I've never seen a building brought down intentionally from the top down. Ever.
who said it was brought down from the top down? you didnt even see the video did u?
I did see it.
I watched the video. It falls from the top down. The MIT guy points out the supposed squibs blowing as it falls.
Have you ever seen a building get hit with a fully fueled 767 before? It doesn't matter if it looked like a rigged demo shot or if it fell from the top. The key would be determining what happens to skyscrapers nomally after getting hit with a large fuel filled aircraft. Maybe most buildings hit at that level with that size aircraft would have the same effect.
Conspiracy theorist are notorious for only using the information that supports their cause and disregarding all contrary information.
At first glance the entire thing seem
incredably stupid. It takes weeks to rig buildings for demolition. How did the government pull that trick? Sneeking in hundereds of thousans of pounds of explosives, priming them, then detonating them after they have been hit with a large aircraft and having the whole thing work. At the same time nobody takes notice, tells the police, or the press including tons of foreigeners. And if you got caught imagine the fall out from the attempted murder of 3000 people. Crazy.
yeah, forget the overwhelming amount of scientific and expert proof, we should believe what the government tells us, after all they never lie...
I did not watch the whole thing it was too long it has some interesting points. I just do not believe it. As I recall the video is an hour or more long.
I find it hard to believe, but if you are of a skeptical mind, some of the more convincing arguments are in the last third of the clip.
well the building was designed to take a hit from a slightly smaller aircraft. and airplane fuels are designed to burn really fast, and the whole fuel of the plane was consumed in the first blast, after which the building was still standing.
now if the explosives arent gonna be in the offices, they'd be near the beams and stuff, not anywhere anyone is gonna see. probably placed at night. i dont get how its impossible.
let's say the top part (above the airplane hit) was to fall away. would it have caused all the floors below it to collapse together, and at almost freefall speed? and what about the main beams in the middle of the building, why weren't they still standing?
i dunno , maybe you guys are right, but i dont see anything too difficult in doing this. just takes proper timing of explosives.
and if we accept the pancake theory.... i find it very hard to imagine that all the concrete would have been completely pulverized.... really really difficult to believe that. all those hundreds of floors, and all those walls, how could they turn into a fine dust that spread all over the city, covering all those ppl?
and how did wtc7 fall?
The lunar landing was faked.
you can't respond intelligently, and so you simply put this in the same category as the lunar landing conspiracy theories? pffft.
YES... we even have scientific proof!
Ok, I've blown up some stuff in my day. The amount of explosive it would take and the time it would take to rig it would be extraodinary. The chances of doing it without some one noticing would have to be almost nil.
Think about watching a demo shot on an old building on the discovery channel. It takes weeks for them to rig it correctly. And it still goes wrong a fair amount of the time.
Finally, how would the blasting caps and intitiation devices survive all of the heat and shock? Who initiated them? Why did they wait long enough for everyone to get good enough camera footage to expose the fraud? They could have intiated on impact and no one would have any evidence.
This theory looks like it was made up by someone with zero knowlege of explosives or demolition. People have watched too many movies. A single block of C-4 is fairly unimpresive. It would take tons of explosives and time to place and prime the charges. Then you have to have an exact initiation system, no remote controls here, they have to be wired for this kind of accuracy. I'm telling you it doesn't pass a basic common sense test.
Really though, the whole thing is absolutly stupid. Who would risk all of the possible fall out from faking a 9/11 type attack in order to invade Afghanistan. It's jsut dumb. If you have the resorces to fake 9/11 then you would have the resorces for the clandestine invasion of afghanistan.
Also, jet fuel doesn't burn that fast. It burns pretty hot though. Most jet fuel is kerosine.
and finally for the moon hoaxers:
This has been done to death. It is a bunch of staw man arguments.
The bullshitters like to talk about how the jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt the steel. The steel didn't melt. High temperature weakens steel. This causes the collapse. Everyone with half a clue understands this yet the intellectually dishonest and those with an axe to grind ignore reality to propagate lies.
I have read many of your posts. You have an anti-America agenda and will spread as many lies as possible to justify this.
Getting a building rigged for demolition requires a lot of people. Not only the guys to do the rigging, but also the work of convincing somebody to convince somebody who has a team of guys to do this kind of thing.
And you don't think any of the people that would be involved with this process would be so taken aback by the suggestion that they would go to the media and make the plan known? People are bad at keeping secrets.
That's why "people" didn't do it.
Bush did it himself. With no help from anyone.
You would think so -- as it turns out all they ever needed was some kerosene.
As a matter of fact if we follow the official collapse theory, there would be no reason to wire the whole building for demolition. You'd just randomly take out one of the upper floors and the WHOLE BUILDING collapses.
I'll bet most people who work in skyscrapers never realized they were so delicate. One floor goes and it's goodbye Charlie. That's why I'll never go to a dance held in a skyscraper. Apparently it's like a giant game of "Jenga"
War not realistic option before 9/11
Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible.
"The very hard part," Clinton administration secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the commission Tuesday, "is that we have to put ourselves into the pre-9/11 mode. ... It would be very hard pre-9/11 to have persuaded anybody that an invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate. I think it did take the mega-shock, unfortunately, of 9/11 to make people understand the considerable threat."
From "Rebuilding America's Defenses" PNAC, Sept 2000:
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Or put a slightly different way:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
~ Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, Nuremberg trials
I guess you've done a lot more demolition shots than me. I talked to some other demo guys with much more knowlege than me and they thought it was stupid also. Please though, don't let our real world demolition experience get in the way of your delusional theories.
Can you imagine the guy with the huge drum of kerosene whistling to himself as the elevator took him to the top floor?
"Don't mind me, I'm just going to leave this entirely non-flammable drum of mysterious fluid on your floor. Thanks!"