9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,056
#1,056
I don't know if this video has been posted or not. It's one of the more interesting videos I've seen about the money behind 9/11. It goes into the insider trading before 9/11 went down, as well as the "missing 2.3 trillion dollars" which according to this video has now ballooned to 8 trillion dollars. Anyway, here you go.

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money - YouTube
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,057
#1,057
Carl Pickens said:
Well isn't that pretty much exactly what he's saying? The videos clearly back up his statement
Click to expand...

Except it fell at free fall speed (which is closer to 10-11 seconds than 14-15 seconds.

But either way, it still is too fast for a series of inelastic collisions to pancake down 100+ stories. Each collision would have needed time to bend and buckle the floor below it, losing kinetic energy in the process.
 
#1,058
#1,058
Carl Pickens said:
This is from a link I posted that you and the others didn't bother reading:

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
Click to expand...

And this is what I have been saying and others in the video have been saying.

There was asymmetrical damage (non-uniform damage) done on the side where the plane(s) collided with the towers, yet, the buildings fell in a uniform, symmetrical manner. The undamaged redundant support structures should have still functioned properly while the damaged structures may have given way. Logically thinking about it, the result should have been the tower leaning/favoring one side (the weakest side) as it fell. Like notching a tree before you saw it down.

This is not what occurred on 9/11.

And there is still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7 that had no "jet fuel" to burn and weaken it's far more advanced support structure.
 
#1,059
#1,059
Rasputin_Vol said:
And this is what I have been saying and others in the video have been saying.

There was asymmetrical damage (non-uniform damage) done on the side where the plane(s) collided with the towers, yet, the buildings fell in a uniform, symmetrical manner. The undamaged redundant support structures should have still functioned properly while the damaged structures may have given way. Logically thinking about it, the result should have been the tower leaning/favoring one side (the weakest side) as it fell. Like notching a tree before you saw it down.

This is not what occurred on 9/11.

And there is still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7 that had no "jet fuel" to burn and weaken it's far more advanced support structure.
Click to expand...

Easy ras, youre actually questioning the experts in this thread. Remember, the government is always right and by simply thinking the NIST report could be false means you're a kook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,060
#1,060
Rasputin_Vol said:
And this is what I have been saying and others in the video have been saying.

There was asymmetrical damage (non-uniform damage) done on the side where the plane(s) collided with the towers, yet, the buildings fell in a uniform, symmetrical manner. The undamaged redundant support structures should have still functioned properly while the damaged structures may have given way. Logically thinking about it, the result should have been the tower leaning/favoring one side (the weakest side) as it fell. Like notching a tree before you saw it down.

This is not what occurred on 9/11.

And there is still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7 that had no "jet fuel" to burn and weaken it's far more advanced support structure.
Click to expand...

Omitting that WTC 7 was already damaged by the debris from the first two towers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,062
#1,062
Pacer92 said:
You are a complete idiot( womanly one at that)

I haven't lied the first time. But if you'd like to exchange info we can meet somewhere off I 65 and discuss it one on one. Just you and the liar. Up for that?
Click to expand...

just wondering have you ever, kicked a bucket of lightbulbs
 
#1,066
#1,066
Man, not that there was much redeeming to this thread to begin with but it sure went downhill yesterday. wow.
 
#1,067
#1,067
Rasputin_Vol said:
And this is what I have been saying and others in the video have been saying.

There was asymmetrical damage (non-uniform damage) done on the side where the plane(s) collided with the towers, yet, the buildings fell in a uniform, symmetrical manner. The undamaged redundant support structures should have still functioned properly while the damaged structures may have given way. Logically thinking about it, the result should have been the tower leaning/favoring one side (the weakest side) as it fell. Like notching a tree before you saw it down.

This is not what occurred on 9/11.

And there is still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7 that had no "jet fuel" to burn and weaken it's far more advanced support structure.
Click to expand...

Did you ever watch the full video that detailed the design of the towers and how they were different from most skyscrapers? If not, you should because it's actually pretty interesting and has pictures and video of the towers during construction.it also describes how the design contributed to the collapse.
 
#1,068
#1,068
BigOrangeTrain said:
Easy ras, youre actually questioning the experts in this thread. Remember, the government is always right and by simply thinking the NIST report could be false means you're a kook.
Click to expand...

Everyone is on edge in this thread BOT..... Don't push it or I'll have to claim you have a vagina and challenge you to meet me in Brentwood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top