What Destroyed The World Trade Centers?

[Daniel-Z]

Hmmmmmm veryyyyy interesting

[Buskerdoo]

Originally Posted by Ferre

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

Try harder.

I was KIDDING. Trust me I can go head to head on the issue. I've found it is generally a waste of time to argue with conspiracy advocates.

There are several cases for the time being 15+ seconds. And as far as resistance and metal bending blah blah take a look at basic momentum. It's pretty simple to come up with a case for the weight and velocity of the upper floors creating so much energy that the floor being hit was accelerated into the next foor and being vaporised. By the time you get to the lower floors there would be little resistance to the force of the upper floors accelerating down.

[Ferre]

Again, try harder.

..but I'm glad you are smart enough to use the word 'advocates' instead of 'theory', because it's not a 'theory' at all anymore. Remember when Watergate was a 'theory'? Or Operation Gladio? I can name a few other 'theories' that came out to be no 'theories' at all after the facts came to light. In this case, many facts have already came to light, too many facts to talk about theories anymore.

[Buskerdoo]

ha - I don't have to "try harder." The burden of proof is really on you. But, you will go to your grave with your conspiracy "thoughts".

[Ferre]

I don't think so bro, I lived when Watergate was exposed, I lived when the Iran-contra coke-for-terrorism was exposed, and I will live to see the war criminals who pulled off 9/11 will be exposed too.

..and the burdon of proof is not up to me, it's up to American scientists and witnesses, and they are already exposing more than enough for the world to know that there's a conspiracy behind 9/11 that goes beyond some CIA asset in a cave in Afghanistan.

[xeno]

Ferre, buddy, the 60's are over and you have probably smoked an unnatural amount of weed. The terrorist blew up some towers with some airplanes. It's not that hard to believe. Ever heard of Occams Razor? You're giving too much credit to the American goverment and not enough to the terrorists. Your suggestions imply that you don't believe Osama and his cohorts are smart enough to do this on their on. OR is that you believe they have good hearts and wouldn't want to hurt anybody? Dude, I've heard about people like you, but they usually live in the desert in a trailor. You are a joke. Now shoot me some more red.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by xeno

... The terrorist blew up some towers with some airplanes. ...

If it was terrorists that wired the buildings and flew the planes in, who are they? Or ... have they been found do you know?

[Daniel-Z]

Originally Posted by xeno

Ferre, buddy, the 60's are over and you have probably smoked an unnatural amount of weed. The terrorist blew up some towers with some airplanes. It's not that hard to believe. Ever heard of Occams Razor? You're giving too much credit to the American goverment and not enough to the terrorists. Your suggestions imply that you don't believe Osama and his cohorts are smart enough to do this on their on. OR is that you believe they have good hearts and wouldn't want to hurt anybody? Dude, I've heard about people like you, but they usually live in the desert in a trailor. You are a joke. Now shoot me some more red.

What I think is the funniest thing is most poeple's COMPLETE ignorance to just the POSSIBILITY that it didn't quite go down they way the govn't and media say it did.

[sitetutor]

We have yet to see proof that it didn't go down the way the media reported it, until then everything here is theory. And there are 100s of theories out there. So which one is it?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

We have yet to see proof that it didn't go down the way the media reported it, until then everything here is theory. And there are 100s of theories out there. So which one is it?

No, you are wrong, it is proven without doubt that demolition charges have been the cause of the buildings coming down.

It also has been proven that the 'official' explaination is a lie.

That's not the question anymore, the question is: Who planted those charges, when, and why.

[Daniel-Z]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

We have yet to see proof that it didn't go down the way the media reported it, until then everything here is theory. And there are 100s of theories out there. So which one is it?

I was just saying people shouldn't be closed minded to the possibility that's all

[John Scott]

No, you are wrong, it is proven without doubt that demolition charges have been the cause of the buildings coming down.

News to me.

[Daniel-Z]

Actually Ferre that's news to me as well. Im not sure about that but that doesnt mean it did indeed go down they way they said it did.

I wonder is the guests reading this thread are CIA

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Atom

The case for controlled demolition is won by the speed of the collapses ALONE.

Anyone who understands a little bit of physics (which most people do not, IMO) knows this.

Atom has mentioned it, and this is confirmed by most scientists in the world, except for a very few who 'coincidently' work for the US government.

And there's this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...84983834100001

Just view that, the whole interview, and follow the links that are mentioned by this professor, this is no fool or 'theorist".

[Daniel-Z]

Oh yes I forgot about Atom's physics post. Ok sorry about that

[G10]

If it was an inside job, it will come out in the end.

I can not say 100% that it was an inside job but what I do remember is that the news was censored as Teletext in the uk had released an article and within minutes, it was pulled and they altered it.

Mind you, I wouldn't actually put it past people to be so ruthless as to make this an inside job, we only have to look at the suez canal war and how that was started as an inside job.

[John Scott]

Ferre, it's not convicing to me.

The case for controlled demolition is won by the speed of the collapses ALONE

What is the standard speed of collapse of a super heated, structually damaged building? Without stating that, you have no argument.