9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,401
#1,401
Pacer92 said:
jun2c000.jpg


20010911.JPG


Where is all the debris?
Click to expand...

lol, the second image is photoshopped. someone warped the original image. look at the glass still there.
 
#1,403
#1,403
Asking again:

If the government was going to destroy three buildings by faking plane crashes when in fact the buildings were intentionally demolished, and they furthered the scam by faking a fourth plane crash into a field, why would the government only crash planes into half of the sites?
 
#1,404
#1,404
LouderVol said:
lol, the second image is photoshopped. someone warped the original image. look at the glass still there.
Click to expand...

And that first image is a terrible reconstruction.

The wingspan of a 757 is 125'. Given that the hole in the Pentagon was 75', the plane in that image would have to have a wingspan almost 50% larger than the plane that actually hit the building.
 
#1,407
#1,407
bamawriter said:
Asking again:

If the government was going to destroy three buildings by faking plane crashes when in fact the buildings were intentionally demolished, and they furthered the scam by faking a fourth plane crash into a field, why would the government only crash planes into half of the sites?
Click to expand...


Show me a plane that crashed in Shanksville...any strewn seats, luggage or body parts? Show me a semblance of a plane crash at that site...

Wtc 7 was never hit by a plane but it fell at freefall speed after a fire from office furnishings..
 
#1,409
#1,409
LouderVol said:
steel vs concrete. steel will maintain its shape when weakened, concrete not so much. basic understanding of materials dude.
Click to expand...

I think is just a small example of a larger issue...the inability (or, indeed, unwillingness) to grasp that the only relevant observations are those that apply exactly to what happened and to what. You don't just say "buildings" you say those exact structures under exactly the circumstances in question.

Actually I've read the fairly unique way in which the Towers were supported made them especially susceptible to the kind of thing that happened. I've even heard it posited (obviously just speculation) that this fact was part of why they were targeted in the first place.
 
#1,411
#1,411
Pacer92 said:
Show me a plane that crashed in Shanksville...any strewn seats, luggage or body parts? Show me a semblance of a plane crash at that site...

Wtc 7 was never hit by a plane but it fell at freefall speed after a fire from office furnishings..
Click to expand...

You are completely unable to answer simple questions, aren't you?

Let's assume you are correct. 100% correct.

WHY would the government fake four plane crashes, yet only crash planes at two of the sites?
 
#1,413
#1,413
Pacer92 said:
Show me a plane that crashed in Shanksville...any strewn seats, luggage or body parts? Show me a semblance of a plane crash at that site...

Wtc 7 was never hit by a plane but it fell at freefall speed after a fire from office furnishings..
Click to expand...

you have seen too many movies. unless there is an explosion (not just fuel) why would stuff be strewn everywhere?

and we have covered 7 again and again and again. 1. funky structure that took damage. 2. several stories damaged (by several I mean 10+). 3. Office fires with furniture is still enough to take a building down, part of the reason we try to stop them, if you don't consider the damage. 4. the damage + fire + seismic loads from the collapsing towers.

it wasn't any one thing that took 7 down.
 
#1,414
#1,414
hndog609 said:
I think is just a small example of a larger issue...the inability (or, indeed, unwillingness) to grasp that the only relevant observations are those that apply exactly to what happened and to what. You don't just say "buildings" you say those exact structures under exactly the circumstances in question.

Actually I've read the fairly unique way in which the Towers were supported made them especially susceptible to the kind of thing that happened. I've even heard it posited (obviously just speculation) that this fact was part of why they were targeted in the first place.
Click to expand...

exactly this. the design was revolutionary for what it did for the office space. allowed a lot more distance between columns than you normally see. I don't know if it was really more vulnerable than any other type. you figure it takes a certain amount of resistance (building structure) to stop the plain. with the WTC it was more heavily loaded outside so the plane probably didn't make it as far in as it would have in a more conventional structure. and with the plane traveling further in on another building it might have ended up doing as much damage. but in that case you would have to hit the grid line (which you can usually see on the outside of the building) instead of just hitting the building in the case of the WTC
 
#1,415
#1,415
bamawriter said:
You are completely unable to answer simple questions, aren't you?

Let's assume you are correct. 100% correct.

WHY would the government fake four plane crashes, yet only crash planes at two of the sites?
Click to expand...

So, to clarify your question, I'm guessing you're asking me why was Shanksville necessary?

Imo, to create drama. To set the tone of going to war with the terrorist, at whatever risk that may entail....

To invoke the fighting spirit like the men aboard this plane supposedly showed...
 
#1,416
#1,416
Pacer92 said:
So, to clarify your question, I'm guessing you're asking me why was Shanksville necessary?
Click to expand...

Not what I'm asking at all. I'm speaking plain English here:

If you are going to fake four plane crashes, why only crash two planes?

Or to put it another way:

If you're willing to crash two planes, why would you not crash the other two if you're going to claim that planes crashed at those sites?
 
#1,418
#1,418
LouderVol said:
you have seen too many movies. unless there is an explosion (not just fuel) why would stuff be strewn everywhere?

and we have covered 7 again and again and again. 1. funky structure that took damage. 2. several stories damaged (by several I mean 10+). 3. Office fires with furniture is still enough to take a building down, part of the reason we try to stop them, if you don't consider the damage. 4. the damage + fire + seismic loads from the collapsing towers.

it wasn't any one thing that took 7 down.
Click to expand...

Just Google images of plane crashes...sites are LITTERED with debris...

1. What is funky structure?
2. Several buildings took more damage than building 7..why didn't they collapse in on themselves?
images

3. When in history has fire taken down a skyscraper at free fall speed?
 
#1,424
#1,424
bamawriter said:
Not what I'm asking at all. I'm speaking plain English here:

If you are going to fake four plane crashes, why only crash two planes?

Or to put it another way:

If you're willing to crash two planes, why would you not crash the other two if you're going to claim that planes crashed at those sites?
Click to expand...

For one, I think the lack of maneuverability wouldn't allow for such a hit on the pentagon, as many, many professional pilots have testified...

Two, I've yet to see credible proof of a plane crash in Shanksville. It wasn't necessary to use one here..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top