|
New 9/11 Footage (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by EXTREMUM
There's several skyscrapers across the world, which sustained worse fires for longer periods of time, and are still standing today.
|
Wrong. Burning jet fuel takes the cake, you are just uneducated in this subject. Prove me wrong and name some "Worse fires".
| quote: | | Yet, the Twin Towers (WTC I & II) were known to be the best built skyscrapers in the world. There must have been demolition explosives in the buildings, to cause the collapse. |
The way the plane hit and damaged the building, shifted the loads to places where it shouldn't be. Common sense, basic rules of physics, and common knowledge of architecture can tell you that unexpected shifts in stress, especially on objects which aren't load-bearing, will increase chances for a collapse. The fire hastened the process and increased the chance as well.
Learn your material. |
|
|
| jdat |
| quote: | Originally posted by EXTREMUM
I'm not saying the goverment was involved. Simply, terrorists can plant enough explosives inside such a large building, over a matter of years - even decades. |
but then why would they go through the hassle of hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building? :conf:
Sounds counter productive to me .... or perhaps it was for drama effect.
What you are saying is most certainly a first I have ever heard ... terrrorists put explosives throughout the building uh :wtf: |
|
|
| EXTREMUM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
The way the plane hit and damaged the building, shifted the loads to places where it shouldn't be. Common sense, basic rules of physics, and common knowledge of architecture can tell you that unexpected shifts in stress, especially on objects which aren't load-bearing, will increase chances for a collapse. The fire hastened the process and increased the chance as well.
Learn your material. |
Interesting facts, you just pointed out.
And, you're right, I don't have all the facts, so my opinions are must be blown out of context. However, everyone's entitled to their own opinion on what happened. All we do know, is what we saw and heard on television, as it happened, and that it was a sad moment for all of us. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| buildings that are uncontrollably demolished dont implode on themselves. an explosion is just what it says it is...explodsions blow out. implosions collapse on themselves. |
|
|
| EXTREMUM |
| I'm still confused on the subject, as-is. However, I just felt there was more to what I actually saw on television. |
|
|
| dallastar |
| I just looked at the clock it's 9:11 p.m. |
|
|
| dallastar |
| quote: | Originally posted by dallastar
I just looked at the clock it's 9:11 p.m. |
:eek: :nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by dallastar
:eek: :nervous: :nervous: |
happens twice a day everyday sweetheart |
|
|
| EXTREMUM |
| quote: | Originally posted by dallastar
I just looked at the clock it's 9:11 p.m. |
Well you posted at 9:12pm, so... :p |
|
|
| Temperate |
I would also like to say that I believe there is a sort of government cover-up. But not in the sense that most people think.
The 9/11 commission constantly has said that most agencies in the government were giving them a very hard time, when trying to retrieve information and documents. Does this necessarily mean that the government is trying to cover up their INVOLVEMENT? Hell no. Not as I see it. My first impression, is that the government, is trying to cover up mistakes that were made, security-wise. It makes sense. People blowing off real threats by al qaeda. Certain documents saying that funding was cut from intelligence, and security. I'm not saying these could be exact, but something LIKE THIS could cause the government to want to with hold information that might damage one's reputation, or even the reputation of entire agencies. Is this admirable? No. But I think it's understandable, and far more likely than government involvement in the attacks. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EXTREMUM
This was a planned attack. The fire from the jet fuel DID NOT cause the buildings to collapse. There's several skyscrapers across the world, which sustained worse fires for longer periods of time, and are still standing today. Yet, the Twin Towers (WTC I & II) were known to be the best built skyscrapers in the world. There must have been demolition explosives in the buildings, to cause the collapse.
/thread |
| quote: | Originally posted by wizniz
i hate to say it extremum but i think i agree w/ you |
yeah, well youd be wrong :rolleyes:
where do you dicks get your amazing leaps of intellectual faith?
first off extremum, by what rationale do you think comparing completely different buildings is a credible way to analyse the collapses?
just in case you are wondering, not a single building designed the way the WTCs were designed has been hit by an airliner. these comparisons you keep making are totally bogus. have some intellectual commitment and at least research your position before spreading false information.
secondly, id like for you to engage us more about the demolition charges. if you knew anything about the subject youd know it couldnt have been a demolition.
stop making schoolboy assumptions about things you dont have the first clue about. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EXTREMUM
Interesting facts, you just pointed out.
And, you're right, I don't have all the facts, so my opinions are must be blown out of context. However, everyone's entitled to their own opinion on what happened. All we do know, is what we saw and heard on television, as it happened, and that it was a sad moment for all of us. |
:rolleyes: the traditional retreat of the lazy thinker.
btw, some of us know a whole lot more than what we "saw & heard on television". |
|
|
|
|
