"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

reply to post by -PLB-


No , not at all. And the vid you provided was a controlled demo ... WITH explosives
2nd
3rd

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Um, no one can control everything. That actually is impossible. Even the best experts in the fields make mistakes all the time. Most of the biggest secrets in the history of the US have been outed randomly, and the government has a history of not being able to coordinate itself during emergencies (Katrina ring a bell?)

I don't even know why a secret organization would choose to do it that way anyway. The best way to hide what your doing is to use natural methods. No one in their right mind would choose explosives.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Then go forward with my request. Provide a video of a building demolished with explosives that looks more like the WTC collapse than the building in my video that collapsed without explosives.

reply to post by Varemia


"secrets" come out to cause tentions , tensions lead to wars , wars create profit , and these people run it all...... its the "bloodline" , theyre all related in some way or the other , when you actually look into it, its un deniable.

reply to post by -PLB-


No.... because there isnt one ....... no building has EVER collapsed like that without the use of controlled demo in the history of man , infact , the way it spewed out was a first for controlled demo, the buildings usually fall in on themselves , and not out into the streets as POWDER !

reply to post by ReptileRipper


I am asking you to provide a video in which explosives were used to take down a building that looks like the WTC collapse. I already showed you a video where no explosive were used but had a lot of similarities with the WTC collapse.

If you are trying to say that there are no records of controlled demolition using explosives that look like the WTC towers, then we agree. But the rather obvious conclusion is that this points to the idea that no explosives were used.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

"secrets" come out to cause tentions , tensions lead to wars , wars create profit , and these people run it all...... its the "bloodline" , theyre all related in some way or the other , when you actually look into it, its un deniable.

All they had to do was LET 9-11 be carried out by alqueda or even help them when possible. Its the reason authorities were so quick to arrest suspects a few days to a week after the incident. Bin laden was real and so was his message. Al-Jazeera had exclusive coverage in the begining.

They needed a reason to get to the opium feilds in afghanistan and a reason to oust saddam after he attacked kuwait. Jr finished what Sr started about a decade later. The facts speak for themselves! Didn't george tenet the cia director forcefully resign after he warned the bush administration an attack was imminent and bush jr more or less ignored him?

Sometimes the clues are right in front of us, but we tend to ignore the obvious for more outlandish theories because we have so much mistrust in the PTB.

reply to post by -PLB-


no , it points to -> "they know what a controlled demolition looks like , they`ll twig as soon as it blows, so lets get creative" , and we all know just how creative these people can be, i mean , bin laden died on the mountains years ago , but we need a scary black man with a beard to justify the ground grabbing ...... now they were preassured into "killing" the scary black man with a beard (who they trained and funded , and armed) they need a new scapegoat .... and in steps Iran. Once Iran and Sirya are out of the picture, its either , Russia or china .... then we get our nuke wars. These idiots have educated us (well... some of us i blame cola mcdonalds and xbox) just enough to see through their sh1t ..... big mistake.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Iraq = OIL ......... Afghanistan = Lithium ...... *cough* ........ seriously , who ever beleives america is good is as foolish as the germans who supported and fought for hitler........ oh yeah im going there..... so is america by the looks of things

reply to post by ReptileRipper


"good" and "bad" are rellative terms my friend. America looks out for her best interests just like any other country in the world. Of course the bush administration was very corrupt but how is obama's administration any better?

The military industrial complex is a self-perpetuating monster that needs more and more money to sustain itself. Through war comes job opportunity and profit at the expense of lives. As for afghanistan it was all about opium because the taliban(religious fanatics) had cut off production to the west. Remember the east hates the west and vice-versa so you do anything you can to sabotage the enemy.

Bin laden a saudi millionaire was "correct" in hating the west. He did not want american troops in saudi arabia, the holiest of holly land for muslims. The religious fanatics do not even want the monarchy because they believe it sells out their national wealth to western interests. Alqueda has attacked the saudi royal family on several occassions and failed.

Sadam had attacked kuwait and was feared both by saudi arabia and israel. They had to go as far as bush jr was concerned and they found the perfect opportunity.

So there you go. Who was it that said "never let a good crisis go to waste"?

Do people really think they would set up guantanamo to send thousands of infidels(war criminals) if there was no threat? Or exaggerate evidence to start TWO WARS WITHIN A YEAR? Give me a break!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Your lost in translation ..... i gathered that from the - bombs in the building during construction- crazyness.... america , took /ACCEPTED, nazi scientists after WWII for their "knowladge" ..... propaganda was the best german weapon untill it was turned against them, and why did america accept the ideas of tesla ? .... eventually ... after JFK refused to .... so they killed him in public as a big fcuk you ... and a " see , this is what you get when you say NO to us" .... so imagine what this "occupy" stuff is doing to them ..... they love it , the "1%"
WANT us to run riot , so once again they can say "fcuk you" , then drop the bombs .... america inherited the slimey evil gene after WWII ..... just look at the history , youll see it if you look close enough .... IT`S EASY TO FIND !!

and sorry but afghan contains ALOT of lithium , which is needed for computers , mobiles , tv`s and so on.


BTW - infidel means - un faithful - and as for ( religious fanatics ) .... what are americans ?? all this , in god we trust , god bless america, fighting in the name of god ...... "GOD" if such a thing exists.... by the scriptures ive read.... would have destroyed america as soon as it was formed by England .... its man made ... just like the bible ..... this "GOD" would most probably side with the likes of iran .... he likes the under dog.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


BS! That would defeat the purpose of having columns and a central core. Try again.........

The central core was designed to hold up the core columns vertically, and give a place where the floor trusses can be hung on to. If you took a cross section of the WTC, you would see that the floors were, in effect, hanging in between the exterior columns and interior columns. They were attached by these things called truss seats, which were small tabs that were welded to the exterior of the core columns and exterior columns. The floor truss end was then put on top of the seat and then bolted to it with two 5/8" bolts connecting it. Two more 1" bolts connected a damper unit to the exterior columns. That is it:



Any vertical movement or pancake of a floor or stack onto a floor below, would cause the floor to fail, and the vertical columns would have nearly ZERO resistance to the floors collapsing. During the investigation they discovered that the floor truss seats were either bent over to the point where the bolts snapped, snapped off at the weld, or just torn off the column. This means that the vertical columns (both interior and exterior) gave very little resistance to the floors collapsing, (with the only resistance coming from the seats where the truss ends were connected).

reply to post by ReptileRipper


So you agree that it didn't look like a collapse where explosives were used, but it did look like a collapse where no explosives were used, and you conclude that the conspirators must have been extremely clever to make it look like no explosives were used.

Its dead end argument. With arguments like this you can believe in anything that contradicts reality.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

So you agree that it didn't look like a collapse where explosives were used, but it did look like a collapse where no explosives were used, and you conclude that the conspirators must have been extremely clever to make it look like no explosives were used.

Its dead end argument. With arguments like this you can believe in anything that contradicts reality.

No, it looked like explosives were used , i watched it happen , it was controlled demo.... the collapse of the building was at free fall speed...... 140 odd floors gone in a matter of seconds..... i might be poor and from a rough background but im not stupid... i know what controlled demolition looks like.. if you saw huge flashes from explosions , or if the bottom of the towers exploded first...there would have been a civil war never mind a war on terror, because everyone would have known that they where dropped on purpose .... so it makes sense to make it look like they dropped because of the collisions ... which would not have been impossible if the towers stood for hours and hours burning away before collapsing, but they didnt , the south tower collaped less than an hour after being hit ... and the north tower collapsed after an hour and a half , that is absolutley impossible given the fact that these towers were built to withstand such a collision, and the fact that steel melts at 1510 degrees C (2750°F) .... the fuel in a 747 is Kerosene , and it burns at 260 to 371 degrees C (500 to 700°F) ..... but , thermite reaches 2482 degrees C (4500°F) in under 3 seconds ...... c`mon , its not rocket science.


Evidence of melting steel on 911 + thermite cutting explained and demonstrated.
If you actually want to see the truth about thermite , weather your a truther or not , i suggest everyone watches this....

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ReptileRipper


You also thought that in the video I posted explosives were used. They were not. This means your opinion is kind of worthless.

Just some random corrections:

The towers did not fall at free fall.
There were 110 floors, not 140.
Steel did not melt.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

You also thought that in the video I posted explosives were used. They were not. This means your opinion is kind of worthless.

Just some random corrections:

The towers did not fall at free fall.
There were 110 floors, not 140.
Steel did not melt.

how did it drop then ? and explode in the middle ? and jumping to the conclusion that my opinion is worthless just shows how ignorant you are. No the wonder you think the collision alone dropped the towers.... you hung on the first explaination you heard.... from the government owned media

they did fall at free fall
im not bothered how many floors there was
and steel did melt.....youll see it in that vid i provided the link to...also, a practical demonstration on how to cut steel with therminte.... he even uses a replica of the colloms in the WTC , just to squash any doubt.

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Steel loses strength at less than half its melting point. It never melted while in the tower.

As for what it "looked like," I'm going to teach you a little something about false assumptions.

It is now time to move from the problems caused by self-deception to those under the category of heuristic simplification. Heuristics are a fancy way of saying "rules of thumb" for dealing with massive amounts of information. In many settings heuristics provide sensible short cuts to the "correct" answer, but occasionally they can lead us to some very strange decisions.

www.safehaven.com...

Again, the steel didn't melt. Anything glowing pouring out of the tower can be easily explained by the presence of fire and the large lead battery room right where the fires were at.

Also, you are using an opinion-fact fallacy:

This involves stating facts and opinions in the same argument in such a way that the listener confuses the two. "Betsy Ross made the first American flag. She must have been the finest seamstress in the thirteen colonies."

hawaii.hawaii.edu...

Your argument is basically "The towers collapsed. They must have collapsed because of demolition." Instead of citing reasons, you just say "it looked like a demolition."

Since you have not drawn from a pool of skyscrapers which have collapsed both from demolition and not, then just looking like a demolition is not enough evidence for explosives, especially when in every case of demolition, evidence is left-over in the form of shape-charge remains, wiring, etc.

I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore lack of evidence and use the fallacy of Argument by Selective Observation:

also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)

Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good.

www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

reply to post by Varemia


no, i know it was controlled demolition .... ive said that all along , i never said .... i think it was controlled demolition purely because it looked like it was ,...... and dont insult my intellegence by quoting explainations you ignorant fool.
if you saw the demonstration you saw the evidence .... now ... if you wish to continue with the attitude , i suggest you bother some one else and dont engage me in coversation unless you have something interesting to say.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

no, i know it was controlled demolition .... ive said that all along , i never said .... i think it was controlled demolition purely because it looked like it was ,...... and dont insult my intellegence by quoting explainations you ignorant fool.
if you saw the demonstration you saw the evidence .... now ... if you wish to continue with the attitude , i suggest you bother some one else and dont engage me in coversation unless you have something interesting to say.

Ok, please explain how you know it was controlled demolition. I am apparently not privy to this magical information which you possess and can interpret.

From one knowledge-seeker to another, share the source of your certainty, because if you are certain, then there must be overwhelming evidence.

the south tower collaped less than an hour after being hit ... and the north tower collapsed after an hour and a half , that is absolutley impossible given the fact that these towers were built to withstand such a collision, and the fact that steel melts at 1510 degrees C (2750°F) .... the fuel in a 747 is Kerosene , and it burns at 260 to 371 degrees C (500 to 700°F) ..... but , thermite reaches 2482 degrees C (4500°F) in under 3 seconds ...... c`mon , its not rocket science.

www.youtube.com...