What Destroyed The World Trade Centers? - Page 39

xeno · 07-08-2006, 10:11 PM

Do people really believe this shit?

Ferre · 07-09-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xeno

Do people really believe this shit?

Polls show that the majority of the people do believe this shit and a vast amount of scientists and experts, and even eye witnesses and people who did research on it.

Of course, there always is that small minority that are gullible enough to believe that governments are only acting in everyone's best interest and who believe anything that governments tell them to.

Are you an expert? Did you do the research? are you an eye witness?

Just stating "do people really believe this shit" would inplicate that you know more than the experts. Do you?

**John Scott** · 07-09-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Polls show that the majority of the people do believe this shit

Which poll was that?

**John Scott** · 07-09-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

The Post poll, conducted Aug. 7-11, found that 62 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of independents suspected a link between Hussein and 9/11. In addition, eight in 10 Americans said it was likely that Hussein had provided assistance to al Qaeda, and a similar proportion suspected he had developed weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Ferre · 07-09-2006, 11:13 AM

Yep, while there was no link whatsoever between El CIAda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden hated Saddam, but I know about this poll...

CNN Poll: 90% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_poll2.htm

That's 90%

**John Scott** · 07-09-2006, 11:19 AM

Again, Ferre, that poll indicates that people think there was a cover-up, which is entirely different from people believing that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks.

DaveyBoy · 07-09-2006, 11:23 AM

The on;y thing i can think of to suggest it's a cover-up is that, wasn't there some recording missing from the black box on one of the planes? also, some footage on CNN showed a particular angle which showed a seperate amount of smoke coming from something nearby not connected to the building, this was never shown again by CNN or anybody.

Ferre · 07-09-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Again, Ferre, that poll indicates that people think there was a cover-up, which is entirely different from people believing that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks.

Why cover up when there is nothing to hide?

I don't believe Bush planned it either, he is way too stupid to pull something like that. But something smells like rotten fish. That I know for sure.

WTC 7 was clearly "pulled" so how can that happen if no one expects an attack? I don't even mention the other two buildings, they were hit by planes but WTC 7 was not and only had minor fires on one side of it.

Daniel-Z · 07-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Interesting for sure !

**John Scott** · 07-09-2006, 02:56 PM

I always laugh when I hear people think that "pull=demotion". I worked in construction for ten years, was a licensed contractor and ran some large crews. Did a couple demotion projects, as most contractors do, and "pull" has never been slang for demolish.

The entire idea is based on a single sentence by Larry Silverstein, and a subsequent pained and labored misinterpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Silverstein

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

He later explained exactly what he meant:

Quote:

Mr. McQuillan has stated that by â€œit,â€ Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html

I spent a couple hours looking into the WTC7 collapse today, and it just seemed like a lot of bad engineering.

Some more reading:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

http://www.v7design.com/wtc7/WTC7.pdf

Buskerdoo · 07-10-2006, 12:14 PM

I'm pretty sure this has something to do with Bush or the CIA or something:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13801112/

Ferre · 07-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Four stories buildings are not steel enforced dude. Lame attempt of debunking. (another one)

Try harder.

chicgeek · 07-10-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Four stories buildings are not steel enforced dude. Lame attempt of debunking. (another one)

Try harder.

Down Ferre, down!

**John Scott** · 07-10-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Four stories buildings are not steel enforced dude. Lame attempt of debunking. (another one)

Try harder.

Depends, Ferre. Depending on the seismic region, many three story building have plenty of steel in them. In Washington, a single story house will have plenty of steel in it.

The engineering of those WTC buildings was pretty crappy.

Ferre · 07-10-2006, 12:55 PM

What about WTC 7?

Nothing hit it, it had minor fires at one corner of it and it came down like the others, just as fast.

**John Scott** · 07-10-2006, 01:09 PM

http://www.v7design.com/wtc7/WTC7.pdf

Pages 17, 22, 42. Note the damage to lower levels in slide 20.