Baal, please stop arguing with Palak. He is here for the argument, not for the truth. I can understand if a person isn't sure about some of the evidence. I can understand why someone would doubt the conspiracy theory. There are some very very strong arguments and some that are not as strong. But what Palak is doing is basically giving incredibly unlikely and ridiculous explanation to every detail. If you tell him that there is no other building with reenforced steel that has fallen due to fire, he would search the whole internet, find many cases supporting the 9/11 conspiracy (the big madrid hotel fire for ex.), but he would search some more until finally he finds a building that would support his argument. Then he would do the same with other evidence. That only goes to show that he and people like him do not care about the truth. His ego is so big that he would try defend his thesis rather than want to find what's going on in his country. I don't get attitudes like that. I have a friend that is EXACTLY the same way. He would argue about anything just for the sake of it, just to be pronounced "the winner of the argument".To himself he is always the correct one. For the 6 years I am friends with him, he did not change his mind once for one thing. If I say A, the next second he says that's bullshit and to the rest of his life he is a slave to his ego in persuit to prove himself right. That's just childish.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 14:25. Posts 4601
Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.
was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no
did fires burn in it for a long time, yes
did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes
which building was built with a steel reinforced concrete structure which is shown and proven to stand up to direct exposure of fire better then a steel framed structure and which one was built with an improperly fire insulated steel frame?
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
first explosion video is not near as loud as those used during controlled demolishions which is y i posted the other video, not sure y u reposted the wtc 7 video
as for the picture, those cuts on the columns are made by the clean up crews not by thermite during the collapse, skip to like 1:30 or so in the video and watch from there.
#at=95
what part of this is a pre-clean up picture didnt you understand?
Are not as loud? are you serious? it scared the living crap out of the firemen that were far far away, also as i said this wasnt supposed to look like a controlled demolition ffs, how dumber can you get?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 06 2011 14:44. Posts 4944
I havent been able to watch the vids b/c my tethering speed is gimp at work, but if I havent seen these I have seen one's like these. It's usually some single "bang" heard from a distance, 20 minutes before the building ever collapses, which could have been just about anything (most experts suggest it is likely metal beams buckling under load or some such thing). I kinda keep jumping back and forth between WTC 7 and WTC 1 because the arguments can be used against both of them, minus the missing plane.
My point in comparing WTC 1 to Madrid or whatever, is that you are suggesting WTC 7 could not have fallen from simply burning for hours on end, because plenty of other buildings have burned just the same. However the burn theory is what is responsible for WTC 1 collapsing, so they collapsed due to the same reasons. All this really means is that we have 3 unique buildings under 3 unique circumstances which were all destroyed 3 unique ways. 1 hit by plane + burn to ground, other suffers collateral damage + burns to ground, and 1 just burns with no extenuating circumstances at all. There's no point in comparing any of these to each other because they are all too different.
Furthermore you ask why I challenge your claims with further questioning; because without a background in structural engineering I cant make claims about what they could or could not withstand. I have to use the evidence provided & a degree of reasonable common sense. There is nothing wrong with undermining the plausibility of a particular claim as evidence against it. You might as well claim that God exists and because I cant directly disprove it with fact I am therefore unqualified to debate it.
For instance, you state WTC 7 was purposely destroyed. I ask why would anyone destroy that building and you say "i dunno, I can just tell they did". But given the circumstances it is EXTREMELY important to know why this building would be targeted, since you cant factually prove your end either, credibility goes a long way here. It would be ridiculous to postulate a building was wiped out just to cover up some other crime related or otherwise to 9/11. When you want to destroy material records of things you BURN them, or hire a crew to shred them. You dont light a few fires then put them all out by collapsing a building leaving tons of evidence buried under rubble that cleanup crews will eventually uncover.
You also posted pictures of steel beams with angle cuts and just outright said "these were not done during cleanup", but that is precisely when they *were* done. I am sure you said this because you are already familiar with debunker claims that explain why this was done, and simply feel if you counter-debunk that it is no longer so. I'm sorry but it doesnt work this way, it has already been proven that those cuts indeed WERE done as part of standard cleanup practice and not some unusual time before when nobody saw it.
You agree that it is possible that the WTC's suffered a design flaw in the inability to survive impact from a plane they were never designed to survive from (lol?). Then you suggest that it is unlikely they would both suffer the same "flaw", even though the builds were both designed the same way to withstand the same thing. I mean, shouldnt reasonable deduction conclude that if they were both designed the same, then they would both fail in the same manner? Why would building 2 get a free pass and never collapse?
Lastly, you cannot dispute the fact that both WTC 1/2 collapsed at the point of impact from the planes. How in the hell could explosives be planted exactly where two planes would fly? If you watch the planes impact it is clear they are being manually flown and sloppily hit their targets. This was not remote control GPS guided precision attack. And once the planes impact, there could be no explosives anywhere nearby ready to detonate later to initiate collapse.
bye now
1
Syntax United States. Apr 06 2011 14:45. Posts 4415
Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.
was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no
did fires burn in it for a long time, yes
did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes
Ok heres a trivia for you, guess which one collapsed?
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11.
That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons.
On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too.
And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past?
lusitania killed 128 US CIVILIANS and the US will not go to war due to anything else, as far as it is concerned fuck the other 1872 people or whatever.
Soo what hit the pentagon? Multiple reconstructions have showed the damage on it is consistent with a plane, and if it wasn't hit by a plane, where did the plane that hit it go? Was everyone on that plane part of the conspiracy?
With the economy, sooo then who exactly planned the demolition and made sure the US gov't was involved and spent millions in order to eventually profit from was in the middle east? Haliburton which lost 25% of it's stock price due to the collapses effect on the economy? Who all is profiting from this conspiracy theory, how did they manage to convince hundreds-thousands to go along with them, and how have the hired construction workers or engineers etc managed to all keep quite over the last 10 years over the fact that they were part of this conspiracy?
Also you didn't answer about the fact that tonkin and mexican american war were both started without any american death, just percieved hostility towards america.
1800 briths deaths, if tomorrow there was a terrorist attack that killed thousands and thousands in london, most of its allies would be forced to support a war against the perpetrator, duh wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that
I have no idea what hit the pantagon, how am i supposed to know, as i said, i base my beliefs on evidence unlike you, so i dont know what hit the pentagon or what happened to the passangers, all i know is that an airliner did not hit the pentagon.
The safest building in the world, with hundreds of securities camaras, and this is the best shot of a fucking huge ass plane flying over the city and hitting the pentagon?... right:
Who profits? i already answered that question, read the fucking thread.
Yes the mexican war started with no deaths and the greeks invaded troy over a woman, so?
Could the wars be archieved with less? it is debatable, on that time of peace i doubt they could have, one thing i for sure, they helped A LOT and many things wouldnt have happened without it, like the patriot act for example.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 15:03. Posts 4601
That photo was taken by Sam Hollenshead while he was doing freelance work documenting the clean up of 9/11, it is part of his journal titled "WTC recovery", it was taken days after 9/11 during the clean up and recovery phase.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Last edit: 06/04/2011 15:04
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 15:17. Posts 4601
wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that
it was only a reason to enter the war because of the death of american civilians, we don't give a fuck who else died. We entered because 128 civilians died on that ship, not the other thousand or so deaths.
if tomorrow there was a massive terrorist attack in london we wouldn't do shit. During 1940 and 1941 london was practically turned into rubble by the germans killing roughly 43k British civilians, and the US just stood around and went well sucks to be you london.
Really how many security cameras are pointing towards walls and fields at the outside of the pentagon...they are all on the inside
Still didn't answer what happened to the 184 people on flight 77 if they didn't die in the pentagon attack. Are they just off chilling somewhere? O also the fact that medical examiners were able to find and prove the remains of 179 out of the 184 passengers on the plane in the rubble at the site of the pentagon attack.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 15:20. Posts 4601
anyhow i'm done arguing
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy!
That photo was taken by Sam Hollenshead while he was doing freelance work documenting the clean up of 9/11, it is part of his journal titled "WTC recovery", it was taken days after 9/11 during the clean up and recovery phase.
picture taken by james natchwey on sep 11, (clean up was ordered after 2 days):
wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that
it was only a reason to enter the war because of the death of american civilians, we don't give a fuck who else died. We entered because 128 civilians died on that ship, not the other thousand or so deaths.
if tomorrow there was a massive terrorist attack in london we wouldn't do shit. During 1940 and 1941 london was practically turned into rubble by the germans killing roughly 43k British civilians, and the US just stood around and went well sucks to be you london.
Really how many security cameras are pointing towards walls and fields at the outside of the pentagon...they are all on the inside
Still didn't answer what happened to the 184 people on flight 77 if they didn't die in the pentagon attack. Are they just off chilling somewhere? O also the fact that medical examiners were able to find and prove the remains of 179 out of the 184 passengers on the plane in the rubble at the site of the pentagon attack.
good pont on the US remaining neutral on WW2 however you are missing the point that its excuses and what you want is the people angry so they spoort you war, its not wether its justified for the governemnt or not, its a simple question of "is it profitable? yes/no, if yes, are people going to agree with it?.
I dont know this for a fact, but i seriously doubt there is only one shitty camera pointing at all the front of the pentagon, prove me wrong plz.
About that video, are you serious? where is the fucking plane, the screenshot i posted is exactly from that vid and its the frame at 24sec, where you cant clearly see absolutely anything besides something small grayish then followed by a fireball.
I answered the question about what happened to the 184 people, i said i dont know, i dont have evidence supporting anything, so i dont know what happened to them, want me to guess or something?
Baal: "I am not a conspiracy theorists..."
Baal: "The safest building in the world, with hundreds of securities camaras, and this is the best shot of a fucking huge ass plane flying over the city and hitting the pentagon?"
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
1
asdf2000 United States. Apr 06 2011 15:59. Posts 7693
zep if you've done the research you ought to speak for yourself rather than linking to sites 9000 pages long that deal 99% with other issues
honestly that page is formatted fucking terribly, it's ridiculous
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
On April 06 2011 14:28 Zep wrote:
Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy!
Please show that 90% mechanical engeneer stat or stup pulling facts out of your fucking ass.
I saw both links, the first one totally misses what i said and focus on debuking the "pulling" thing that i didnt even mention as ive tried not to bring anecdotal evidence into this.
They claim the fires were more intense than the pictures shown, and they show some worse pictures, nothing remotely alarming and nothing that would lead me to believe that the building would come down.
Also they said the collapse time was 18 secons which is only partically true because a part fell before but the main structure fell at nearly free fall speed which is not possible if there are still columns.
The second link totally misses what ive said, i didnt claim that the metal oozing out of the building was molten steel, so you are not refuting anything ive said.
On April 06 2011 14:59 asdf2000 wrote:
zep if you've done the research you ought to speak for yourself rather than linking to sites 9000 pages long that deal 99% with other issues
honestly that page is formatted fucking terribly, it's ridiculous
Right. I should give my biased opinion rather than point towards a truthful, logical answer. I didn't say I have the answer. I said look at all the evidence. This is the other side of baal's argument that he chooses to ignore.
Yes, the sites layout kinda sucks. However, It has a shit ton of credible material with links to everything it references.
NeillyJQ: I really wanted to prove to myself I could beat NL200, I did over a small sample, and believe Ill be crushing there in the future.
1
traxamillion United States. Apr 06 2011 16:42. Posts 10468
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/
The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war.
more importantly
just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 16:44. Posts 4601
those other 2 pics look nothing like what i've seen from pics of demolitions, also all the places arrows are pointing are columns that show absolutely no sign of damage by thermite (which i'm assuming you think is the demolition material used for whatever reason)
the camera only takes a picture every 2 seconds, so yes to me that looks like what a plane is going to look like and there's no way to get a better image, idk wtf u want out of this. Security cameras that only take 1 frame every 2 seconds are only showing grounds at most like 50-60 yards in front of the pentagon angled towards the pentagon walls are not going to catch a plane traveling at 600+ mph. What would be the point of having cameras showing the ground outside of the pentagon anyway? If you are worrying about building security you are going to focus the cameras on the walls of the pentagon not the field in front of it.
Gonna have the logic my dad used on this a while ago, do you know this isn't what it looks like when a 110 story tower built like the wtc is hit by a 767 full of jet fuel? Rebuild the towers, give them the old style fire insulation they had, and re ram some 767's into them, if they fall differently then you guys may have a point. I think purdue is working on a comp program to simulate the collapse, but those programs r so fucking complex to build it will take a while more for it to come out with anything.
Which one of these scenarios make the most sense.
1. Exxon or Fed or whoever wants to go to war in the middle east for profit. So they manipulate the executive branch, control cia investigations, learn exactly when bin laden is planning to attack, they decide fuck it need to make sure the towers are destroyed. So to destroy the towers they choose to use nano-thermite (even though that's never been done before), or they choose to use (whatever else, i've only ever heard conspiracy ppl come up with anything else). They purchase the literally tons of thermite needed to bring down the towers, and manage to hire say 500 workers to go in and place nano-thermite on or inside the steel framing of each wtc. They somehow manage to get the workers to lay explosive on every or nearly every or x amount of floors without any of the tens of thousands of workers who practically lived in the wtc towers to notice at all. Sure they orchestra a "power down" on the floors 50-110 of WTC the weekend before to lay explosives there, but they manage to lay explosives throughout both towers while they were fully operational. Laying the explosives would have taken days-weeks and neither tower was ever fully shut down ever, wtc 2 was shut down for 9/8-9/9 from floors 50+, but all other floors and the entire wtc 1 were both fully operational up until they got hit. But that's no problem for the crew they hired. But this organization decides that isn't enough, they must also bomb the pentagon and bring down wtc 7, so obv they plant explosives in wtc 7. But the pentagon is a whole new issue. They arrange to have the pentagon hit by a(n) ______ which just so happens to be good news for them because terrorists high jack flight 77 (or the group hijacked flight 77 and paid for ppl to keep quite and go away). So whatever it is hits the pentagon leaving identifiable remains of 179 out of the 184 people on board flight 77. They pull all this off, convince the vast majority (66-84%) of the public that it was a terrorist attack and they manage to keep all the explosive engineers and flight 77 passengers completely quite for 10 years so far.
OR
2. Exxon/fed/whoever wants to go to war in the middle east. They see Bin Ladens planned attacks (CIA was fairly certain that bin laden planned to attack the US using airplanes since at least 1998). Since any american civilian death on american soil by a hostile nation/enemy will lead US to war w/ whoever caused it (just like we had everyone responsible for the 1993 attack arrested and pursued world wide). So they make sure the CIA reports are not taken seriously. The group manipulates the government just enough to allow the attacks to occur. Then once the attacks do occur as planned and the collapse of the towers is just icing on the cake.
OR
3. A well meaning administration which is completely inept doesn't take Bin Ladens threats seriously, so they ignore the CIA report titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside The USA" and go about their business of clearing some weeds in texas, reading to school kids, etc. The attacks then occur taking the administration and others by surprise.
I hover at about a 2.25 or so, ppl inside the administration and cia def knew the attacks of some type were coming, probably with planes. Many people thought this could give them an opportunity to profit if it did occur, so they kinda let things slip to increase the chances of it occuring with the intention of if this does occur then here's how to profit, if it doesn't occur then oh well we will just find another way into the Middle East. The amount of sheer man power and time and stealth required to pull off number 1 is staggering. As with stuff like the Lusitania I think most instances of "false flag" or what not are situations where the government puts people in a catch 22 to get their way.
Germany either doesn't attack boats like the Lusitania carrying US civilians and therefore allows constant supplies from the US to the allies, or they do attack the boats to cut off the supplies which will then lead the US to war w/ them.
Japan either allows the US to impose massive economic sanctions and movement of the entire pacific fleet to a single base in hawaii which intimidates Japanese commanders and is a semi show of forces, or Japan does attack pearl harbor and weakens the US navy heavily but we then go to war w/ them.
Mexico either doesn't shoot at american troops, or they allow the US army to place more and more people on the american-mexican border and US military men continue to loot mexican property near the boarder (havn't been shown we looted mexican supplies, but it's pretty damn certain we did).
Vietnam either allows US ships to patrol the waters right outside vietnam, cutting off supplies and hurting them economically, or they attack the ships to try and drive them off and free up more shipping lanes.
The gov't makes it so that one way or another they will get the outcome they desire.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
palak United States. Apr 06 2011 16:45. Posts 4601
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/
The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war.
more importantly
just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people
I did say the attacks were necessary, but the tower COLLAPSE was not.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
1
traxamillion United States. Apr 06 2011 16:52. Posts 10468
On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote:
also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit
mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them
lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war
gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs
there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.
what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.
Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/
The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war.
more importantly
just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people
I did say the attacks were necessary, but the tower COLLAPSE was not.
guy who owned the buildings probably just wanted more insurance money. lol, who knows with these dirtbags.
read this book bro; enlighten yourself
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
entagon_Security_Camera_2.ogv
