9.11 Inside Job... MORE PROOF

Standard · Post by **Standard** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:07 am

I love how anyone who supports these conspiracy theories is an instant expert on whatever happens to be the topic. Conspiracy theorists seem to be considerably more brainwashed than the general public.

:argue:

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:44 am

Standard wrote:I love how anyone who supports these conspiracy theories is an instant expert on whatever happens to be the topic. Conspiracy theorists seem to be considerably more brainwashed than the general public.

:argue:

I'm not claiming to be an expert... however, the prof. of Physics, in my humble opinion, IS an expert...

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Something is fishy here"Biggity

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:21 am

BTW.. Let's get back to building #7... why did that one fall?? Remember... NO AIRPLANE HIT THAT ONE!! AND LARRY SILVERSTEIN ADMITTED IT WAS PULLED!!

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Can't hide the smoking gun"Biggity

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:04 am

DiggityBiggity wrote:http://history1900s.about.com/library/m ... ecrash.htm

The B-25 was near the END of its flight and not heavy with fuel. It really sounds EXACTLY like what I described on the previous page... which shouldn't surprise anyone because the aircraft crash scenarios examined for the construction of the towers were BASED ON THIS INCIDENT.

The B-25 is also NOT a large airplane. It was propeller driven and flying slowly due to poor visibility. The planes that attacked the towers were large aircraft, jet propelled and going very fast with the throttles firewalled.

The Empire State building was built *before* we had a sound understanding of the then newly developed structural steels and how to employ them. As a result, that building is several times as strong as it needs to be. The towers were built with an advanced understanding of structural design and were only as strong as they needed to be.

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:38 am

Yeah, a B-25 is tiny, hell a B-29 is still smaller than most medium size passenger jets.

A B-25 hitting the Empire State Building is not a very good comparison. Would have been alot more interesting if it were full of armed bombs, though.

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:57 am

Fine... again, Let's take this back to building number 7... Tower 1 and Tower 2 were hit by planes... FINE... I'll compromise and agree to disagree... Tower 7 however was NOT hit by any airplane, and was further away from the towers than ANY OTHER BUILDING in that complex... And Larry Silverstein admitted to it's being pulled...

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Any bright ideas"Biggity

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:11 pm

Thats not hard to imagine. If it wasn't blown up, that building is pretty damn fragile. :thumbleft:

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:38 pm

crzyone wrote:Thats not hard to imagine. If it wasn't blown up, that building is pretty damn fragile. :thumbleft:

Hah.. my ass... it was a 47 story sky scraper... not fragile... sorry

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Burry your head in the sand"Biggity

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:56 pm

I saw pictures of the B-25 crash when 9/11 was just another date on the calendar. Over half of the airframe was surviving and OUTSIDE of the structure. The fire consumed only a small quadrant of the 79th floor.

The Empire State building has massively strong stone facades that surround its steel structure, which differs significantly from the WTC's construction. Think of it somewhat like a unibody vs a spaceframe.

I'll scan in some pictures if I can find them.

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:04 pm

Indy wrote:I saw pictures of the B-25 crash when 9/11 was just another date on the calendar. Over half of the airframe was surviving and OUTSIDE of the structure. The fire consumed only a small quadrant of the 79th floor.

The Empire State building has massively strong stone facades that surround its steel structure, which differs significantly from the WTC's construction. Think of it somewhat like a unibody vs a spaceframe.

I'll scan in some pictures if I can find them.

Like I said.. I'm willing to agree to disagree over Tower 1 and 2... Let's bring it back to building 7... Why did 7 fall??

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Answer that"Biggity

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:45 pm

more imprtantly - why would anyone want it to fall? and if there is no reason for it to have been destroyed then we can quickly relegate it to poor structureal design that would have fallen down from a minor earthquake

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:04 pm

Earlier in this post I posted why they would want it to fall.. Many major office buildings of government agencies were in there... including a 30 Million Dollar bunker...

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Get rid of the evidence!"Biggity

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:16 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote: including a 30 Million Dollar bunker...

Thats where the aliens from Rosswell were kept. :blah5:

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:58 pm

crzyone wrote:
DiggityBiggity wrote: including a 30 Million Dollar bunker...
Thats where the aliens from Rosswell were kept. :blah5:

:blah5: My ass!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html

I was off... 15 million dollars

your concerned leader

Diggity"The bunker existed"Biggity

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:09 pm

question remains - was the bunker damaged or merely covered up until the rubbel was removed..

Koh"bunkers are build for a reason"burn

zonyl · Post by **zonyl** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:06 pm

I believe the status quo (aka rational) line of thought about building 7 would indicate that the fire proved to be there on numerous photos, consumed the building and caused it to collapse, seeing as the firefighters were a bit understaffed at the time.

I have to admit I am a bit suspicious about it though, as the odds that it went down because of a floor fire vs bombing are seemingly equal in my eyes.

Diggity, do you have a better link on what caused the fires in the building in the first place. Im interested as I havent heard much about that building.

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:00 pm

zonyl wrote:I believe the status quo (aka rational) line of thought about building 7 would indicate that the fire proved to be there on numerous photos, consumed the building and caused it to collapse, seeing as the firefighters were a bit understaffed at the time.

I have to admit I am a bit suspicious about it though, as the odds that it went down because of a floor fire vs bombing are seemingly equal in my eyes.

Diggity, do you have a better link on what caused the fires in the building in the first place. Im interested as I havent heard much about that building.

The fires were caused by the fallout of the two twin towers... however... look at previous posts on this topic... there are pictures of other sky scrapers that burnt MUCH LONGER AND HOTTER than building 7, none of which fell.. because no steel frame sky scraper has EVER fallen due to fire... EVER! except for 9.11

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Building 7 was pulled"Biggity

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:54 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote:Larry Silverstein in his own words during a 2002 PBS documentary called "American Rebuilds", says just that.
"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." To this day, Mr. Silverstein has not issued a retraction to his statement.

You're interpreting this statement in light of your conspiratorial leanings. Was he perhaps referring to pulling the FDNY out of the building because they couldn't stop the fire? With the fire unstopable, the building collapsed on its own.

Pictures of burning sky scrapers are nice, but you've got to look at what was burning and where it was burning. Was there a gas line into the building? Fuel oil tanks for heat? Some refrigerants are flammable and the right (wrong) design in the air conditioning could release a lot of hot burning stuff. You just don't know enough to say one way or the other.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:58 pm

DiggityBiggity wrote:More video evidence from the lobby
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ ... /lobby.mpg

Video evidence of what? That the windows were broken?

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:27 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote:
DiggityBiggity wrote:Larry Silverstein in his own words during a 2002 PBS documentary called "American Rebuilds", says just that.
"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." To this day, Mr. Silverstein has not issued a retraction to his statement.
You're interpreting this statement in light of your conspiratorial leanings. Was he perhaps referring to pulling the FDNY out of the building because they couldn't stop the fire? With the fire unstopable, the building collapsed on its own.

Pictures of burning sky scrapers are nice, but you've got to look at what was burning and where it was burning. Was there a gas line into the building? Fuel oil tanks for heat? Some refrigerants are flammable and the right (wrong) design in the air conditioning could release a lot of hot burning stuff. You just don't know enough to say one way or the other.

FIRE DOES NOT TAKE DOWN STEEL SKY SCRAPERS!

your concerned leader

Diggity"AHHHH!!"Biggity

Real Fiero Tech

9.11 Inside Job... MORE PROOF

Was 9.11 an inside job?