Honest question for the 911 conspiracy buffs.

[eots]

No..plane hit wtc 7

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

 

[Conservative]

9/11 trutherism is another form of insanity.

 

[daws101]

No..plane hit wtc 7

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damage the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .
in other words you're makin shut up.
I know it's a tough concept but the debris caused the fires that took out the column.
it's called the domino effect!

 

[PredFan]

It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.

I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.

After the fact, people have come forward with reasons why it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did. They show what they believe is evidence that something couldn't have happened the way it did. they get together with others who might have what THEY call proof that some other part of the official version was wrong and they claim that the whole thing was faked.

Earlier in this thread I asked what people believed actually happened. i found out that nobody has an actual explanation for what happened, they simply have the opinion that it didn't happen the way the government said it did. If someone was to come up with their version, I'll be a dollar to a donut that someone else could poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

I haven't heard anything that makes me think that the government planned this or that anyone but Osama Bin Laden planned this. Do I think that the government's explanation is air tight? No, and I wouldn't expect it to be. We can argue forever about why one thing or another could or couldn't have happened but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation that makes more sense than the government's version, I'll accept that version.

Thanks to those who answered my questions seriously and without resorting to school yard name-calling.

 

[PredFan]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.

The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.

But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.

Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.

British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph

Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.

 

[daws101]

No..plane hit wtc 7

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

it's really ******* disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!

 

[daws101]

The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes

bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.

The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.

But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.

Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.

British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph

Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.

some friendly advice, whenever a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "
check the origin of said term and you'll find they all come from the same source: the truth movement.

 

[eots]

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. Your point?

nist determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

it's really ******* disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : Giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!

so are you agreeing or disagreeing with NIST ?

 

[daws101]

nist determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

it's really ******* disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : Giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!

so are you agreeing or disagreeing with NIST ?

ask and answerd.
like i SAID YOU USING THE REPORT IS disingenuous AS EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU DON'T!

 

[eots]

it's really ******* disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : Giving a false appearance of simple frankness)for you to use the nist report to bolster your fantasy!

so are you agreeing or disagreeing with nist ?

ask and answerd.
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!

so you think nist got it wrong ?

 

[Obamerican]

so are you agreeing or disagreeing with nist ?

ask and answerd.
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!

so you think nist got it wrong ?

Has anyone ever answered this loaded question of yours? I'm betting that you've asked it AT LEAST 20 times.

 

[candycorn]

No jet plane has ever crashed into a skyscraper, yet you want me to believe that the planners not only designed a building specifically withstand a jet plane slamming into it, but to withstand multiple plane crashes??? they built the buildings to withstand multiples of an incident that has never before occured???

There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.

Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.

The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.

You're lying on 2 counts. The buildings did not fall at free fall speed, it was a larger amount of tiem.

Secondly, the fuel set fires on several floors below the impact sites so you're being untruthful about that as well.

Same Old Ms. Jones.

 

[eots]

There is some truth to EOTS statement...however the theory is that the planes on an approach to La Gardia (SP?) would be on their final approach and moving at a slower speed than they were on 9/11, that the fuel would be depleted. No calculation was made for fireproofing in the face of aircraft impact.

Additionally, the towers did withstand the plane impact. The fire is what brought them down so EOTS, as always, is dealing in 1/2 truths.

The hypothesis of fire destroying 3 buildings with collapse times just under freefall acceleration has never been proven.
BTW airports are designed to accommodate aircraft landing as well as taking off with various speeds, and the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial explosions and ensuing fireballs.

You're lying on 2 counts. The buildings did not fall at free fall speed, it was a larger amount of tiem.

NIST coincides at least several seconds of the collapse was at free fall speed

Secondly, the fuel set fires on several floors below the impact sites so you're being untruthful about that as well.

Same Old Ms. Jones.

there where fires beneath the impact..where also people standing in the impact hole waving for help and firefighters who made it to the 79th floor

 

[eots]

ask and answerd.
Like i said you using the report is disingenuous as everybody knows you don't!

so you think nist got it wrong ?

Has anyone ever answered this loaded question of yours? I'm betting that you've asked it AT LEAST 20 times.

its not a loaded question you support the findings of NIST in regards to column 79 or you don't...which one is it ??

 

[candycorn]

It's easy for someone to poke holes in any explanation of an event. Especially if the event wasn't planned and those trying to put the pieces together have to do so without all of the details.

I believe that the official verson, while not perfect, is the closest one to reality. I believe that IF the government had planned this event, they would have done a much better job at faking it and they'd have their explanation water tight. The fact that they did not makes me think that they were just as surprised as we were.

After the fact, people have come forward with reasons why it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did. They show what they believe is evidence that something couldn't have happened the way it did. they get together with others who might have what THEY call proof that some other part of the official version was wrong and they claim that the whole thing was faked.

Earlier in this thread I asked what people believed actually happened. i found out that nobody has an actual explanation for what happened, they simply have the opinion that it didn't happen the way the government said it did. If someone was to come up with their version, I'll be a dollar to a donut that someone else could poke holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

I haven't heard anything that makes me think that the government planned this or that anyone but Osama Bin Laden planned this. Do I think that the government's explanation is air tight? No, and I wouldn't expect it to be. We can argue forever about why one thing or another could or couldn't have happened but until someone comes up with a reasonable explanation that makes more sense than the government's version, I'll accept that version.

Thanks to those who answered my questions seriously and without resorting to school yard name-calling.

Well, what I have always come down to when I questioned the Government version is the events at the Pentagon. If you want to say there was a conspiracy afoot, you have to account for all four planes. Flight 93 was crashed in the middle of nowhere and served no purpose whatsoever. Why add that to your "inbox" if you're planning a conspiracy?

But the attacks in DC is the one that none of the twoofers can explain. Much to their chagrin, the lightpoles that were taken out by flight 77 on the way to hitting the Pentagon proves that it was not a conspiracy simply because you would have to include way too many moving parts to add in lightpoles which, nobody and I mean NOBODY, would ever think to include in the first place.

I mean, whenever there is a crash, you ask about survivors and look for a CVR and FDR. Never "show me the lightpoles". So if it were a conspiracy, you'll have to explain away all of the following:

1. Why not just increase the angle of attack to eliminate the lightpoles having to be planted?
2. Why not just change the trajectory of the attack laterally to not include the lightpoles at all?
3. How did the 5 lightpoles get planted with nobody seeing them being planted?
4. How did the cab with the smashed in windshield get there if it wasn't hit by the poles?
5. Why include the needless loose end of the cab driver who is nearly senile--would Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice really think, "Man, we need Lloyd Englund to make this conspiracy complete!"
6. Why add in the loose ends--any of whom could blow the cover off of the entire operation--of light pole planters?
7. Why include the Pentagon at all--the HQ of the same group you're going to tap to go to war?

To date, none of those who question the government's version have sufficient'y addressed any of those points much less all of them.

If it isn't a conspiracy in Virginia, there isn't a conspiracy in New York. So it effectively destroys ANY twoofer argument.

PS: If the "missile" crowd also believes that a missile was fired while the plane flew over the Pentagon--which is even more bizarre than those who believe in the "staged lightpole theory", one has to also account for a massive generator that was knocked off of it's moorings before the Pentagon was struck. Missiles explode when they hit things...so apparently the "missile" crowd believes that a missile was fired, zig-zagged and hit 5 light poles then took out a Generator BEFORE hitting the building. Nice.

 

[eots]

bullshit! no they were not! Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash'
5:28PM BST 11 Sep 2001
A COMBINATION of catastrophic events caused the downfall of the towering landmark that was built to withstand plane crashes.

The twin towers of the World Trade Centre have gazed out over Manhattan, head and shoulders above most other New York Buildings, for three decades. The revolutionary structures, each 110 storeys high, were built to withstand tremendous pressures and had already survived a 1993 terrorist bombing.

But the immense steel columns in the core - and around the perimeter supporting the enormous buildings - were not enough to prevent them slipping down into a rising fog of dust and debris which engulfed the streets around the city's financial district.

Plans for a world trade facility had been under consideration for many years, but momentum gathered in the late 50s with a site being finally fixed in 1962. The ground-breaking ceremony began four years later and the first tenants moved into one of the towers by the end of 1970, although the building had not been completed. They were declared officially open on April 4 1973.

British consulting engineer Professor Alastair Soane said today: "They were extremely robust buildings and built to withstand a tremendous amount.

"But this was of course a completely abnormal situation and one which would not have been envisaged by the people who built it. The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes.Twin towers 'built to withstand plane crash' - Telegraph

Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon.

some friendly advice, whenever a twoofer makes or uses terms like "The towers where designed to withstand multiple plane strikes "
check the origin of said term and you'll find they all come from the same source: the truth movement.

it came from the building designer you nincompoop

 

[Mr. Jones]

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damage the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

that's not the point. when you say" no plane" hit wtc7 you are trying and failing to infer that nothing other than your imagined explosives did in wtc7 .
in other words you're makin shut up.
I know it's a tough concept but the debris caused the fires that took out the column.
it's called the domino effect!

Never proven. Even the NIST report that you worship, but know nothing about said as much.
Get your head out from the Governments lap and brush your teeth you spineless toad.

 

[Mr. Jones]

No..plane hit wtc 7

but thousands of ton of debris from the towers did. your point?

NIST determined that was not significant in the collapse and the failure of a single column # 79 due to fire was the cause of the collapse and that regardless of damge the failure of this single column under any circumstances would of initiated the collapse sequence

Can't understand why that doesn't compute with this idiot. Anyone can look your claim up, and move on with the topic, but this is proof that people like dawgshit totally ignore facts to support a fairytale.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Oh yeah, Einstein. The entire building was rigged with radio controlled detonators. Yet no bombs went off when the fires continued to burn. You come up with these unbelievable stories and have nothing to back them up. You idiots always talk about how it looked like a CD yet you don't watch the videos of CD's and see the det cord in the rubble after the demolition? Jesus Christ you people are stupid. I notice you avoid 7Forever's threads. You're stupid but consider 7Forever too be too stupid? Asshole.

are you claiming you can show a video of an imploded building and identify the det cord ?? is that what you are claiming ??

So, did you see the pieces of det cord in the rubble of the building destroyed in the video?

For the millionth time already det cord is CONSUMED in the ******* demolitions you ******* ignoramus. Do ya think such a sophisticated job would use what amounts to 2nd hand wiring and planning?
Good God already this shit has been talked about, linked and rehashed in 100's of links on the matter.
Go school yourselves on CDs and listen to CD experts who say this very same thing...DET cord is consumed in the demolition.

 

[Mr. Jones]

i suppose that if the planes were able to hit the buildings lower, say at the 5-20th floors, the buildings would have tipped over. The building collapsed pancake fashion just like physics says it would.

Yes ,falling through thousands of feet of concrete and steel is so much easier than falling through the air..what was I thinking...lol

hey major dumbfuckery the towers and wtc7 were mostly air!
the total amount of concrete and steel was many times less than the volume of air in the towers, so their mass was negligible.

btw thinking is not in your skillset!

That is the dumbest ******* thing ever spewed by a 9-11 OCTA..Holy shit, so all the millions of lbs. and tonnage were just so inconsequential??
Denial to the point of looking and being ******* morons.
Folks it's mental ignorance like this multiplied by millions, that tell the story of why America is totally fucked.