Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

second part

3th part

4th part

The official conspiracy theory lacks evidence. You would think after a TERRORIST ATTACK where 3000 people died an investigation would include testing for accelerants and explosives, but no, reason, none of the booms were louds enough. Are you serious.

People want an real investigation of the events, not a cover up.

And it isnt kids in their basement who are the conspiracy theorists, it is architects engineers firefighters, whitnesses and politicians intelligence/military people coming forward.

reply to post by Cassius666


Yeah, we get it. What can we do to work together and do an investigation via this forum? I'm tired of all the fighting that's been going on and I want us to get what we need to prove this conclusively one way or the other.

Don't cop out and suddenly say there's no way to prove anything, actually come up with something constructive. Also, don't just say it's "obvious that the official story is full of holes." That gets repeated more than the anything, but it is rarely substantiated. Don't link me to videos, and don't use rhetoric to emphasize your beliefs. Just help me come up with a serious action plan on how we, as laymen, can do a serious investigation and analysis of 9/11 to come to a consensus.

To start, we should begin looking for associates who are engineers, maybe a few people who know a thing or two about demolition. Get to talking with them and see if you can get them interested in doing a serious analysis.

We need more ideas. No more sitting on our respective bottoms spouting fire out our nostrils.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Yeah, we get it. What can we do to work together and do an investigation via this forum? I'm tired of all the fighting that's been going on and I want us to get what we need to prove this conclusively one way or the other.

Do you honestly think they will be pleased with ANY report that doesn't verify their beliefs?

We're talking about people using YouTube videos as absolute proof over reports made by hundreds of engineers.

Originally posted by TosskeyDo you honestly think they will be pleased with ANY report that doesn't verify their beliefs?

No way, for some it's a religion, you might as well tell muslims that "we have found no evidence that allah exists"

For other ppl there's still too much money in it and they will be on it again right away

Originally posted by C46driver

Originally posted by TosskeyDo you honestly think they will be pleased with ANY report that doesn't verify their beliefs?

No way, for some it's a religion, you might as well tell muslims that "we have found no evidence that allah exists"

For other ppl there's still too much money in it and they will be on it again right away

I just don't understand why conspiracy theorists cling to the most ridiculous theories.

It was a hologram!

Shaped charges!

Controlled demolition!


Where are the level headed conspiracy theorists that can accept that 'terrorists' crashed planes into buildings, but think the US Government was complicit in either perpetrating the hijackings, or atleast just turning a blind eye to it? Not that I think that's the case, personally, but I just find it funny that most conspiracy theorists immediately jump to the absolute least unlikely scenarios.

Originally posted by Tosskey
Where are the level headed conspiracy theorists that can accept that 'terrorists' crashed planes into buildings, but think the US Government was complicit in either perpetrating the hijackings, or atleast just turning a blind eye to it? Not that I think that's the case, personally, but I just find it funny that most conspiracy theorists immediately jump to the absolute least unlikely scenarios.

edit on 13-3-2011 by Tosskey because: (no reason given)

I agree holograms etc., is silly but to say controlled demolition didn't happen means you have not looked at the evidence.

For the towers without going into a lot of detail, as it is in plenty of other threads if you bothered to look, Newtons laws of motion proves the OS impossible. 30 floors can not crush 80 floors without being crushed themselves (equal opposite reactions), so the 30 floors would run out before the 80 floors did. And that's even IF the collapse happened according to the OS. Personally I don't think the collapse should have happened at all from one hour of fire. But regardless the OS does not offer a logical explanation as to how it could happen. Even Bazants paper, that claims to explain it, requires a large mass of floors to still be in the footprint of the towers, yet there are none.

The majority of WTC 7 landed in its own footprint, evidenced by post collapse pictures, i.e. all four outer walls were on top of the collapsed building. This is only possible from a controlled implosion demolition.



This is why the OS is in question, and should be.

Originally posted by ANOK
I agree holograms etc., is silly but to say controlled demolition didn't happen means you have not looked at the evidence.

For the towers without going into a lot of detail, as it is in plenty of other threads if you bothered to look, Newtons laws of motion proves the OS impossible. 30 floors can not crush 80 floors without being crushed themselves (equal opposite reactions), so the 30 floors would run out before the 80 floors did. And that's even IF the collapse happened according to the OS. Personally I don't think the collapse should have happened at all from one hour of fire. But regardless the OS does not offer a logical explanation as to how it could happen. Even Bazants paper, that claims to explain it, requires a large mass of floors to still be in the footprint of the towers, yet there are none.

The majority of WTC 7 landed in its own footprint, evidenced by post collapse pictures, i.e. all four outer walls were on top of the collapsed building. This is only possible from a controlled implosion demolition.

This is why the OS is in question, and should be.

Agreed, it is also quite clear that Tosskey hasn't really gone through this particular thread with any sincerity. Maybe when Toss... read the title of the thread it seemed to be home ground.

This ‘in its own footprint’ reason is just plain silly. It has no choice but to fall straight down.
If you expect it to fall like a tree in a forest then you are wrongly assuming it’s a rigid structure.
If you expect the lower floors to support the upper floors then you know nothing about hi rise construction. Essentially each floor is designed to support about the same weight. If you exceed that weight by too much it will fail.

These simple concepts are understood by the masses of people who matter.
All of you arm chair engineers will be disappointed because there will never be another government sanctioned investigation.

Rivers flow and buildings fall through the path of least resistance.

If some of the building had remained standing, even 10% of the building still stood, then I could swallow the official story and be happy. As it stands, no core columns were left erect in either of the three building that fell that day.



Fell due to "fire"? Not a chance. Not while Newtons law of physics is still accepted as accurate.

This fella is on the phone to his wife and tells her of an explosion, possbily from the base of one of the federal buildings.