Reply With Quote
Well, as a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas, I can make an informed decision. There is no evidence.
Debunked by the facts.Debunked by the guy who runs a conspiracy site?
Blanchard is a conspiracy theorist as well.
Well, as a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas, I can make an informed decision. There is no evidence.
What conspiracy does he believe in? Newtonian physics?
Wow! Want a medal? Why did WTC 7 fall down in 6.6 seconds?
How many people do you think were in on 9/11, eh? Are you stupid? I'm talking about the 9/11 conspiracy.
Well, if you think Blanchard was "in on it", then he would be a CONSPIRATOR -- not a conspiracy THEORIST. Are you stupid?
You think Blanchard was in on it? Are you stupid? Can either you or Blanchard explain why WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds?
Well, the building is 741 feet tall.
The building can't fall the entire 741 feet, because as the floors collapse, a debris pile would form. So, lets say the thing fell about 700 feet.
t = square root of (2 * distance / gravity)
t = square root of (2 * 700 feet / 32.2 feet/sec^2) = 6.59 sec.
The debris pile of WTC 7 was only about half the 41 feet you claim, thanks to controlled demolition.
But you did well otherwise. WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, which only explosives can explain.
It sounds like you have made up your mind to believe in the "inside job" theory no matter what. Good luck with that.
I've always wanted to ask one of you fruitcakes: Assuming there was a "controlled demolition", why bother with hijackers, planes, and all of that nonsense? I mean, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef et. al. used bombs. Why not just go with the bombs again?
Sounds like you've made up your mind based on emotions. I base what I think on evidence.It sounds like you have made up your mind to believe in the "inside job" theory no matter what. Good luck with that.
I've always wanted to ask one of you fruitcakes: Assuming there was a "controlled demolition", why bother with hijackers, planes, and all of that nonsense? I mean, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef et. al. used bombs. Why not just go with the bombs again?
9/11 created more terror than the '93 bombings, that's the point of terrorism.
No. I based my opinions on scientific principles. Even if I absolutely hate Bush, I can't believe in fairy tales.
So, you never really answered my question. Why the planes and how did Bush/Rumsfeld pursuade the Al Qaeda hijackers to conduct a suicide mission on their behalf?
Do you think the military operation in Iraq is a fairy tale? After all, Bush would never allow a military operation that killed thousands of people.
In answer to your second question, there were no Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11. You have been reading fairy tales again. Real terrorists claim responsibilty for their actions right away.
The plane crashes made for great TV and lots of terror.
So, who were those dudes taking flight lessons? Why didn't they care about landing? Oh, maybe the independently-owned flight schools were "in on it" too?
Why crash into a short building like the Pentagon?
Why crash one of the planes into the ground?
Doesn't really make a lot of sense? Does it?
Just because someone takes flight lessons doesn't make them a suicide terrorist, did you ever think of that?
Atta already knew how to fly planes, he didn't need any flight lessons.
Hanjour definetely needed flight lessons, he never even passed any of them.
The person who didn't care about landing was Moussari, he has nothing to do with 9/11. The part that he didn't care about landing is probably made up anyway. Why would someone take flight lessons and not want to learn how to take off and land? Do you really believe all the you read? Why would Atta kill himself? He was partying in Las Vegas, snorting coke, and had a hot blonde stripper 24 year old girlfriend. Yea, he really hated America.
Ziad Jarra was supposed to get married on September 25, 2001. How the was he supposed to get married if he was going to kill himself? Ever think that through?
FL77 was crashed into the Pentagon to instill terror in the Amercian people, so Bush could pass the Patriot Act, send tropps to the Middle East, and get a bigger military budget.
FL93 was not crashed into the ground, it was shot down.
We just don't know, all we know is we had phone calls from the planes saying that the planes were being hijacked by terrorist. Maybe all these arab terrorist linked to alqueda just all happened to boad a flight together and not cause harm.
Maybe ALqueda and Islamic jihad is just a CIA cover group.
Maybe we're all re s.
Most of the phone calls reported in the media were reported as cell phone calls. But the FBI exhibits at the Moussari trial say there were only 2 cell phones calls on 9/11, both from FL93.
FL77 did not have air phones.
None of the reported phone calls gave the "right" number of hijackers. Some calls said 6 hijackers. Some said 3 hijackers. How does anyone claim they know better than the passengers how many hijackers were on board?
Some reported calls said the hijackers had guns.
None of the calls identify the hijackers as Arabs or Muslims.
The reality is, we don't what happened on the planes, not do we know who the hijackers were.
We do know that there were 18 war games, with 18 hijacked planes, planned by Cheney and the US military at the exact same time as 9/11. That's a total of 22 hijacked planes at one time, not counting Flight 23. Some of the drills involved hijackers flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.
We also know that some of the hijackers had ID cards that listed US military bases as their address.
You need to go and look at all the evidence befoe jumping to conclusions.
Well, the video's I saw have it taking longer than the 6.6 seconds stated. In fact, it's more like 8 or 9 seconds. WTC 1 and 2 took more like 15 when you consider the audio, the clear sounds of the upper floors falling that cannot be seen, before any of the sides are seen falling.
I have no hatred of anyone by religeon, ethnicity, or skin color. How can you possible extrapolate that from any of my postings without adding your own bias of others?
Possible but very unlikely. The only thing that supports that concept is the change in course that coincides with when the plane was trying to be taken back by the heroes on board. Fighting in the pit would easily cause the change in direction and al ude.
Blowing up a building isn't that difficult, and actually, it wouldn't require the care for such a conspiracy as is taken in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are carefully planed as not to have the buildings nearby being destroyed.
Now for the sequence of events to occur like they did, it would be a very controlled demolition and obvious traces of explosives would be found. Have you seen this:
link
Are you blind? Look back at the photo I included. Look again at the roof damage of WTC 6. The path from WTC 1 to WTC 7 has very clear evidence of massive amounts of debris slicing off the top floors, on a direct path to WTC 7.
Please, explain these two photos:
There is no undisputable evidence of that. There were no explosive traces found. If there were any thermite traces, other factors easily account for that. I explained that before.
Fire + steel = rust.
rust + aluminum + heat = thermitic reaction. The heat itself wasn't hot enough until you include impact of the building as it collapses. This is easily reproduced in experiments. The other components of commercial thermite were mot present in any where near the proper ratios.
There still is no evidence it was a demolition.
Where are the explosive traces?
Thermite would not be use. Shaped charges are used for cutting in a demolition, not thermite. Thermite is too slow to control.
Why couldn't pieces of WTC 1 have cut the core columns?
Look back at a past thread on this issue. I included a photo of the damage from WTC-1 before WTC 7 fell. Pieces of WTC 1 are clearly visible.
There is no evidence of this.
Really? Ever see molten steel? It glows. Photo evidence please.
It could have been molten aluminum as so many things in the building were made of aluminum, and it melts at a low enough temperature, and doesn't glow until well past melting. Steel doesn't melt until it is well past glowing!
It could have even been mercury from all the fluorescent tubes breaking.
Again, photo please. I never saw that one.
Now if it's this you are talking about, it is no more than here-say:
WTC Molten Steel
I think you must be talking about something else since this is from a single eye-witness, and to my knowledge, was unconfirmed second-hand information.
Does Peter Tully maintain that story?
There could easily be smoke coming from the base of WTC 7 well before the collapse. It started from the lower floors. The fire was there, and how many power transformers were in the building? Ever see one on fire, and what the built-in cooling oil does?
If you are talking about WTC 1 and 2, I say bull .
Wild One;
You may have videos doctored on the Internet, possibly a ruthless conspiracy is behind it.
If your video is legit, please forward it to NIST pronto so they can figure out why the videos they have show a 6.6 second drop, compared to your 8 or 9 second drop.
btw
Which is it; 8 or 9 seconds?
Why do you post this stuff, do you really believe the crap you type?
Do you have a brain impediment?
You're one to talk.
I still don't understand the planes + bombs (controlled demolition or whatever).
The planes alone wouldn't cause enough terror? I'm sure the people who were forced to jump to their deaths were pretty terrified (as were the thousands of witnesses).
And why was the body of a flight attendant found near the debris of the fallen towers with bound hands? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.asp
Wow, these conspirators really went to a lot of trouble to make this thing look legitimate.
And what about the cell phone calls from the people onboard these flights that called their families? Where they "in on it" too?
There are much simpler things the govt could've done to fake a terrorist attack that would involve much fewer co-conspirators. They could've used a chemical or biological weapon that could've killed many more people and would only involve a few conspirators.
This whole 911 conspiracy just doesn't pass the smell test.
You really think WTC 7 collapsed in 8 to 9 seconds, eh?
That's all ya got. WTC 7 wasn't a controlled demolition because you now claim it took 8 to 9 seconds to fall, instead of 6.6 seconds?
This is basic information.
You've a bright bulb in your socket.
WTC 7: A Short Computation
Author(s): Kenneth Kuttler (Ph.D. Mathematician, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/
Rate of Building 7's Fall
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...tc7/speed.html
Go ahead.
Keep arguing that WTC 7 fell from an office fire. Did you know that NIST just delayed their final WTC 7 report to AUGUST 2008???
What the is taking so long?
Ever wonder how Bush could allow mass murder?
Well, think of it this way. You keep defending mass murder. If you'll defend mass murder, why wouldn't George Bush?
Are you purposely arguing stupid or have you been brainwashed?
9/11 was a staged TV do drama, with events spaced out like segments between TV commercials. Plane crashes followed by building collapses. The more terror, the more power gained by the executive branch of the federal government.
The flight attendant was found. Great. I've never argued there weren't hijackers. Nor have I argued there weren't phone calls to family members.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Giuliani were in on it, not the family members. Only an idiot would think they were in on it.
A chemical or biological agent does not make a great TV docudrama. The anthrax attacks that ensued have been almost forgotten, by the way.
Not sure where you get you info that a large number of people were in on it.
We are talking about an inside job, not an outside job. Inside jobs always require fewer people in on it than outside jobs.
General Meyers wasn't in on it. Get a grip.
you said earlier that hijackers had guns aboard the planes, correct?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
