If you know your 9/11 Conspiracy shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalAsiaticBlackDan

sean, I almost posted the same link, before I realized that the entire "truth" movement cares nothing about facts or reality. They only look for what supports what they already believe.

THey don't realize that controlled deomlition is scientifically and physically much less likely than any of the theories they scoff at.

This is bullshit your telling me that fires melting steel beams, pancakeing floors, that dont slow down the decent of their fall when they strike the next floor and progressive collapse are more likely to cause buildings to fall than expertly place controled demo charges? If just one of the buildings collapsed in these farfeched ways it might be believeable but three falling like they did on there own. No, the odds are astronomical.

See the thing is, you dont really believe these theories anymore than anyone else but you have no choice because you just cant let yourself think about what it means if they are lies.

But lets say that something like 911 was to happen in a country like Iran. An Iran's president is saying it was an attack by cave dwelling terrorists in the rocky mountains. Then it would be a different story all the people not wanting to believe the government is lying, they would all be saying that Irans 911 was an inside job. But because we are talking about the All Mighty USA people would rather believe these highly unlikely theories over a far more likely but more sinister explanation.

---

. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

Ok Im wondering how seven years later NIST discovered previously undocumented damage? It had to be from video footage cuz any physical evidence is long gone. So lets see the video or pics. And 25 percent sounds like a lot but has anyone seen the pics of the OKlahoma city bombing? That building sustained massive damage but did not fall.


NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

So what this paragraph is saying is that the building was "progressively collapseing on the inside? Because you cant see anything collapseing in any of the vids until it all falls down.


According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

I'll give em this one cuz I dont really know about the architecture of the building. But it seems logically that the chances of all these things happening and causeing a collapse are a million to one. It is a fairly plusible theory (and as stated in the PM piece that is all that it is.) more believe able than the pancaking floors theory of the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Interview on Danish tv about scientists finding Nano-Thermite in the dust of WTC. Check it out its kinda old but new to most im sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePU...1&feature=fvwp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQpb00U6K_g

A couple links to vids of failed controlled demos.

Yo anyone check the vids?

true indeed

speaking of videos

^flight 93 shot down huh?

Hm, can't watch videos.

But i do remember that footage of Rumsfeld saying it had been shot down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Bateman

Hm, can't watch videos.

But i do remember that footage of Rumsfeld saying it had been shot down.

---

What's up with you not being able to watch videos? Is it an Australian thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visionz

What's up with you not being able to watch videos? Is it an Australian thing?

---

Sort of.

My net has a pretty low download limit.

Hence i can't really afford to watch youtubes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Bateman

Sort of.

My net has a pretty low download limit.

Hence i can't really afford to watch youtubes.

---

So you get charged for downloaded information as if it where minutes for a cell phone?

No, just get slowed down to horrendous speeds.

I assume most other places don't really have bandwidth limits, but here it's pretty much impossible to get internet without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Bateman

No, just get slowed down to horrendous speeds.

I assume most other places don't really have bandwidth limits, but here it's pretty much impossible to get internet without it.

---

It because you have to lay massive cables on the ocean floor to keep Australia connected but yeah we don't have it here.

To sum up those last ones I posted for you.

One is Rumsfield slipping up and saying the flight 93 was shot down (which you're aware of) and the other was a guy who had a local radio station that was predicting in June of 2001 that some kind of attack on the United States
was imminent and that when it happened that Osama bin Laden would be blamed for it but would not actually be responsible. This same guy has his house raided by police and was shot dead in November of 2001.

October 12 2009?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visionz

It because you have to lay massive cables on the ocean floor to keep Australia connected but yeah we don't have it here.

To sum up those last ones I posted for you.

One is Rumsfield slipping up and saying the flight 93 was shot down (which you're aware of) and the other was a guy who had a local radio station that was predicting in June of 2001 that some kind of attack on the United States
was imminent and that when it happened that Osama bin Laden would be blamed for it but would not actually be responsible. This same guy has his house raided by police and was shot dead in November of 2001.

---

Ok, as i said i remember the Rumsfeld thing, and when i saw it, it was pretty fucking weird/suspicious.

The second one reminds me (although the two are not really related) of a guy who i can't remember the name of who was working as an architect when the towers were being built and he proposed bridges between the two buildings every 11 levels and he was promptly fired.

Fuck, it's going to kill me trying to remember the guys name. He does all this bizarre artwork with engineering aspects and has these out there ideas about building a glass moon elevator and a marine vehicle that would clean the oil that lies on the top of the ocean while generating power etc.

I think bridges between the two towers would have been impossible because of how they were laid out.

Yeah, he was employed during the planning stages, so i don't think that would have been a problem.

And i mean, he revealed this after the towers came down anyway, i'm not sure how credible he is.

Regardless, he's an interesting guy. Not knowing his name is going to annoy me until i can figure it out.