9/11 Pentagon...
22-02-2009, 11:03 AM
#81
Keep your knickers on! Was just amused how your posts clearly demonstrate that you believe 'something' was up and that you used a rather 'controversial' source material, without (it appeared) looking into the validity of the arguments, or counter arguments.
You're the kind of person who Loose Change was made for. It's extremely easy to pick an unusual aspect of an unususal act and assign unusual meanings! But there is virtually always a rational explanation behind it all.
You're the kind of person who Loose Change was made for. It's extremely easy to pick an unusual aspect of an unususal act and assign unusual meanings! But there is virtually always a rational explanation behind it all.
why wouldn't i believe it when half of the USA does? why wouldn't i believe WT7 was brought down via an explosion when you get expert after expert telling you it was a controlled explosion, why wouldn't i believe something when i can cleary seeing bush sturggling to answer questions and not goiving people what they want if everything was above board ie a proper investigation, proper answer from himself and chaney that doesnt have to be behind closed doors with no transcript and not under oath, a report that hasn't been done by the whitehouse,
i mean he has nothing to hide right?
22-02-2009, 11:24 AM
#82
Professional Waffler
How much of this conspiricay stuff is true or not I don't know but from what I've seen something doesn't seem right. I know when we've had bridges demolished at work it's been a very very controlled affair to ensure it falls where we want it to. So to have 2 fucking great buildings collapse perfectly into their own footprints with the precision of having a plane slam into them?
22-02-2009, 11:56 AM
#83
BANNED
BANNED
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mars
Posts: 4,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to think all this conspiracy stuff was utter bollocks (Like most stuff danneth posts 
)
But my mate lent me a couple of DVD's and it really opened my eyes!
Used to think why would it be an inside job, but there are loads of reasons!
Most people think the US Government are the ruling force in America, but I now believe they are just puppets for a super secret elete. Times in the past where this has been apparent, such as the introduction of the Fedral Reserve etc...
Be interesting for Obama as he seems more his own man.
WTC 7 was deffo a controlled explosion. How the building bows in the middle, comes down so fast, and didn't even damage the building next to it. Had to be planned.
)But my mate lent me a couple of DVD's and it really opened my eyes!
Used to think why would it be an inside job, but there are loads of reasons!
Most people think the US Government are the ruling force in America, but I now believe they are just puppets for a super secret elete. Times in the past where this has been apparent, such as the introduction of the Fedral Reserve etc...
Be interesting for Obama as he seems more his own man.
WTC 7 was deffo a controlled explosion. How the building bows in the middle, comes down so fast, and didn't even damage the building next to it. Had to be planned.
22-02-2009, 12:06 PM
#84
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think that anyone who thinks theres NOT something fishy with it all, are very nieve indeed.
Ive watched loads of videos and stuff about this, and actually both sides of the argument, and i beleive something was just not right. In fact many things just dont add up. You dont have to be a scientist or proffesser to see that some things dont seem right, its just common sense in my opinion.
Having said that, we will never know for sure, as governments are very good at covering things up and hiding it from the general public.
Ive watched loads of videos and stuff about this, and actually both sides of the argument, and i beleive something was just not right. In fact many things just dont add up. You dont have to be a scientist or proffesser to see that some things dont seem right, its just common sense in my opinion.
Having said that, we will never know for sure, as governments are very good at covering things up and hiding it from the general public.
22-02-2009, 12:44 PM
#85
PassionFord Post Whore!!
theres too many points id like to comment on through this post and i cba to go and quote on them all.
the one i can remember most is the explosions/bangs when the building fell, which somneone put down to 'floors colapsing onto themselves'. floors in buildings like that are just a frame work thin steel RSJs or similar, with some kind of thin wooden coverings, these wouldnt make a banging noise if this was the case, why wernt there 60 or 70 of these explosions as each floor colapsed? if you actually look carefully at the footage of the moment the buildings colapse, you can clearly see, several bursts of debris (like somesone blowing flower out of a straw) coming from the corners of the buildings, at equal timings, exactly the same place on each floor, at equal distances from where the building was coming down ontop itself above it. call it what you want, but thats exactly how buildings are dropped, and its all to precise in terms of timings and the position for it to just be 'a pressure wave/shock wave from the building colapsing above"
secondly, RE the pentagon. ive seen the footage, and imo theres no chance thats a plane. for a start, fuel tanks are in the wings, why were there no enormous explosions as thousands of gallons of fuel hit a solid wall at 400mph? bearing in mind these tanks on a 747 would stretch to about 80-100feet appart. so the explosions, given that the fuel would have been sent flying in all directions, would obviously have been much bigger than that, 150-200feet in diameter? and aviation fuel is like diesel fuel, it doesnt explode like petrol and thats it, it burns, and it burns, and it burns. if you look at the video of the twin towers fires, then look at the video of the pentagon, theres no such fires. look at the ppics posted above, does it look like there was a fire hot enough to melt steel RSJs on that lawn? like fuck.
then theres the hole the aircraft was suposed to have made. im sorry, but regardless how fast it was going, theres no way 16 gauge soft as shit alluminium alloy would make such a perfect hole. if you shot an airifle at a bathroom tile for instance, itd go straight through and make a perfect hole, if you shot a paintball, it would probably crack the tile and make spread its contents all over the place. exactly the same physics behind a missile and an aircraft.
in my mind, having a reasonable grasp of physics, engineering and the construction of aircraft (3 years of aero eng at cvollege) it seems to me that hole was 100% not caused by a large aircraft as theyre saying. that plus the very dodgey looking explosions that are evident in the WTC footage, points to it not all being as it seems
the one i can remember most is the explosions/bangs when the building fell, which somneone put down to 'floors colapsing onto themselves'. floors in buildings like that are just a frame work thin steel RSJs or similar, with some kind of thin wooden coverings, these wouldnt make a banging noise
if this was the case, why wernt there 60 or 70 of these explosions as each floor colapsed? if you actually look carefully at the footage of the moment the buildings colapse, you can clearly see, several bursts of debris (like somesone blowing flower out of a straw) coming from the corners of the buildings, at equal timings, exactly the same place on each floor, at equal distances from where the building was coming down ontop itself above it. call it what you want, but thats exactly how buildings are dropped, and its all to precise in terms of timings and the position for it to just be 'a pressure wave/shock wave from the building colapsing above"secondly, RE the pentagon. ive seen the footage, and imo theres no chance thats a plane. for a start, fuel tanks are in the wings, why were there no enormous explosions as thousands of gallons of fuel hit a solid wall at 400mph? bearing in mind these tanks on a 747 would stretch to about 80-100feet appart. so the explosions, given that the fuel would have been sent flying in all directions, would obviously have been much bigger than that, 150-200feet in diameter? and aviation fuel is like diesel fuel, it doesnt explode like petrol and thats it, it burns, and it burns, and it burns. if you look at the video of the twin towers fires, then look at the video of the pentagon, theres no such fires. look at the ppics posted above, does it look like there was a fire hot enough to melt steel RSJs on that lawn? like fuck.
then theres the hole the aircraft was suposed to have made. im sorry, but regardless how fast it was going, theres no way 16 gauge soft as shit alluminium alloy would make such a perfect hole. if you shot an airifle at a bathroom tile for instance, itd go straight through and make a perfect hole, if you shot a paintball, it would probably crack the tile and make spread its contents all over the place. exactly the same physics behind a missile and an aircraft.
in my mind, having a reasonable grasp of physics, engineering and the construction of aircraft (3 years of aero eng at cvollege) it seems to me that hole was 100% not caused by a large aircraft as theyre saying. that plus the very dodgey looking explosions that are evident in the WTC footage, points to it not all being as it seems
22-02-2009, 01:27 PM
#86
theres too many points id like to comment on through this post and i cba to go and quote on them all.
the one i can remember most is the explosions/bangs when the building fell, which somneone put down to 'floors colapsing onto themselves'. floors in buildings like that are just a frame work thin steel RSJs or similar, with some kind of thin wooden coverings, these wouldnt make a banging noise if this was the case, why wernt there 60 or 70 of these explosions as each floor colapsed? if you actually look carefully at the footage of the moment the buildings colapse, you can clearly see, several bursts of debris (like somesone blowing flower out of a straw) coming from the corners of the buildings, at equal timings, exactly the same place on each floor, at equal distances from where the building was coming down ontop itself above it. call it what you want, but thats exactly how buildings are dropped, and its all to precise in terms of timings and the position for it to just be 'a pressure wave/shock wave from the building colapsing above"
secondly, RE the pentagon. ive seen the footage, and imo theres no chance thats a plane. for a start, fuel tanks are in the wings, why were there no enormous explosions as thousands of gallons of fuel hit a solid wall at 400mph? bearing in mind these tanks on a 747 would stretch to about 80-100feet appart. so the explosions, given that the fuel would have been sent flying in all directions, would obviously have been much bigger than that, 150-200feet in diameter? and aviation fuel is like diesel fuel, it doesnt explode like petrol and thats it, it burns, and it burns, and it burns. if you look at the video of the twin towers fires, then look at the video of the pentagon, theres no such fires. look at the ppics posted above, does it look like there was a fire hot enough to melt steel RSJs on that lawn? like fuck.
then theres the hole the aircraft was suposed to have made. im sorry, but regardless how fast it was going, theres no way 16 gauge soft as shit alluminium alloy would make such a perfect hole. if you shot an airifle at a bathroom tile for instance, itd go straight through and make a perfect hole, if you shot a paintball, it would probably crack the tile and make spread its contents all over the place. exactly the same physics behind a missile and an aircraft.
in my mind, having a reasonable grasp of physics, engineering and the construction of aircraft (3 years of aero eng at cvollege) it seems to me that hole was 100% not caused by a large aircraft as theyre saying. that plus the very dodgey looking explosions that are evident in the WTC footage, points to it not all being as it seems
the one i can remember most is the explosions/bangs when the building fell, which somneone put down to 'floors colapsing onto themselves'. floors in buildings like that are just a frame work thin steel RSJs or similar, with some kind of thin wooden coverings, these wouldnt make a banging noise
if this was the case, why wernt there 60 or 70 of these explosions as each floor colapsed? if you actually look carefully at the footage of the moment the buildings colapse, you can clearly see, several bursts of debris (like somesone blowing flower out of a straw) coming from the corners of the buildings, at equal timings, exactly the same place on each floor, at equal distances from where the building was coming down ontop itself above it. call it what you want, but thats exactly how buildings are dropped, and its all to precise in terms of timings and the position for it to just be 'a pressure wave/shock wave from the building colapsing above"secondly, RE the pentagon. ive seen the footage, and imo theres no chance thats a plane. for a start, fuel tanks are in the wings, why were there no enormous explosions as thousands of gallons of fuel hit a solid wall at 400mph? bearing in mind these tanks on a 747 would stretch to about 80-100feet appart. so the explosions, given that the fuel would have been sent flying in all directions, would obviously have been much bigger than that, 150-200feet in diameter? and aviation fuel is like diesel fuel, it doesnt explode like petrol and thats it, it burns, and it burns, and it burns. if you look at the video of the twin towers fires, then look at the video of the pentagon, theres no such fires. look at the ppics posted above, does it look like there was a fire hot enough to melt steel RSJs on that lawn? like fuck.
then theres the hole the aircraft was suposed to have made. im sorry, but regardless how fast it was going, theres no way 16 gauge soft as shit alluminium alloy would make such a perfect hole. if you shot an airifle at a bathroom tile for instance, itd go straight through and make a perfect hole, if you shot a paintball, it would probably crack the tile and make spread its contents all over the place. exactly the same physics behind a missile and an aircraft.
in my mind, having a reasonable grasp of physics, engineering and the construction of aircraft (3 years of aero eng at cvollege) it seems to me that hole was 100% not caused by a large aircraft as theyre saying. that plus the very dodgey looking explosions that are evident in the WTC footage, points to it not all being as it seems
can you stop talking sense,
22-02-2009, 02:49 PM
#89
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much of this conspiricay stuff is true or not I don't know but from what I've seen something doesn't seem right. I know when we've had bridges demolished at work it's been a very very controlled affair to ensure it falls where we want it to. So to have 2 fucking great buildings collapse perfectly into their own footprints with the precision of having a plane slam into them?
1) Buildings are DESIGNED to fail inside their perimeter. Ideally they wouldn't at all.
But should the worst happen it's to avoid as much collateral damage as possible.2) If the aim was to drop the Twin Towers as the nutbags insist. And the Gment went to all the trouble of impregnating the entrie structure with tons and tons of (Hidden from view) plastic explosive, went to the trouble to hide all the resistance wiring in those charges and run it all down to ground level and away to some remote source.
Where was the need to smash planes into the buildings as well.
For added media coverage? I suspect 2 110 storey buildings being demolished randomly would have made the papers anyway! The could still have "pinned it on UBL" and his mob.the one i can remember most is the explosions/bangs when the building fell, which somneone put down to 'floors colapsing onto themselves'. floors in buildings like that are just a frame work thin steel RSJs or similar, with some kind of thin wooden coverings, these wouldnt make a banging noise
if this was the case, why wernt there 60 or 70 of these explosions as each floor colapsed? if you actually look carefully at the footage of the moment the buildings colapse, you can clearly see, several bursts of debris (like somesone blowing flower out of a straw) coming from the corners of the buildings, at equal timings, exactly the same place on each floor, at equal distances from where the building was coming down ontop itself above it. call it what you want, but thats exactly how buildings are dropped, and its all to precise in terms of timings and the position for it to just be 'a pressure wave/shock wave from the building colapsing above"Floors in the WTC were supported on the edges. hence why knocking the middle out of the building compromised the entire building. the "bursts of debris" you see are caused by the internal air pressure pushing down wards under the weight of the top collapsing. Inevitably pressure finds the weakes point to act upon, in this case the framework around the windows. But again you want it both ways. The "bursts" are evidence od plastic charges, yet you decide that 60-70 littel bursts couldnt be floor after floor hitting each other. I also beleive that the sound on TV from that day is not necesarily the ACTUAL sound from the day heard by those standing next to the towers.
secondly, RE the pentagon. ive seen the footage, and imo theres no chance thats a plane. for a start, fuel tanks are in the wings, why were there no enormous explosions as thousands of gallons of fuel hit a solid wall at 400mph? bearing in mind these tanks on a 747 would stretch to about 80-100feet appart. so the explosions, given that the fuel would have been sent flying in all directions, would obviously have been much bigger than that, 150-200feet in diameter? and aviation fuel is like diesel fuel, it doesnt explode like petrol and thats it, it burns, and it burns, and it burns. if you look at the video of the twin towers fires, then look at the video of the pentagon, theres no such fires. look at the ppics posted above, does it look like there was a fire hot enough to melt steel RSJs on that lawn? like fuck.
757
one of these planes is used as "proof" in your retarded question. The other was used by the hijackers. Can you see why someone with 3 years college experience may not be the best source for people trying to give credibilty to a stupid story. And if you think Planes can only fly at 400mph, you're even more thick than I thought
Secondly, make your mind up. First you want big explosions
from the impact, then you want the fire to burn slowly like Diesel (which incidentally is very hard to burn needing to be compressed first) In contrast to Aviation fuel which burns quickly and has the risk of accidental ignition from static elecricity.
then theres the hole the aircraft was suposed to have made. im sorry, but regardless how fast it was going, theres no way 16 gauge soft as shit alluminium alloy would make such a perfect hole. if you shot an airifle at a bathroom tile for instance, itd go straight through and make a perfect hole, if you shot a paintball, it would probably crack the tile and make spread its contents all over the place. exactly the same physics behind a missile and an aircraft.
Your examples of shooting tiles are to miss the point that the Pentgon was reinforced concrete. And as for what the plane was made of, I suspect its a damn site tougher than a missile. Given your propensity to rely on YouTube, heres a missile strike on a Tank. Notice there is no perfect hole left in the tank either!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81mY...eature=related
Oh and lets ignore the THOUSANDS of eye witnesses that saw the Plane flying low towards the Pentagon.
You nut bags think the planes were completely extraneous in the whole operation. Didn't bring the towers down, and didn't crash into the Pentagon either. Yet, you wonder where the debris was at the Crash site in Pennsylvania.
Oh and a for the why didn't they shoot the planes down. Let me think, you want to shoot a plane carrying potentially 200 people over a populated area. Yeah, great strategy that
If the whole day was as choreagraphed as the nut bags believe, why not shoot it down? Or why not let it crash into its intended target, beleved to be either the White House or Senate.
Last edited by Rich_w; 22-02-2009 at 03:21 PM.
22-02-2009, 03:10 PM
#90
14000+ post superhero
wow, thats a big post
totally agree with you and that looks like a lot of burn marks over the front and roof of the pentagon.
totally agree with you and that looks like a lot of burn marks over the front and roof of the pentagon.
Last edited by fuzzy; 22-02-2009 at 03:18 PM.
22-02-2009, 03:36 PM
#91
Glennvestite
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Darlington county durham
Posts: 62,762
Received 1,044 Likes
on
998 Posts
Just cause peope belive in things other people dont belive it doesnt mean to say they are nut bags.Its like people love fords and some people dont.Some people like jap cars other people dont.People are just writing what they think about 9/11.
22-02-2009, 03:44 PM
#92
Part of the Furniture
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh this is interesting, Im not sure if the government put it all on as a bit of a show and to annoy the americans so they would be happy to go to war, or if they really did take them by suprise (which i find hard to believe).. but what i cant undertsand is why we are struggleing to win the war with a load of guys that run around in sandals, with guns and afew rocket launchers..
I wonder if its because there is so much profit to be earned from war?
I wonder if its because there is so much profit to be earned from war?
22-02-2009, 03:50 PM
#93
14000+ post superhero
for sure but to believe something off this scale was done deliberately for amounts of money not that much in the grand scheme of things ,with the amount of planning, people involved etc and not having it leaked out after so many years by a weaker link or positive proof uncovered after so much investigation is plain silly.
co incidences are just that and not conspiracies.possibly lots of co incidence, bad decision making under pressure and unfortunate timing that would make various government officials and departments look bad in their mishandling of a situation none of them would have considered possible .as far as cover ups go i think thats were they end.
for something the scale of 9/11 there isnt a government around competent enough to organise something on this scale that would go uncovered.
co incidences are just that and not conspiracies.possibly lots of co incidence, bad decision making under pressure and unfortunate timing that would make various government officials and departments look bad in their mishandling of a situation none of them would have considered possible .as far as cover ups go i think thats were they end.
for something the scale of 9/11 there isnt a government around competent enough to organise something on this scale that would go uncovered.
Last edited by fuzzy; 22-02-2009 at 03:52 PM.
22-02-2009, 03:51 PM
#94
14000+ post superhero
oh this is interesting, Im not sure if the government put it all on as a bit of a show and to annoy the americans so they would be happy to go to war, or if they really did take them by suprise (which i find hard to believe).. but what i cant undertsand is why we are struggleing to win the war with a load of guys that run around in sandals, with guns and afew rocket launchers..
I wonder if its because there is so much profit to be earned from war?
I wonder if its because there is so much profit to be earned from war?
Last edited by fuzzy; 22-02-2009 at 04:03 PM.
22-02-2009, 04:01 PM
#95
Part of the Furniture
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah i can see your points, seems there is evidence pointing in both directions..
I watched this and its quite convincing backed up by some good facts. if you havnt seen it it starts off abit boring going on about how religion is a load of old rubbish then gets better.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
I watched this and its quite convincing backed up by some good facts. if you havnt seen it it starts off abit boring going on about how religion is a load of old rubbish then gets better.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
22-02-2009, 04:19 PM
#98
Glennvestite
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Darlington county durham
Posts: 62,762
Received 1,044 Likes
on
998 Posts
Just like the film says lol.We have all these flash toys like computers and play stations just to keep our minds occupied.We will get slated now for watching that film now.
22-02-2009, 04:53 PM
#101
Part of the Furniture
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah and they have already done that to afew families in america to test the technology, so they make us feel vulnerable and make our money feel unsecure so we agree to it..
only chips going in me are Mc cains oven chips alongside a nice cool stella.
only chips going in me are Mc cains oven chips alongside a nice cool stella.
22-02-2009, 06:04 PM
#102
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Blackpool
Posts: 1,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is deeply upsetting to think how many lives where lost..
There is something not right with what happened and i beleive that there is a big cover up as to keep people trusting the government other wise they wouldnt beleive anything if they coulnt trust them..
There is something not right with what happened and i beleive that there is a big cover up as to keep people trusting the government other wise they wouldnt beleive anything if they coulnt trust them..
22-02-2009, 06:06 PM
#103
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Floors in the WTC were supported on the edges. hence why knocking the middle out of the building compromised the entire building. the "bursts of debris" you see are caused by the internal air pressure pushing down wards under the weight of the top collapsing. Inevitably pressure finds the weakes point to act upon, in this case the framework around the windows. But again you want it both ways. The "bursts" are evidence od plastic charges, yet you decide that 60-70 littel bursts couldnt be floor after floor hitting each other. I also beleive that the sound on TV from that day is not necesarily the ACTUAL sound from the day heard by those standing next to the towers.
747
757
one of these planes is used as "proof" in your retarded question. The other was used by the hijackers. Can you see why someone with 3 years college experience may not be the best source for people trying to give credibilty to a stupid story. And if you think Planes can only fly at 400mph, you're even more thick than I thought
ive never seen that picture/frame. the only one i saw showed something flying across the grass and into the building with a bright flash on impact and no remarkable explosion.
thats suposedly one of the pictures of the innermost walls effected in the crash. theres plenty more pics available if you google it.
the picture i commented on ill post in a second, it was posted by someone earlier in the thread. again, if youd bothered to read the thread properly....
Your examples of shooting tiles are to miss the point that the Pentgon was reinforced concrete. And as for what the plane was made of, I suspect its a damn site tougher than a missile. Given your propensity to rely on YouTube, heres a missile strike on a Tank. Notice there is no perfect hole left in the tank either!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81mY...eature=related
a missle is a solid lump, densly packed with explosives and solid fuel. the casing is made of steel, probably around 2-4mm thick (im sure someone who actually know could confirm). an aircraft is densly packed with nice soft air, and is made from 2-4mm alluminium, which as you are probably bright enough to realise, is much softer than steel. a solid lump hitting a solid wall (similar to my air riffle pellet and tile) vs a big soft hollow lump hitting a solid wall will have two very different outcomes.
thousands?!i think you maaaaay be exagerating..
22-02-2009, 06:15 PM
#106
Part of the Furniture
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah you gotta love the way the metal beams in the twin towers were cut at 45 degrees by the burning jet fuel too. I recon they had a hunch it might get attacked and there fore rigged it so if a plane did hit they could pull it down completley
22-02-2009, 06:16 PM
#107
thousands of witnesses i thought there was only something like 160? quite random with the route it took 
and that picture where is anything from the plane?
wasn't there some CNN reporter there straight away doing a live report and said " theres no trace of a plane here its really strange "
and that picture where is anything from the plane?
wasn't there some CNN reporter there straight away doing a live report and said " theres no trace of a plane here its really strange "
22-02-2009, 06:54 PM
#113
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, I wish the nut bags were right. And the Government DID come and kill them and their families in the night.
At least I wouldn't have to listen to the idiotic, retarded, half truth based, bullshittery, lessons on physics from people who get their information from biased films on You Tube and believe a story told to them by someone who knew someone who knew someone that watched an episode of X Files and Spooks and the Matrix with Agent Smith and a program on demolishing 1960s skyscrapers with fires in buildings that must be aircraft fuel and not the actual contents of the building burning like that one in Spain that burnt for ages and had not got a plane imbeded in it with a perfect plane shaped holes in reinforced concrete that is like bathroom tiles and there's no planes and George Bush did it when he was asleep and then the zionists are involved to pin the blame on the innocent arabs who don't behead people and all the while the agents are out there.
(Yes, no commas as that's how the nutbags read things
)I swear you tell them it rained today and they think Obama had some hand in it and its special weather altering devices planted in the atmosphere by Agents.....
Conspiracy Theories by their very nature prey on the weak minded who have no clue about the real world. instead deciding that ONLY they can see the Clues and peice together the evidence to show something they had already decided.
Divs
Can you show me what that beam looked like in 2000? Consdered that maybe it was cut at 45 degr when it was welded to another peice when it was installed in the 60s?
And if the government CAN manage to keep all this secret, why leave such obvious clues?
And what exactly SHOULD the rubble from a 1960s skyscraper with a 757 imbedded in the side look like?
Oh and the only reason you guys talk about "Thermite" is because they used it on Brainiac. Which is a hig fact powered science show
The prosecution rests
Last edited by Rich_w; 22-02-2009 at 07:00 PM.
22-02-2009, 07:11 PM
#114
PassionFord Regular
I think you will find they have been cut with a 'Gas Axe'
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/471729
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/471729
Last edited by Dre.1983; 22-02-2009 at 07:14 PM. Reason: To add link.
22-02-2009, 07:46 PM
#119
PassionFord Regular
I think it was a set up by the american goverment,the guy who took out the insurance on the twin towers was Bush's brother wasnt it? And from reports Ive reard on the internet the military had practised hostage takeovers on planes near enough identical to what happened. Also there is a warning system that alerts when planes go off course but Bush ordered it to be ignored/turned off on that day-loads more facts like but it does really look like a set up
22-02-2009, 07:48 PM
#120
14000+ post superhero
the reason being will be as simple as that was the easiest way for the guy that did it to do it. perhaps restricted by access or at an awkward angle whilst working or to allow the bit being removed to fall in a certain way down?
Last edited by fuzzy; 22-02-2009 at 07:49 PM.