9/11 conspiracy
- Thread starter olias
- Start date
Lucrum- i guess you also believe your gov. agencies that injecting your babies mercury is safe and taking fluoride is safe. radiation from fukushima is also... you bet, safe.
please, if you'll have a new baby, give him/her 30 vaccines all with mercury. its good, since the government told you so.
please, if you'll have a new baby, give him/her 30 vaccines all with mercury. its good, since the government told you so.
I think WTC 7 was taken down because there was secret gov't stuff in there that they couldn't shield anymore because the area was a mess after the attacks. The gov't and secrets - go figure....
It may have been built that way - designed for a take-down from the time it was created in case it needed to happen. If I was in the gov't, I'd plan it that way myself before the construction even began.
Don't know about tower 1&2 though. The jet fuel should have burnt itself out pretty quick - it's not like there was a hose keeping a flood of it coming.
All the office shit though - plastics and paper - was what was burning for a while. I'm no expert on how hot that stuff would get - but I've seen films of flash-explosions in fire-fighting drills where the air in a room becomes super-heated and then poof.
As for whether it was a controlled demolition - don't know about that either. I suppose if it was possible to take them down in an orderly way, someone may have given the order - otherwise the top half might break off and come down at an angle on top of the surrounding buildings....
It may have been built that way - designed for a take-down from the time it was created in case it needed to happen. If I was in the gov't, I'd plan it that way myself before the construction even began.
Don't know about tower 1&2 though. The jet fuel should have burnt itself out pretty quick - it's not like there was a hose keeping a flood of it coming.
All the office shit though - plastics and paper - was what was burning for a while. I'm no expert on how hot that stuff would get - but I've seen films of flash-explosions in fire-fighting drills where the air in a room becomes super-heated and then poof.
As for whether it was a controlled demolition - don't know about that either. I suppose if it was possible to take them down in an orderly way, someone may have given the order - otherwise the top half might break off and come down at an angle on top of the surrounding buildings....
how fast steel loses its strength due to fire?
Lucrum knows the answer: in 10 seconds, and not only it loses strength, it is pulverized to dust!
200,000 tons totally destroyed into small pieces in 10 seconds!
yes certainly, its a loss of strength!!
plus 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. all turned into dust.
jesus christ and holly allah! if fire can do such damage, these evil terrorists could easily melt the whole NYC, just need to do fire in fire-proof buildings!
Lucrum knows the answer: in 10 seconds, and not only it loses strength, it is pulverized to dust!
200,000 tons totally destroyed into small pieces in 10 seconds!
yes certainly, its a loss of strength!!
plus 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. all turned into dust.
jesus christ and holly allah! if fire can do such damage, these evil terrorists could easily melt the whole NYC, just need to do fire in fire-proof buildings!
hey marketmasher,
think about this...
if wtc7 was taken down by explosives and wtc1, 2 not
then what is the need of these controlled demolition companies?
if you can do perfect demolition with small fires on just few floors- and do it with two 110 stories skyscrapers! much cheaper, isn't it?
engineers don't like to throw money away, dont you think?
think about this...
if wtc7 was taken down by explosives and wtc1, 2 not
then what is the need of these controlled demolition companies?
if you can do perfect demolition with small fires on just few floors- and do it with two 110 stories skyscrapers! much cheaper, isn't it?
engineers don't like to throw money away, dont you think?
Son can't you see how ludicrous that sounds? Can't you see that statements like that give conspiracy theorists a bad name?
I mean wouldn't it be easier to shred the documents and press delete? Sure you might have to cover the secretarys' eyes and make her promise under threat of death not to say a word...wouldn't that be easier than planning and covering up 911?
And all to justify a war they had planned years before? An invasion that was always going to go ahead one way or another.Would 911 be plan A? Son,i'd sure like to see the other plans that were rejected
You're missing the point.
The question is whether or not a design was built into the construction from the beginning that would permit an orderly take-down.
For the buildings to come down cleanly, without tipping over and smashing other buildings for blocks around, I would guess something had to be in it beforehand in design.
If it was (don't know for sure) - then yeah, I could see somebody high up giving the order to collapse them before they tipped-over and smashed a larger radius of damage.