9/11 Scientific Argument

^ na they said that when 2nd tower was first hit then howcome first tower collapsed first .. or something like that. . i am pretty sure the two towers stood their smoking for good 20 minutes after the planes had crashed in ..
as for the junk that got spewed out .. err have a look at the pictures .. its mostly 4 inch thick beams of steel .. not 'any' dust ..

whatever the truth maybe .. i am in no position to prove it .. i aint no expert on any of this .. .. if it was an inside job .. then we all know how stupid them people are .. if it was an outside job .. then we all know how stupid them people are .. lives were lost .. and nothin good came out of it ..

i've had enough fun already .. sorry but i am out ..

 

Sorry guys I have been out of the discussion which I started.
Got tom dick and was unable to get on a PC.

Still I am pleased with the excellent points made from both sides.
Especially from the previously reluctant shsnawada,
Although it is disappointing to note his preconceived ideas about me.
All I can say is I can't wait for June 2007 to find out.


Okay back to the discussion.

So it can be established so far in this debate that neither side has conclusive scientific proof.
I am happy to accept this however when you study factual documents like Operation Northfields and Project for the New American Century alongside this major turning event of modern history then you will begin to raise questions to the official version.

Keep an open mind and don’t believe everything your being told to you.

Only through greater knowledge from all aspects of the hugely complex spectrum will you be able to judge wisely.

My job has been and always will be to make you think and think for yourselves without prejudice.

 

Actually, increasing the chances of a hurricane occuring isnt that hard, with a decent budget (10-20 million dollars, i'm estimating). However, controlling the path would be impossible/VERY expensive

 

One floor collapsed due to tremors. And my arguement is that that collapse should be included in the total time.

btw: There are many places where the video disproves itself

 

^ nope .. i guess i dont understand what you are tryin to say .. all the video says is that .. " it took 9+ seconds for the top floor of the building to reach ground ONCE .. the top floor started to fall.. this displays characteristics of a free falling body ... " ... now i dont think that there is any point in considering what happened 'before' the top floor started to move .. that ofcourse is irrelevant .. (if thats what you are saying .. to be honest i still dont know what is your point) .. because we are timing the time it took the buildin to come to earth! floors collapsing inside the building dont count while the building stands errect ..

as for the video disproving itself .. lol true .. once they say that witnesses say there were many popping sounds as if charges were going off .. then they say buildings within 2 miles had broken windows because of 'one' large explosion ....

 

And also, one guy says that WTC 7 was the first steel building to fall because of fire.

And yes youre not getting my point.

 

OK I am going to turn this on its head now.
Because most people are missing the vast evidence staring at them.

Mysterious building workers pre attack.

Thermite angle cuts in steel beams.

All steel work was removed and melted down before any forensic work could be carried out.

Girders embedded in adjacent buildings.

Air defences which are normally on 24/7 operation being grounded for no reason

and many many more too numerous to list

What is the argument that this was not a controlled demolition?

Can any one (and control your personl prejudices here) state categorically that it is not feasable.

The whole world knows by now the US administration lied through thier back theeth to invade Iraq and grab its resources.
As they are doing now with Iran.
We also know lives are meaningless to these people as long as they acheive their goals.
How many hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq & Afghaniistan
how many of these had anything to do with 9/11.

Why is the killing still going on? if not to keep control of the resources.

Remember India under British rule?

Once again I urge you people to read the PNAC report which was written over a year before 9/11 and then you will understand why all this is taking place.

 

:RollLol: :RollLol: .....

It sounds like Maynard's (tool) "think for yourself, question authority"

btw: I think that if the US government was involved in bringing down the WTC, it was most probable that they hijacked the plane themselves and smashed them into the buildings (not a controlled demolition). And no, i dont want to waste my time typing the reasons why i think so.

 

dude are you serious?? :shock:

 

If you read the sentence, it says that "if the US gov.....". I got to change that to "if and only if" for you.

 

oops! sorry.. missed the 'if'..

 

Remember i told you to wait until may 16th or whatever:


Most of what i had to say (engineering wise) and more is well summarized in Screw loose change.



My main arg0ument which isnt expressed there is that IF the US wanted to create terror, etc it would have been a lot cheaper/easier to simply fvking fly planes into those buildings as opposed to secretly fixing bombs and detonating them.