BF2S Forums One Simple Question for 9/11 Conspiracists

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Miller wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

ZOMG LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to being.

1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?

2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.

3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

An excerpt:

Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

Frank Demartini's Statement

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.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.

4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction

The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … /dust.html

No, no building can with stand a jet hitting it.  I think you may have changed some things around in there. It may have been built to take little prop aircraft, but jets, are not what that building is designed for.  And when I said the shift, I meant they all felt it, everywhere, and it was noticable, it wasn't a little wind.  It was a place flying at around 500 MPH hitting it and making the whole thing move.

Did you read it? THE GUY WHO DESIGNED THE BUILDING SAID IT, NOT ME. Man you right wingers really are thick. Is that the best you've got? If you had read it you would have seen that the towers swayed more on an average windy day in Manhattan than when the planes hit them.

So then, if your theory is correct, how would they bring down that building secretly without any civilians noticing bombs being placed around them.  How come we have video evidence of the terrorists going to their planes and entering the airports.  How is it that Osama took responsibility for it?  How come the building went down when a plane hit it? Anwser me with a logical reason, not this bull shit that we put dynamite in it.

Well, this has been fun and all, but I gotta hit the hay. I hate getting up at 5:30....

Bubbalo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

thats what libs do, they automatically blame Bush and the Government when they don't even know what THE FUCK they are talking about. (sorry anger not directed at you Bubbalo).

As opposed to conservatives who just keep on shooting until things go their way............

What I mean when I say the story isn't complete is a reference to the people pointing out problems with the damage caused (i.e. the molten metal).

There was more damage than just the steel.  And what the fuck is this shooting until things go their way, what the hell does that even mean dude?  Thats a horrible over generalization.  Clinton shot things until he got his way in the 90's.  Hmmm.  How is that just for the right?

Well kiddies, since this thread's all over the place, what brought down building 7?

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Liar. What research have you done? What other steel structure has collapsed due to fire? What buildings have "fallen from less," as you put it? You haven't done any research and believe everything Bush and CNN tell you about what happened.

By the way, just because you don't know how the explosives got there doesn't mean there were no explosives used. It's like if my wife has a black baby. I don't know who, when, where or how she fucked a black guy, but that doesn't mean she didn't fuck a black guy.

You see you libs don't know the meaning of the word liar or lie.  I would have to have INTENTIONALLY said something I knew was false, but to the best of my knowledge I didn't.  Listen I'm sorry if I said some stuff that I don't have back up for but answer me this my friend, just this ONE AND ONLY QUESTION.  I AGREE that the explosives COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, do you ADMIT THAN THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PLANES ALONE COULD HAVE DONE IT??????????????

Look dude, read my whole posts, if there were explosives and the government did it, than I would agree with you 110%, but there is NO GOD DAMN EVIDENCE.  What "research" have you done other than looking up links on 9/11 for truth sites and the like.  That is not credible.  I don't believe everything Bush and CNN tell me dude, you don't even fucking know me.  You dumb shit I didn't say it WASN'T POSSIBLE that the gov't was behind it, I have only said THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT.  LISTEN TO WHAT I'm saying here. FUCKING READ.  I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.

You want REAL credible research, from an unbiased source, not your 9/11 for truth shit.  Here you go, right here.  Popular mechanics.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … 27842.html
You read all of that, and not any god damn less, otherwise there is no point in talking to you, because YOU are the one with the closed mind, NOT me, don't you see, YOU are the only one saying something is impossible (the planes) while I have accepted that govt conspiracy IS possible but theres no evidence.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-25 21:26:38)

Lets All Just Call Each Other Dumb Shits And Type In Caps!!!!!!

Bubbalo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

And what the fuck is this shooting until things go their way, what the hell does that even mean dude?  Thats a horrible over generalization.  Clinton shot things until he got his way in the 90's.  Hmmm.  How is that just for the right?

Clinton was attempting to live up to the whole "we're the greatest country on Earth who helps everyone and is, like, totally the reason good exists" thing you guys are always going on about.  He wasn't running around attempting to enforce his will through military force.

Somalia, Bosnia, thats not military force, trying to enforce his will or his wanted change......yeah........ok.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

I can't, because there were explosives used.

Oh and Osama initially denied TWICE that he had anything to do with it, completely contrary to his former M.O. with his former terrorist attacks where he claimed responsibility for the attacks right away. Only with a video with a guy who looks NOTHING LIKE OSAMA do we have any "proof" that Osama was responsible. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/dec … video.html

Here's a few inconvenient truths for you.

1. The FBI, THE FBI!!!!!!!!!!! has no proof that Osama or Al-Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. Nothing. No proof. http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

2. On Osama's top ten most wanted page, the FBI does not say that he is wanted for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Nice dodge, and nice closed mindedness, how are you 100% sure that there is NO POSSIBILIY that explosives weren't used. thats insane dude.  And thats not his MO, that has nothing to do with MO, but that aside, who is being closed minded??? You can't even admit that it is POSSIBLE that no explosives were used.  Amazing.

He's not listed for 9/11 on the FBI because he was ALREADY wanted for other crimes before 9/11 by the FBI, so there is no reason to put something else on there, that is hardly proof of a conspiracy.  Once again, the burden of proof is on you, and you have shown nothing conclusive other than things from left wing websties (team liberty).

So this is your proof?

The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.





You gotta be kidding me dude, a website tells you that its explosions and it must be, it can't possibly be due to the irregular construction of the concrete sidewalls inside the building.......exactly.

My whole point is YOU DON'T KNOW how fire the fire spread and what kind of pressure and forces were acting internally.  You cannot say 100% that it was explosives.  There is not enough evidence.  And if MASS EXPLOSIVES were used, you understand that explosives leave a lot of trace behind when they are used, even in all that rubble, yet none of it was ever found, explain that with your Truth for 9/11 propaganada sites.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-25 21:42:14)

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Miller wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!!  Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised.  Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down.  Stop drinking the kool aid.

Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that.  Steel, and concrete is used.  People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse.  It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion.  Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire.  He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on.  People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out.  Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into.  Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings.  And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.

ZOMG LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to begin.

1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?

2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.

3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

An excerpt:

Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

Frank Demartini's Statement

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.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.

4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction

The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … /dust.html

Bring it on you right wing nutjobs I can go all night.

All of this and still no answer to the ORIGINAL QUESTION!!..LOL

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

And I never said the U.S. government did it. That was what started all this go to page 1. I don't know who did it, just like I don't know how the explosives got in the towers. But I do know there were explosives used. That is all, and it is enough for me to question everything else.

Once again yeah who's being closed minded? Anyways yeah sorry if I implied you said it was the U.S., but some of my anger is actually not directed at you, I am just so amazed at other people who have way less "evidence" than you who are completely retarded.


ANSWER MY QUESTION: HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE EXPLOSIVES WERE USED?? HOW DO YOU know it wasn't a side effect from the planes, how can you say for 100% and rely 100% on eyewitness testimony, (THAT is close mindedness).

I know because had there really been a "pancake collapse due to fire" as you claim, the collapsing top would have met huge resistance along the way. Even if the resistance was only half a second per floor, extremely unlikely given the strength of the building, the collapse would have taken over 40 seconds, not 15, which is roughly the rate of freefall from a height of 110 stories. Freefall means the top encountered no resistance on the way down. The only explanation for this is that the part underneath, which should have been providing the resistance, didn't because it was too busy being blown up.

I know because the concrete was pulverized into a fine dust. Only explosives can do that.

I know because according to the design specifications of the buildings, the buildings were so strong that they could support the weight of FIVE MORE TOWERS on top of them. If they were strong enough to support the weight of five more towers on top, how could they not support the upper 20 or 30 stories?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

I know because had there really been a "pancake collapse due to fire" as you claim, the collapsing top would have met huge resistance along the way. Even if the resistance was only half a second per floor, extremely unlikely given the strength of the building, the collapse would have taken over 40 seconds, not 15, which is roughly the rate of freefall from a height of 110 stories. Freefall means the top encountered no resistance on the way down. The only explanation for this is that the part underneath, which should have been providing the resistance, didn't because it was too busy being blown up.

I know because the concrete was pulverized into a fine dust. Only explosives can do that.

I know because according to the design specifications of the buildings, the buildings were so strong that they could support the weight of FIVE MORE TOWERS on top of them. If they were strong enough to support the weight of five more towers on top, how could they not support the upper 20 or 30 stories?

Right right, glad you know what your talking about, ok ok, but WHAT IF, there were internal pressures you were UNAWARE of that caused reduced resistance.  It all points to explosives on paper, but on paper, nothing like this has ever happened before, sometimes things happen differently than what physics would explain.  There have been many a cases, and even you would agree with this, that when theories have been put to the test, sometimes things occur differently than expected, sometimes completely different, since there is no precedene of a building collapse like this, how do you know?

Ok, so you must've missed this one, where is the trace of explosives...I mean there are obvious traces of modern explosives left over from demolitios, every single time, its very obvious, there was NONE at Ground Zero, NONE.  Where did it go???

Ok my friend, I am agreeing with you that the explosions theory is POSSIBLE, however, where is your proof other than possibe physics and design comparisons.......you have no evidence they were there other than the previous mentioned theory you explained, however, like I said, how do you know thats EXACTLY what happened, how do you know there weren't other pressures and factors contributing to the reduced resistance?

Edit: OK, so let's say it was explosives, than who do you think did it, and why?

I will try to answer one point at a time.

If I miss anything tell me I'll answer in the next post.

1. I have to go with the laws of physics. I don't believe what happened could break the laws of physics, and the idea that the fires brought down the buildings does break several laws of physics. To my knowledge only planned demolition explains all the anomalies. I also subscribe to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is often the correct one. If controlled demolition is the simplest explanation, and I haven't found any other explanation that explains all these anomalies, no matter how uncomfortable the idea makes me, I have to believe it. There is precedent for skyscrapers being demolished and they look an awful lot like the twin towers, and ESPECIALLY building 7, which was never hit by a plane and only had small fires burning inside. If you could simply bring down a 47 story steel skyscraper like Building 7 by lighting a few fires, and have it all land neatly on its own footprint at freefall speed, why would you pay someone to professionally demolish it?

2. It is interesting that you bring up the evidence. Good question. Where is the evidence??? 9/11 was the biggest crime scene in history, not to mention the biggest engineering mystery. Where was the investigation of the rubble?

Answer: There was none!! Instead, Bush ordered all rubble to be shipped IMMEDIATELY to India and China, to be melted down and sold. Here, check this out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel frame buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.   

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:
If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.   

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, One hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study.    One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.

Highly Sensitive Garbage

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each.

This is a snippet there is much more to the article. Also, check out a similar article on all the red tape that hampered volunteer investigation teams at Ground Zero.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundz … tions.html

Here's a little snippet I like:

Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning highlighted concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.   

Manning also emphatically condemned the destruction of structural steel, declaing "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Manning contrasted the operation to past disasters:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

Manning indicated that the destruction of the steel was illegal, based on his review of the national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, which provides no exemption to the requirement that evidence be saved in cases of fires in buildings over 10 stories tall.

Excellent question. Where is all the evidence? Why was it destroyed. The 9/11 truth community has been asking this question for years.

Professor Steven Jones has had a chance to look at a piece of steel saved from the Towers. He found significant sulphur traces on them, which he attributes to the explosive thermite or possibly thermate, a close relative. Regardless, large amounts of sulphur on the steel beams is highly unusual and has not been explained.

3. I have not found other "pressures and factors," if I had I wouldn't give the demolitions theory so much credence.

By the way sorry for the same website being quoted it is just that in my research it is the fairest and most reliable of all 9/11 truth websites. It frequently debunks 9/11 theories like the pod theory, no planes theory, and others, and attempts to only look at scientific fact. Otherwise, as it says, to support non-scientific theories is to give ammunition to those who call us crackpots, because they can point to our "crazy" theories and thus dismiss all the ones actually backed up by evidence. To my knowledge it is the best website out there for this kind of research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

This is newly circulating among the 9/11 truth community it is very interesting. A demolitions expert is shown footage of Building 7 collapsing, and he says without a doubt it is controlled demolition. Then he is told what building it is, and he is in shock. He can't believe it because of its implications.