Conspiracy theorists

by JimmyPage 182 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  1975

  Sizemik, everyone is entitled to believe how the twin towers collapsed. Tell me, why did you leave the witness program? Do we all have the same answers, NO! As to the downfall of the WTC. a simple plane couldn't do it. The plane was a distraction and perfectly timed to make it appear it was the plane that did the damage. My point with Mefreeze was, the firefighters admitting to hearing explosions on the bottom floors, why the bottom floors? I'm NOT making ANY personal assertions to the downfall of the twin towers. Do you get my drift?

  1975
• 

  sizemik

  Yeah I do 1975 . . . to be honest? . . . I'm not sure one way or the other.

  My post is more playing the role of "the devil's advocate" . . . offering something else for the sake of scrutiny. It is disturbing to think that such a thing could involve conspirators with thier own agenda who would inflict so much destruction on innocents for selfish or political reasons . . . but I don't discount it for a minute.
• 

  1975

  Sizemik, I have personal friends who worked on the twin towers, Native American Indians, and they say,the THICKNESS of the steel in the inner core of the building was such that the fuel of a jet plane could not collapse such a building. Are the magic of magicians real or magic? Watch how they DISTRACT you to perform their magic. Is our money real money? Does it have value like gold and silver?The man behind the curtain is doing a good job in distracting us from the real issues in life.

  1975
• 

  sizemik

  Devil's advocate

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Devil's advocate (disambiguation).

  In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Edited to add: Ok bro, I'll play along.

  I don't see the slightest evidence of man made or "extra" explosions

  This might help:

  9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

  ....and this...

  9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the World Trade Center

  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

  the corner of the tower has quite plainly suffered significant structual damage and likely on the point of collapse as a result.

  Really? This building was made of steel, not gingerbread. There were two small fires on the 7th and 12th floors....does this REALLY look like a building on the brink of a collapse?

  

  The collapse of tower No7 began in the lower floors as a result of damage there from the enormous energy and debris released from the previous collapse.

  Is that so? I repeat: THE BUILDING'S OWNER SAID, "we made that decision to pull it, and we watched the building collapse".... the following video clearly shows controlled demolition and the quote from Silverstein...

  Tower 7 Blasted Into Rubble From New Angle

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwrel

  "Pull" is a term used in the industry to say, "controlled demolition".

  The emission of some small amount of flame along with the larger bursts of dust are obviously (to me anyway), the result of the air escaping as the floors above pancaked . . . squeezing out dust and the remnant of burning aircraft fuel and other combustibles.....The small emissions from widows along one side were once again air being compressed from lower floor pancaking and being emitted from the stair well.

  Running up the side of the building in sequential order just like dominoes before the collapse even started?

  as the pancake effect compounded

  What "pancake effect"? That would imply resistance from each floor, not free-fall speed. In order to accomplish free-fall speed, the steel has to be taken out from underneath, ask anybody in the business who's not on the government payroll to spew forth ridiculous bullshit.

  As for the "angled cut" . . . it's only the result you can see. That the molten material covering the beam is "molten metal" is not certain for a start.

  The experts say otherwise...

  Evidence of Thermite on WTC Core Columns

  http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

  Gas torching a beam in advance? . . . not very likely.

  From the previous link: "Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch."

  There were no explosions . . . the buildings all fell as a result of the initial aircraft impacts.

  Building 7 was not hit by any airplane, and you're saying all the people who were there including firemen don't know an explosion when they hear one.

  Eyewitness Reports of Explosions Before WTC Collapses

  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/eyewitness.html

  The main towers of the WTC were held up by the core.... they were purposely designed that way to eliminate columns interrupting floor space. The outside of the buildings could have been hit by a fleet of 757's and the towers would still stand....

  

  A steel skyscraper in Madrid burned like a Roman candle for more than 24 hours....

  http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm

  

  http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2005/02/skyscraper_on_fire_in_spain.html

  

  What was the result? Still supporting a construction crane after the fire was out...

  

  Here's another one in Venezuela...this one didn't collapse either:

  

  BBC REPORTED BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE 20 MINUTES EARLY

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk
• 

  sizemik

  Great post Prodigal Son . . . fascinating stuff and very compelling . . .

  Ed; See what "the devil" can do?
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Great post Prodigal Son . . . fascinating stuff and very compelling . . .

  Thank you sizemik, it was a lot of work. Yes it is very disturbing, to say the least, that there are people who would do this. I can't think of better testimony that the Devil is inside of people rather than a sentient being. How could a spirit accomplish this without human agents...

  There was another point I missed earlier... you brought up about building 7 being damaged in the corner, a huge chunk was missing, and you are correct. But think about it: If that was what initiated the collapse, why didn't it fall over on its side?

  Same thing with the main towers. If they were allowed to fall over on their sides, they would have taken out most of lower Manhattan, including....

  ....the Federal Reserve Bank. Can't have that now, can we?

  There is one thing MrFreeze brought up that I also have trouble wrapping my head around.... all the people who had to be involved to wire these buildings. Why hasn't a single one of them come forward? I understand that guaranteed death is a real deterrent, but nobody? Or, is it possible that some have tried to come forward but never saw the light of day?
• 

  sizemik

  Without being an expert on explosives, I do wonder how much hard-wiring would be required. Demolition teams use wiring mainly on account of cost . . . but the technology allows for remotely detonated charges if cost is not such a factor . . . that would only require placement of the charges and remote detonation devices . . . easy to install . . . easy to hide . . . easy for co-ordinated detonation. Also, not many personell would be required if the placements were made over time . . . a few maintenence people perhaps . . . it wouldn't be that hard.

  In respect to building collapse . . . very high buildings that are supporting a lot of weight are more inclined toward vertical collapse on account of sheer weight . . . it takes a tremendous amount of force or imbalance to move them off the vertical. Even uneven failure can give rise to a downward motion that sort of self corrects as the structual failure quickly spreads . . . you can see that on one of the twin towers . . . it begins to lean but still falls vertically, descending onto it's own footprint. Many have surmised this to be evidence of controlled demolition . . . but this is not quite true . . . certainly not enough on it's own.

  Structual failure can also be very loud in the form of a sequence of explosive type booms . . . not dissimilar to actual explosives. With modern airtight buildings air compression is also extreme and travels quickly either out through widows or vertically through lift shafts and stair wells. All of these effects are amplified in magnitude the larger the building.

  There's a lot to consider and weigh carefully, which is why I remain unconvinced about some (not all) aspects of some claims being made. There are certainly a lot of areas of concern however, not least the economic and political benefits that have been cited, as well as statements made by some people in a position to know certain things . . . building owners etc. It certainly would help if one whistle-blower did emerge and add some certainty.
• 

  MrFreeze

  You still cant say how the bombs got in there and why dogs were never able to sniff them out. Metal doesnt have to melt in order to collapse a building. Just has to weaken enough. Until you explain how bombs got in there, your other points are moot.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  I believe we saw much more than the conventional explosives normally used in controlled demolition. Of course its all speculation, but those 1400 toasted vehicles... the paint and metal was melted only where the vehicles were in direct line-of-sight to the towers. Any cars that were blocked from whatever beam it was still had nice shiny paint jobs. Many of them were parked under the FDR Drive three quarters of a mile away from Ground Zero. Then there is the problem of the molten pools still burning at 1500 degrees weeks later. There is no way jet fuel does that. The Pentagon has weapons that we can't even dream of, but it was over a century ago that Tesla figured out how to de-atomize matter using ultra-low frequencies. I suspect some type of Tesla weapon technology comes into play here.

  I agree with your assessment of the vertical drop due to the sheer size, but nevertheless, if we removed the supporting beams from one corner one at a time, I would suspect that at some point it would start to lean without breaking apart. These building were designed to withstand hurricane force winds and they would sway back and forth all the time. A giant steel cage that is very flexible. I used to work in those buildings, and on a windy day I would feel the motion, hear the creaking, and watch my coffee lean to both sides of my cup.