911 The facts and the proof only.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

We know for sure someone made a mistake. You can either believe that the conspirators made a mistake and accidentally reported the collapse to soon, for no apparent reason really. Or just some reporter made a mistake and reported the building collapsed after he or she heard rumors it would collapse. Either way someone made a mistake. One requires an outrageous conspiracy, the other requires a chaotic day at the office.

I know what to believe. Granted it was chaos on the day, but someone fed this information and something as BIG as that should have been followed up to determine the exact details.

As soon as the images of this attack were coming through most commentators, not neccessarily journalists were in position to point the finger at Al-Queda.

The same thing happened in Norway, but alas that was definately a red herring. Damn, even the most popular of the U.K Tabloid papers ran with the headline that Al-Queda were behind the Norway attacks, they couldn't be further from the truth could they?

Originally posted by downunderET
Go to Dr Judy Wood' web site.............All the answers are there.............

Actually, Wood's disinformation has been spammed here multiple times and is all debunked here. The threads die. Nobody is interested or believes in that garbage. But thanks for stopping by.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


So you are willing to accept that conspirators can make mistakes like this, but reporters can't. Because conspirators are stupid and mess up all the time and reporters always check all the facts and never make mistakes?

But like I said, the whole idea that a group of conspirators would feed information about the building collapses is completely absurd. It is there for anyone to see, there is nothing to feed. And besides, the popular position of truthers is that building 7 was taken down discretely for some sinister reason. Discretely means they would not give it some additional publicity. Your proof for a conspiracy fails in every aspect, evidence, logic, common sense. I am not sure what it is doing in a thread about "facts". But like I pointed out, we probable will have different standards.

Originally posted by SirMike
I always feel like Marge Simpson when I talk with truthers:

I know what you are saying but I trust Cleveland over and beyond Marge Simpson.

Originally posted by -PLB-
What proof can you show that the columns could not fail without demolitions?

It's called "history". History has shown that steel-structured highrises don't fail, totally and completely, without explosives.

Originally posted by -PLB-
What proof do you have that the columns were assembled horizontally, vertically, and diagonally?

What, you've done no research at all on the construction of the WTC? Really?


You can see the the core columns and how they're assembled vertically, horizontally, and you can see some diagonal cross-braces near the bottom of the image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6e2eba563bb.jpg[/atsimg]


In this next image, you can see quite a few diagonal cross-braces:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e99972445a4b.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by -PLB-
What proof do you have it was rigged?

That was already layed out in my initial post in this thread.

I would kindly like to remind everyone that the thread called for proof.

If you are going to contest an opinion or evidence presented here, please supply proof. Don't give your opinion, or state that multiple structural engineers have debunked something if you cannot provide a source.

Sorry for the off topic post, but it was made in an attempt to keep the rest on topic.

reply to post by randyvs


How about the molten pools of metal that burned under the pile for days, weeks even. What would cause that inferno? And why would the metal be hauled off to China to make a ship of war? And why would people who ask questions be ridiculed?

Why is it Firefighters reported after they got to the scene it was as if a bomb went off in the basement? Bombs were heard before the planes. It is all crazy and the fact of the matter is they think they got away with murder. They didn't. All the people denying the evidence would argue the sky is black when indeed it is a sunny day. They can't handle the truth! This is me being as nice as I can be!!!!


Another video...Bomb first and then planes!!!!! Sooooooo many claim this. I was not there but the ones who were KNOW what they are talking about.



Here is a video that has many parts to it (911: FireFighters Architects & Engineers 911 Truth Expo) this one is part 4...check it out!
Lots and lots of questions by people who were there!!!!



For anyone to think this was not planned is being closed minded to facts.

The question I have....what do we do about our leaders who are leading us onto a path of self destruction????

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's called "history". History has shown that steel-structured highrises don't fail, totally and completely, without explosives.

But history has shown that high rise buildings can fully collapse when jetlines crash into them causing large fires. In fact, history shows us that this happed in 100% of the occurrences.

But seriously, how is an argument from ignorance proof?

Originally posted by -PLB-What, you've done no research at all on the construction of the WTC? Really?


You can see the the core columns and how they're assembled vertically, horizontally, and you can see some diagonal cross-braces near the bottom of the image:

In this next image, you can see quite a few diagonal cross-braces:

I strongly doubt that those went up all the way to the top. Do you have proof for that? The structure became weaker as it became higher.

Originally posted by -PLB-That was already layed out in my initial post in this thread.

We have some very different standards for proof. That is why a thread like this does not work. There is truther proof, and real proof.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

So you are willing to accept that conspirators can make mistakes like this, but reporters can't. Because conspirators are stupid and mess up all the time and reporters always check all the facts and never make mistakes?

But like I said, the whole idea that a group of conspirators would feed information about the building collapses is completely absurd. It is there for anyone to see, there is nothing to feed. And besides, the popular position of truthers is that building 7 was taken down discretely for some sinister reason. Discretely means they would not give it some additional publicity. Your proof for a conspiracy fails in every aspect, evidence, logic, common sense. I am not sure what it is doing in a thread about "facts". But like I pointed out, we probable will have different standards.

edit on 15-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

The OS is so full of holes, it would embarass a swiss cheese.

Carry on.

Originally posted by Backslider
I would kindly like to remind everyone that the thread called for proof.

If you are going to contest an opinion or evidence presented here, please supply proof. Don't give your opinion, or state that multiple structural engineers have debunked something if you cannot provide a source.

Sorry for the off topic post, but it was made in an attempt to keep the rest on topic.

edit on 15-8-2011 by Backslider because: (no reason given)

Are you vying for a job as a Moderator?

Only joking. You are right of course.

It was a FACT that the BBC claimed WTC7 building collapsed before it did and it is a FACT that Cleveland claims 9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


Are you saying that because the OS is full of holes, you are allowed to have a theory that is full of holes and does not make any sense too? Or are you trying to make another point? If so, what point? And what does all this have to do with "911 The facts and the proof only."?

We have some very different standards for proof. That is why a thread like this does not work. There is truther proof, and real proof.

reply to post by -PLB-


What kind of "proof" are you wanting?

Do you want proof from our Government?

Do you want the stories from the people who where there?

Do you want an architect or an engineer to tell you?

The truth is out there....everywhere.

Its a puzzle that any one of us can put together and notice that this type of puzzle has an aroma....one that can be fooled by some to smell like roses while the rest of us smell the garbage for what it is.

reply to post by -PLB-


Fact: Building # 7 did not get hit by an airplane.

Seriously, if the OS about building #7 was real, then we would only need to smash a few holes in a high rise and light a few offices on fire and it will come down in a few hours.
Heck, we should sue all of the demolition companies for ripping us off since all you need is office fires to bring a building to the ground in a few hours.

Edit: I believe that the OP is asking for undeniable facts, something that has been proven, like at what temperature does steel melt, can metal disintegrate in to powder. How tall was the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon and what floors would have been damaged if the engines did not touch the ground. Can a phone call be made from the altitude that the plane was at the supposed time of the call.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

Are you saying that because the OS is full of holes, you are allowed to have a theory that is full of holes and does not make any sense too? Or are you trying to make another point? If so, what point? And what does all this have to do with "911 The facts and the proof only."?

So, you agree that the OS is full of holes?

Unfortunately we are left to try and fill those holes and sometimes theories can be a little off kilter.

However, I would like a proper examination of what actually went down that day. When I say proper I mean totally indepedent of Government influence, but hey what would happen to the Western world if it does transpire that the U.S Government were complicit?

All those wars, all those deaths, all that money. It isn't going to happen and I know it, you know it, geez, we all know it.

reply to post by HannibalEG


After some searching it appears that if I would have included the word" near" I would be more correct.

I stand corrected.

Let me say it. Near freefall speed. Sheese a bit picky but I understand that in this forum.

Originally posted by -PLB-
But history has shown that high rise buildings can fully collapse when jetlines crash into them causing large fires.

That's if you believe the official theory. And that's all it is: a theory. You can read more about that by clicking the link in my signature called "What is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist".

But, you're also forgetting that WTC 7 was not struck by a jetliner, therefore your point there is moot.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I strongly doubt that those went up all the way to the top. Do you have proof for that?

Why would you doubt it? Just for your own personal denial? No, I haven't seen proof that the diagonal braces went all the way to the top because of the limited photos and videos. However, there's no proof that they didn't go all the way to the top either.

Your opinion that the diagonal bracing didn't go all the way to the top is not proof that the diagonal braces weren't there. I've provided images that the core columns had diagonal bracing. However high they implemented diagonal bracing, the diagonal bracing is a fact and did exist.

Originally posted by -PLB-
We have some very different standards for proof. That is why a thread like this does not work. There is truther proof, and real proof.

Then why don't you be the first person, in years of me asking, that finally provides "real" proof that a fire-induced collapse exhibits:

Puffs/ejections of dust debris.

Flashes going up, down, and around the building with popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes.

Timed/synchronous booms during the collapse of the building.


Once you provide a fire-induced collapse that exhibits all of the above, I'll be more open to your "real" proof. Until then, your denial and ignorance is your real proof in your world, but not the real world.

edit on 15-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I would love to know how the Mayor knew 15 minutes in advance they were going to collapse. There are just so many holes and loops...I may even create a thread of all the facts at hand. There are really too many and dang it....I am on my way out the door to an Open House.

I forgot to mention that according to the OS, office fires are capable of pulverizing reinforced bunker floors like the Major's bunker.

Originally posted by Elieser
I forgot to mention that according to the OS, office fires are capable of pulverizing reinforced bunker floors like the Major's bunker.

Right, cause that amount of weight coming down on it wouldnt?

Seriously , im all about finding the truth, but its never safe to abandon common sense just because we want there to be a conspiracy......

Sure I think there were lots wrong with the whole thing..........but im not gonna leave behind my critical thinking skills because I WANT there to be more of a conspiracy then what there really might be