detail gets lost when sound is transmitted through solid objects. I know through air it may sound different, but that is not how the person who was interviewed heard it. Not only that, but planes hitting buildings would be the last thing on everyone's mind. It simply is not a common enough of an occurrence. Hell, most people didn't believe that a plane hit the first tower until after they saw a plane hitting the second. And that even goes for people who heard the first impact outside, but didn't see it. Later, film evidence showed that a plane did indeed hit the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please tell me how a massive flying object going at high speeds colliding with a brick reinforced building is not different then dynamite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is even if you did hear one or the other, would you be able to tell the difference? Would you be able to say with 100% certainty that the sound you heard was one or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that is taken from an NYPD chopper, look below the burning floors, NO DAMAGE!

absolutely NONE, now look ABOVE the impact, heavy damage, the 15 floor block was severely weakened,

the lower 95 were structurally solid.

also I'm assuming you never played a game of Pool in your life.

what happens when one pool ball hits another? does the pool ball that got hit go flying striaght up?

no, it moves away from the object that hit it, the energy is transferred lateraly. also NIST's report

never specified that the impacts of them planes had anything to do with the collapse, they blamed it on heat from fires

melting steel. sweet Jesus man, where does Jet fuel burn? It burns inside Steel engine blocks.

it was formulated to not burn hot enough to melt steel, it is too low of octane. Kerosene also burns inside kerosene heaters

why don't we have them melting down? Kerosene is also formulated to burn fast. the kerosene was all burned away by the time the collapse started, As for structural design? the Architect that designed them was working under a tight budget, he was trying an experimental design. he was trying to build a lighter, cheaper building. that building had an exo skeleton, only 2 other buildings are like it, the Sears towers. The Transamerica building, the patronis towers, the Dubai hilton basically every skyscraper built since the late 60s uses a steel endo skeleton, the skin is glass.

Bin Laden is a cheap bastard, had it been entirely his doing he'd of driven a couple semi trucks laden with thousands of gallons of a much hotter more energy dense fuel (Anhydrous Ammonia, and nitrates) into the sub basement and blew the base out of them towers. the WTC towers were light but they were incredibly strong buildings.

the Architect designed them to each survive 2 impacts by Boeing 737's. or one impact by a Boeing 747 and still remain standing. they got hit by a much smaller aircraft, a Boeing 757-200 which is based on the airframe of a Boeing 737.

Like I said, NIST themselves specified that it wasn't the impacts that brought them down, it was loss of structural integrity due to fires, everything that happened that day, the Architect took into account when he chose that design. them were some very well built and smartly designed buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c2t your relying on one source, NIST. I posted a video where a PROFESSOR of engineering at MIT proved them wrong and basically proved it was a controlled demolition. I suppose NIST is more credible than one of the smartest people on the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One single professor tells all, eh? Was his study peer-reviewed? Was it published in an academic journal? No? Was it taken out of context at all? Sounds like you're the one depending on a single source.

 

I tell you what, I will spend the multiple hours to download it and watch it again to point out how much is taken out of context and how much of it hardly applies to what actually happened.

 

You see, the problem with most of these conspiracy theories is that they take one single thing, like the plane hitting the building, and say how that by itself would never make the building collapse. Or the fires, and how they say that fire would never be able to take down the building by itself. However, neither of those happened individually. They happened together. The conspiracy theories never take into account all of the multiple factors happening at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is taken from an NYPD chopper, look below the burning floors, NO DAMAGE!

absolutely NONE, now look ABOVE the impact, heavy damage, the 15 floor block was severely weakened,

the lower 95 were structurally solid.

 

Yup. Looks good on the outside. How does the core on the inside look?

also I'm assuming you never played a game of Pool in your life.

what happens when one pool ball hits another? does the pool ball that got hit go flying striaght up?

no, it moves away from the object that hit it, the energy is transferred lateraly.

 

Do you know what gravity is? It is a constant downward force. You are even being affected by gravity right now. On this planet, you are always affected by it.

 

The building was not collapsing horizontally as your pool reference would imply. It was collapsing downward.

 

also NIST's report

never specified that the impacts of them planes had anything to do with the collapse, they blamed it on heat from fires

melting steel. sweet Jesus man, where does Jet fuel burn? It burns inside Steel engine blocks.

it was formulated to not burn hot enough to melt steel, it is too low of octane. Kerosene also burns inside kerosene heaters

why don't we have them melting down? Kerosene is also formulated to burn fast. the kerosene was all burned away by the time the collapse started,

 

You do realize that there are all types of steel. It is an alloy after all.

 

As for structural design? the Architect that designed them was working under a tight budget, he was trying an experimental design. he was trying to build a lighter, cheaper building. that building had an exo skeleton, only 2 other buildings are like it, the Sears towers. The Transamerica building, the patronis towers, the Dubai hilton basically every skyscraper built since the late 60s uses a steel endo skeleton, the skin is glass.

 

Pretty much all skyscrapers built during and after the '60s use the "hollow-tube" design. It is not limited to those two buildings you listed. And the other buildings you listed use it as well.

 

Bin Laden is a cheap bastard, had it been entirely his doing he'd of driven a couple semi trucks laden with thousands of gallons of a much hotter more energy dense fuel (Anhydrous Ammonia, and nitrates) into the sub basement and blew the base out of them towers. the WTC towers were light but they were incredibly strong buildings.

 

Been done before.

I suppose you've never seen the damage from

the Architect designed them to each survive 2 impacts by Boeing 737's. or one impact by a Boeing 747 and still remain standing. they got hit by a much smaller aircraft, a Boeing 757-200 which is based on the airframe of a Boeing 737.

Like I said, NIST themselves specified that it wasn't the impacts that brought them down, it was loss of structural integrity due to fires, everything that happened that day, the Architect took into account when he chose that design. them were some very well built and smartly designed buildings.

 

Too bad the architect didn't take into account the multiple factors it took to bring the buildings down all at once, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end... if it was "terrorists" or George Bush himself... I am more upset by the American's perception that asking questions of authority has become a BAD thing. It was what America was FOUNDED on.

 

Or the after effects of fighting terrorism with state sponsored terrorism...

 

or the United States killing many times more innocent civilians in pursuit of "justice" over 9/11 than were killed in the actual attacks themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said in the other thread:

The greatest tragedy as a result of that day is the lost freedoms and rights of US citizens within their own country in the name of protecting itself against terrorism. Other nations have done the same, but not nearly to the extent it has in the US, though the UK is a close second.

 

Though to add to that, the UK was already in a downward spiral before it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the whole "you can get detained for taking photos of landmarks" is a bit extreme. Though, as you said, the United States at this point is nothing more than a police state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One single professor tells all, eh? Was his study peer-reviewed? Was it published in an academic journal? No? Was it taken out of context at all? Sounds like you're the one depending on a single source.

 

I tell you what, I will spend the multiple hours to download it and watch it again to point out how much is taken out of context and how much of it hardly applies to what actually happened.

 

You see, the problem with most of these conspiracy theories is that they take one single thing, like the plane hitting the building, and say how that by itself would never make the building collapse. Or the fires, and how they say that fire would never be able to take down the building by itself. However, neither of those happened individually. They happened together. The conspiracy theories never take into account all of the multiple factors happening at once.

 

I'm taking into account what went on in the basements and lower levels of those buildings before the collapse even started.

Like my Sister's ex-fiance's dad who was working as a structural engineer that was inspecting some work that was done and was injured (Burned) when a wall got blown out on him, before the collapse started. numerous other people, like people working the vaults, the subway station, the utility plant, that all reported multiple explosions in which some were injured and trapped, others were injured and got out and watched the collapse from a block/blocks away. the 9/11 commission dismissed those as inadmissable because NIST's theory didn't account for them. The columns that were cut neatly at 45 degree angles. the mountainous evidence pointing to the use of shaping charges and line charges. that the 9/11 commission wouldn't even review.

Again because it didn't fit with NIST's theory. that commission was very biased toward what NIST submitted.

There's people that were as high as the 20th floor that reported massive explosions in the minutes before the collapse started.. Again the 9/11 commission dismissed them. all these explosions seemed to center around the central core. one guy got blown out of his office and ended up in his boss's office 30 feet away, he got rescued before the collapse. he got burned in a fire ball. he was below the 20th floor. the 9/11 commission wouldn't even hear his testimony because he wasn't at the impact site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Looks good on the outside. How does the core on the inside look?

 

Do you know what gravity is? It is a constant downward force. You are even being affected by gravity right now. On this planet, you are always affected by it.

 

The building was not collapsing horizontally as your pool reference would imply. It was collapsing downward.

 

 

You do realize that there are all types of steel. It is an alloy after all.

 

 

Pretty much all skyscrapers built during and after the '60s use the "hollow-tube" design. It is not limited to those two buildings you listed. And the other buildings you listed use it as well.

 

 

Been done before.

 

Too bad the architect didn't take into account the multiple factors it took to bring the buildings down all at once, eh?

 

most architects don't account for dynamite/Thermite/Nano-Thermite/Ammonium Nitrate etc. being used against the buildings main supporting structure in conjunction with the impacts/fires/etc. It's a skyscraper, not a cold war bunker :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm taking into account what went on in the basements and lower levels of those buildings before the collapse even started.

Like my Sister's ex-fiance's dad who was working as a structural engineer that was inspecting some work that was done and was injured (Burned) when a wall got blown out on him, before the collapse started. numerous other people, like people working the vaults, the subway station, the utility plant, that all reported multiple explosions in which some were injured and trapped, others were injured and got out and watched the collapse from a block/blocks away. the 9/11 commission dismissed those as inadmissable because NIST's theory didn't account for them. The columns that were cut neatly at 45 degree angles. the mountainous evidence pointing to the use of shaping charges and line charges. that the 9/11 commission wouldn't even review.

Again because it didn't fit with NIST's theory. that commission was very biased toward what NIST submitted.

There's people that were as high as the 20th floor that reported massive explosions in the minutes before the collapse started.. Again the 9/11 commission dismissed them. all these explosions seemed to center around the central core. one guy got blown out of his office and ended up in his boss's office 30 feet away, he got rescued before the collapse. he got burned in a fire ball. he was below the 20th floor. the 9/11 commission wouldn't even hear his testimony because he wasn't at the impact site.

 

Explosives don't work in the way you describe. They definitely don't create fireballs, or even fire at all. Heck, they usually are used to put out oil well fires as the easiest and quickest method to do so depending on size. They are far less exciting than Hollywood would have you believe and would outright kill you if you were close.

 

As far as the dismissal of anecdotal evidence that makes the assertion that explosives must have been used as the only way to bring the towers down goes, would you choose to side with experts who took the time to analyze everything or some random people who knows nothing about the subject who are just theory-crafting and fear-mongering?

 

most architects don't account for dynamite/Thermite/Nano-Thermite/Ammonium Nitrate etc. being used against the buildings main supporting structure in conjunction with the impacts/fires/etc. It's a skyscraper, not a cold war bunker :P

 

Nice assertion on a single point I made, dodging it and all else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh stupid forums... not displaying then redisplaying then blahhhh :P ignore this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a more plausible conspiracy theory, I can repeat what I came up with a few years ago. It's not the biggest lie, so it's not as sensational as some of these other ones, but it's definitely more plausible.

 

 

Lets say it was discovered that the planes did indeed take down the towers. As the government, would you want to paint a big target on all the buildings designed like it and make everyone fear that they may be boarding missiles that could head towards any of those to take them out at any given time? I know I definitely wouldn't. It would be better to say that the buildings collapsed from something else that happened as a result. Something that would very unlikely cause it to happen on its own, like fire. That way you would keep the unreasonable fear down, while keeping buildings vulnerable to this type of attack less likely to be targeted by potential copycats.

 

 

That would definitely make it easier for those who actually know the 'truth' to keep quiet, because it's not the government attacking itself, it's the government protecting itself. A lot less people would also have to be involved that way, so it'd be magnitudes easier to keep secret. Again, not saying that's what happened, especially since I just made it up a few years ago, but it is definitely more plausible than most of the crap I hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the whole "you can get detained for taking photos of landmarks" is a bit extreme. Though, as you said, the United States at this point is nothing more than a police state.

 

Funny you should say that. We had the same thing, over zealous officers "arresting people" and demanding deletion of photos.

Completely misinterpreted orders and the law of course. Part of the general wanting to be part of the war against terrorism. It took loads of effort from the press to reverse the flow. We had tourists being harrassed for example. Peaked hat syndrome.

 

EJ all that effort?

 

Simple answer is in the history of conspiracy theories nothing so complex has ever been claimed.

 

Basically the bad guys got lucky. Poor intel sharing caused them to get lucky. Several planes were hijacked and smashed into buildings, some of which collapsed, some didn't. The modus operandi is obvious, the belligerents admitted the attacks.

 

Yeah the govt is a klutz and lies (often) there are some shameful events in recent history that make the population suspicious of every strange event. But this one is real.. and that's the scary bit. If these guys had got hold of a nuke, they would have used it instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EJ, you are ignoring the "basic physics", let us look at the magnitude of forces involved in just a plane crashing into the towers: Ep=mgh Ep of WTC = M (WTC = 500,000,000 kg) * g (9.81) * height (42 stories: generally accept figure of 9-10 feet. For the purposes of this lets assume it was 400 feet.) This is a potential energy of 1962000000000 or 1.962E12 Newtons. Now, lets add the combined Kinetic Energy of the plane = 1/2mv^2 1/2 (350 MPH or 563.25KPH) This is the generally accepted figure at which the terrorists could have kept the plane going at at the time of the impact, The mass is 395,000 pounds or 179545.45455 Kg. So our final equation is this, KE Plane = 1/2 (179545.45455)(563.25). This equals 50,564,488.62 Joules at the time of impact. Now this is the most simple version of the physics. Now, lets look at what that number of Joules is equal to: 63 TJ, equal to the Hiroshima Bomb. It is obviously only a fraction of this but, Hiroshima was equal to 15000 tons of TNT... well why don't you tell me what the plane's force was equal too in terms of dynamite. Now, include the gravitational potential, and the jet fuel and you have one hell of a bomb. And one strong enough to bring down the Tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Sands casino demolition

 

WTC building 7 demolition.

 

and oh wow you got them being hit by B-29's (Similar mass, same speed) didn't bring down the Empire state building.

 

More building 7 footage. look at the roof line when it starts collapsing..

 

 

note the tell tale wedge. that is where the first charges were detonated. that is industry standard so the building will drop on it's own foot print. also explosives make heat and shockwaves, and in some cases fire aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look if there was so much solidarity in their camp, why did a large consortium of Architecture and Engineering firms (Some of the most prestigious in the country) jump ship and set up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, them guys are trained professionals with degrees and many collective decades of schooling. why are so many large demolition firms crying foul, pointing out the obvious, even going to the extent of duplicating the collapse of WTC 7 on similar buildings, why did several demolition firms

start using WTC 7 as a template for precision jobs? Why are firefighters suing the government over long term illnesses induced by the attacks. Why is there division within our academic community on the subject, students and faculty, major establishments like Yale, Harvard, MIT. the list goes on.

even people in the military ask questions. you know most of the government's support comes from NIST and the American public. most of your "Conspiracy theorists" are large consortiums of Engineering firms and Architecture firms, Academics, professors, demolition firms, people that do that sugar every day for a living and spotted the similarities, including the Architecture firm that designed the WTC and the sears towers. people have combed the blueprints of that building, there is simply no way to duplicate that collapse using the visible means. also Bin Laden had our defenses bypassed, he had control of our airspace, why didn't he go full on, launch a full salvo of hijacked aircraft and take down every iconic building in this country, go full anti personnel and max those casulaties, really make it hurt. He had control of our airspace, why did he only choose buildings that were financially detrimental to us? Hell why didn't he hit the UN building 3 miles away from WTC, that would've made a better statement. Why didn't he put a couple down at Fort Washington or Martha's Vinyard, see none of what happened that day made any sense, he hits the Pentagon, a part of the pentagon that was being renovated and went over budget, why didn't he hit the white house, the capitol, the supreme court building? he had control of our airspace. he had our defenses bypassed.

he could've really F***ed us up that day, he chose not to, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There is division on every major event in History. Every major event no matter where it takes place.

2) He tried to hit the White House, or did you forget the hundreds of people who took control of the plane and landed it is Pennsylvania.

3) You realize the operational nightmare that this would have been right? So of course he choose four buildings, plain and simple.

4) Actually the WTC made a huge statement. The WTC was representative of the communal effort of Western Nations to exploit his nation. He took that down. There isn't a much better statement he could have made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There is division on every major event in History. Every major event no matter where it takes place.

 

True, and that division arose due to inconsistencies in the official accounts..

 

2) He tried to hit the White House, or did you forget the hundreds of people who took control of the plane and landed it is Pennsylvania.

 

He chose an empty wing of the Pentagon, while we were disoriented he could've sent the Pentagon plane after the white house.

 

3) You realize the operational nightmare that this would have been right? So of course he choose four buildings, plain and simple

 

engaging the world's most powerful airforce with airliners isn't an operational nightmare?

 

4) Actually the WTC made a huge statement. The WTC was representative of the communal effort of Western Nations to exploit his nation. He took that down. There isn't a much better statement he could have made.

 

the WTC was a friggin bank and stock market. the UN was the cockpit of the alliance of nations that was exploiting his nation, it was the command and control center, It was also in session and full of government leaders and diplomats of those nations.

Not only would hitting an in session UN make a statement it would have temporarily paralized our alliance as leaders were replaced. We wouldn't have had the support for a war. He chose a bank, Hell the bank of America on wall street was an easier target. It was also the cockpit of our treasury. He avoided stuff that could significantly hurt us. sugar TransAmerica building in LA was even more exposed, but again it was a big money maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×