-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Harry said:
You might think that, I wouldn't know what to think because I have no idea about structural engineering. But the explanation I read doesn't seem implausible to ignorant me. Nor to the majority of experts in this field across the world it would seem.
Disco08 said:
Nope, not an expert. I also wasn't inside the beseiged structure to see and read the forces and the particulars that lead to the catastrophic failure seen from restricted angles in the videos. Nor were any of the experts. Attempting to reconstruct such a complex set of parameters from incomplete data and then to claim undeniable proof of conspiracy is, IMO, a fool's errand.
tigersnake said:
Have to agree. I just can't see how or why the number of people required to pull off such a massacre of innocent Americans could ever happen.
This is cold blooded murder we are talking about, not a moon landing..there needs to be a lot of hate to do what those terrorists did.
Tigers of Old said:
not hate TOO, just a big picture agenda of power and world dominance where casualties in achieving this are collateral damage. what's 3,000 americans when at least 100,000 (and possibly up to 600,000 according to some reports) innocent Iraqis have also been killed. destroy the towers and they'll have full public support to do whatever they want in the middle east. why does it surprise that they could blow up the towers when these people bombed Iraq on the back of the WMD lie. Bush should be sharing a cell with Milosevic and Saddam for this alone.
Harry said:
OK, Ill bite now. Right, so the conspiracy is that the US government and its business masters organised mass murder and a coverup on the grandest scale ever. All of this to acheive world domination and control of the middle east.
I'm not going to weigh in on all the massive flaws in that fantasy, except the elephant in the room - pretty hard to accept that they've acheived ANY of their goals or look like acheiving them any time soon. Control of the Middle East? Not even *smile* close. World Domination? The USA is falling off a cliff, let alone acheiving World Domination.
Utter madness and fantasy.
Harry said:
Sorry Harry I don't buy it. Can't believe that a civilised government would systematically kill their own citizens.
Tiger Rob said:
The goal isn't to achieve world domination, it's to keep itself at war becuase that's how the world's richest people can get richer.
antman said:
Yeah, he does. I also reckon he shows that it's very likely that some people within the US let these attacks happen, not through lack of caring or complacency, but by actively arranging a situation that would allow such a flawed plan to succeed. They knew it was coming (broadly), they had knowledge of an impending attack and most incredibly their best defense was sent away to practice for the type of scenario that was taking place. It's all too fanciful that all these ducks could line up and even then that a bunch of underqualified hijackers could pull off such an intricate but flawed plan with such precision.
I dsagree with him on his last point too. Yes the world is a wierd place and yes strange things happen regularly but no way are the number of inconsitencies related to the 9/11 attacks contributable to that phenomenom. You can't just observe these pieces of circumstantial evidence and write them off as such. At least he accepts them though.
agreetigersnake said:
Furthermore, why bother? If 'they' wanted to shock the U.S population into letting them go to war in Iraq, isn't 4 highjacked planes two of which fly into New York landmarks and another plan hitting the Pentagon shocking enough?
WTC1 and 2 don't even look like controlled demolitions. Their collapse look how one would expect a building that was weakened at the top 3rd would.
WTC7 collapse does look a little more suss I have to admit.
evo said:
If they were allowing terrorism plots to happen I guess they didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing.
evo said:
They happen at free fall speed straight into their own footprints. Is there another example of a non controlled demolition with these characteristics? I'm no engineer so wouldn't know how to expect a building to fall after being weakened at the top 3rd but surely there must be examples you've seen to create your expectation.
I don't know why they would bother though. Can you imagine how complex it would be to wire up two of the biggest landmarks in the world without anyone noticing? It just defies plausibility to me.Disco08 said:
Btw, what would've happened in your worldview if there was a snafu and the planes hadn't hit the buildings. Were the charges going to be left strapped to the buildings for the rest of eternity? One wonders how many other New York buildings that planes didn't hit are just sitting around all wired up for demolition waiting for their day. ;D
Seems to me you don't have to be an engineer to know what to expect to see if a building collapsed from the top down from it weakest point - it is much the same as when you see those guys who set long chains of playing cards and they just topple the first.Disco08 said:
I've seen plenty of controlled demolitions, and it didn't look like that. (WTC7 did though) So I have that to go on as well.
Anyway, you are not an structural engineer either, so what is your point?
Is there any other example of passenger aircraft crashing into a highrise building of the same or similar design?
Apparently fires brought the towers down, not the impact WT. There have been plenty of fires in large steel framed buildings and none outside the WTC trio have ever collapsed.
I didn't have a point, I was asking a question. If you had some examples of non controlled demolitions collapsing with those characteristics I'd find them very convincing, hence the question.
As an non-educated person it always seemed to me that if you had a building designed to withstand fire and plane impact, if a few columns were compromised the buildign would tip over in the direction of those supports as the others would remain intact as that's what they were designed to do. You say you've seen a lot of demolitions and the twin towers didn't look like them, but I honestly have never seen a non demolition building collapse where the structure fell directly into its footprint. I always thought the purpose of all those strategically placed explosives exploded at precise timings was to make sure that was the result. It just seems rather curious that a plance impact and fire could cause an exact replica of those conditions.
evo said:
I didn't have a point, I was asking a question. If you had some examples of non controlled demolitions collapsing with those characteristics I'd find them very convincing, hence the question.
As an non-educated person it always seemed to me that if you had a building designed to withstand fire and plane impact, if a few columns were compromised the buildign would tip over in the direction of those supports as the others would remain intact as that's what they were designed to do. You say you've seen a lot of demolitions and the twin towers didn't look like them, but I honestly have never seen a non demolition building collapse where the structure fell directly into its footprint. I always thought the purpose of all those strategically placed explosives exploded at precise timings was to make sure that was the result. It just seems rather curious that a plance impact and fire could cause an exact replica of those conditions.
evo said:
OK, but do you see the point without bringing demolitions into it? If the buildings all collapsed because of the reasons stated in the NIST reports all you need to consider is that some people high up in the CIA/FBI/SS knew of the plot and allowed it to happen, facilitating it where necessary (such as removing the NORAD defense mechanism).
