Nervous_Dog Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 << but like anything else, we will never know the truth, and might not believe it if we were told it. >> Most likely in 100 years, papers get declassified, and the truth comes out, people will go, OH MY GOD HOW BAD OF THEM TO DO THAT - THANK GOD OUR POLITICIANS ARE HONEST AND WE KNOW THAT WE ARE INVADING FRANCE TO FIND THE DOOMSDAY BOMB IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO (Now france is a muslim majority) Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well, yeah, but look how many people still believe Oswald killed Kennedy all by himself...some people will never believe their governments can do wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 in 2013 the JFK papers will be released! We all will be smarter then, Old Hippie might not be with us anymore since he is too old (kidding) Neo "It could also just as easily clipped the ground leading up to it" Before that happens they would fall off! If you are open minded look it up what Aircraft designers say about it, the possibility that the wings "wrap" around the aircrafts body is nearly at 0%. According to the Fema report the plane hit the pentagon with 500mph! The hole would look different and the tail section would at least leave a scratch! Lets say we all believe the story, please explain why Larry Silverstein was able to PULL WTC7 within 6 hours? Wouldn't we assume that planting explosives for a controlled demolition on a 47 storey building would take longer than 6 hours? They pulled it because it was burning so "badly", how can the demoliton work plant explosives when that was the case? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6905631612206278007&q=wtc7 please watch this 20 second clip. It is odd isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 BTW I am not sure the government did it! All I am saying is that the official story covers up something! Maybe it was Al Quaeda who planted explosives and the government is in shame it was possible for them to do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Historically, whenever people couldn't explain something they created a super natural explanation; a miracle, act of god, aliens, what have you. Times have changed. Now when there is not a good enough explanation people tend to create a conspiracy theory. No one has admitted to demolishing WTC 7 have they? People are taking that one word, an industry code word for it, to mean something it was not intended is what I gather (the perverbial slip of the tongue). I am interested to learn what really brought down WTC 7 because it seems relevant to every high rise ever made as a simple fire is thought to have brought it down. Just because there is not a comfortable theory right now doesn't mean there won't be one in the future. After all, we didn't figure out the pyramids until recently. As for windows blowing out on floor 3, I believe that is feasable. Survivors noted on their way out the walls of the stairway shaft near the base were cracking before the building went down. And remember also the shock of the impact twisted the towers enough to where peoples views out the window changed. Surely that stress could have damaged the lower levels as well. And BTW, I don't believe everything the govt says. I hate how the world has been deliberately misled on many occasions in order to justify the most despicable actions of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 CT, Also, the hole was not deep enough to accomodate the entire plane, the tail would have stuck out, and judging by the fire damage, not melted, or even it it did, the melted aluminum would have been on the ground. As for Building #7, I did hear the voice clip, and he specifically says "...the decision was made to pull the building..." interesting use of words, concidering it is a demolition industry term...what else could he have ment? Experts who know more about this stuff than I do say there is sufficient cause for doubting the official story, and given my military experience, I stopped trusting/believeing the government years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keekwai Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The article is not claiming 53% of respondents think there was a conspiracy: "53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks" The 53% thinking that Bush is "hiding something" refers to how much advanced intelligence there may have been indicating an attack was planned. I can be included in that group. I get the feeling from some of the posts here that posters believe 81% respondents think there was a conspiracy or cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Neo the thing about Conpsiracy Theories is that they come up when there aren't enough answers! In the case of 9/11 are probably 300 unanswered questions. Since 9/11 did change everyones life on this planet in some way we all deserve to ask our questions and we all deserve to get a proper answer! It could be proven that a plane hot the pentagon, they had the surveilance but what they show us doesn't show an airplane! I am asking, why not? Can I please see the impact from another angle? this would be one question I would love to ask and getting an answer for. Millions of peope have the same question but nobody is getting the answer! claiming steel is weakening at 1200 degress Fahrenheit... scientists say steel looses half it's strength at 1750 degrees Fahrenheit, It would explain the collapse of maximum 10 storeys, but not the collpase of the 47 pole steel framed core from top to bottom, it doesn't explain a collapse in free fall speed! Every floor below is anchored with the core, this means there must be resistance from the floor underneath. This even is only possible if the core entirely collapsed before and this is impossible! The 9/11 comission report says the steel was unbalanced heated and that is how it gave space for the collapse! They specificall said the steel wasn't melting. Why I have seen tons of molten metal, even 3 weeks after the "attacks"? According to many scientists this energie can only be created with explosives such as thearmite! It is the biggest event in the modern time. EVERYBODY should be HIGHLY interested that future buildings would not suffer from the same "design flaws" Research should never be stop and laboratories all over the world should get samples! My best guess is they have a reason not do that and they had a reason to finsih this report asap! Fact is nobody can proof me wrong either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The hardest part to grasp is how jet fuel got over 2.5 times hotter then it possibly can so as to melt steal. As OH said [color:red]"...jet fuel burns something like2500 degrees faranheit...steel melts at 6500?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 My numbers could be slightly off, but I know the "burner temperature of a PW4000 motor is 2500 or so degrees F. The fuel has to be vaporized to ignite, jet fuel burns rather poorly in open air, but yes, it does burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.