By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Was 911 an inside job?

 

Was it?

No 109 98.20%
 
Total:109
Gribble on 17 January 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
Max King of the Wild said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_853566&feature=iv&src_vid=ymFYBijuqJw&v=7PpsCCTMP8w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_568406&feature=iv&src_vid=7PpsCCTMP8w&v=YxljFOCZ6TU

seriously, the people still going on about this are really foolish.... this guy just shows how stupid the truthers are and how idiotic they look pointing to their incomplete half assed cherry picked data and convienently ignoring important factors to contribute to the event because for some reason...

 



In that first video, when he tries to debunk building 7, he makes mention that the truthers never show that internal collapse which happens moments before the full collapse. This is complete rubbish. In fact that is one of the most significant events of the collapse and is pointed out in many video by Physicists, technicians and explosive experts to demonstrate the typical 'crimping' you get in a controlled demolition. This is when they set off explosives to remove the supports so that building can fall into their own footprint. You scoff at experts in their field but are quick to believe this no nothing.

And by the way, I watched that a while back to get the opposite side of the story. The problem is that it's just a man's opinion and I prefer looking at evidence, listening to witnesses that were actually there and in the building and watching the events unfold myself in actual footage.  Yes, I'm one of those unfortunate people who actually believe what I see.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
Gribble said:
ax King of the Wild said:

 

 



In that first video, when he tries to debunk building 7, he makes mention that the truthers never show that internal collapse which happens moments before the full collapse. This is complete rubbish. In fact that is one of the most significant events of the collapse and is pointed out in many video by Physicists, technicians and explosive experts to demonstrate the typical 'crimping' you get in a controlled demolition. This is when they set off explosives to remove the supports so that building can fall into their own footprint. You scoff at experts in their field but are quick to believe this no nothing.


All you can do is parrot truthers over and over again... The building started collapsing long before that crimp you referred to yet they conveniently leave that portion out when they talk about it. Also, explosive experts? I'm pretty sure if you asked anyone they would say explosives go boom... which did not happen



Gribble on 17 January 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
Gribble said:
ax King of the Wild said:

 

 



In that first video, when he tries to debunk building 7, he makes mention that the truthers never show that internal collapse which happens moments before the full collapse. This is complete rubbish. In fact that is one of the most significant events of the collapse and is pointed out in many video by Physicists, technicians and explosive experts to demonstrate the typical 'crimping' you get in a controlled demolition. This is when they set off explosives to remove the supports so that building can fall into their own footprint. You scoff at experts in their field but are quick to believe this no nothing.


All you can do is parrot truthers over and over again... The building started collapsing long before that crimp you referred to yet they conveniently leave that portion out when they talk about it. Also, explosive experts? I'm pretty sure if you asked anyone they would say explosives go boom... which did not happen

The crimping happens before the collapse. Watch the video you actually posted. And then listen to the dozens of interviews with people who say they heard explosions. You might want to also search for the video in which you hear one explosion yourself. You see, this is the big difference between most theories ... You can actually use your eyes and ears to ascertain whether those firemen, policemen and civilians were lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA



DieAppleDie on 17 January 2013

thats a good point, it takes much planning and precision to make a building fall like that on purpose, i just dont see how accidentally, the 3 towers had such a similar fall



Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
a simple fire cannot bring down a building like that
look im from Spain, and here we had the Windsor Hotel that had some heavy fire going on, it burned out completely for days
and the core columns resisted that with no problem, the structure was intact

that would be nice if the building was strictly on fire. However, it wasn't it sustaned massive damage from objects being expelled at 100,000psi from the other collapses. Just look at the damage the collapses caused to other buildings a lot further than a footbal field away



look, buildings dont fall like that because of random, not uniform damage caused by shrapnel and standard fire it just doesnt make sense



Except when the damage is a completely missing chunk in a corner of the building and huge gash on its front

So why didnt it fall on that side??, why did it cave into its self like most demoliton take downs of buildings??.

Why are we told such a fall would take weaks of planning??

Care to explain yourself a little more??



not to you... i thought you werent responding till the OP came



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
DieAppleDie said:

thats a good point, it takes much planning and precision to make a building fall like that on purpose, i just dont see how accidentally, the 3 towers had such a similar fall



Except... ya know... this is just yet another ignorant comment by you. Either it's willfully ignorant and I can't do anything, the last link describes the type of person you are perfect and i can't do anything, or you honestly don't know because you havent really looked and you are just spewing garbage because they weren't similar at all



Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
a simple fire cannot bring down a building like that
look im from Spain, and here we had the Windsor Hotel that had some heavy fire going on, it burned out completely for days
and the core columns resisted that with no problem, the structure was intact

that would be nice if the building was strictly on fire. However, it wasn't it sustaned massive damage from objects being expelled at 100,000psi from the other collapses. Just look at the damage the collapses caused to other buildings a lot further than a footbal field away



look, buildings dont fall like that because of random, not uniform damage caused by shrapnel and standard fire it just doesnt make sense



Except when the damage is a completely missing chunk in a corner of the building and huge gash on its front

So why didnt it fall on that side??, why did it cave into its self like most demoliton take downs of buildings??.

Why are we told such a fall would take weaks of planning??

Care to explain yourself a little more??



not to you... i thought you werent responding till the OP came

I wasnt going to but somehow i feel you and the OP have a lot in common...


We may both have common sense



Gribble on 17 January 2013

I'll post this again because I would love some sort of explanation for what is being said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA

Please listen to every word. I think you'll find dozens of credible witnesses here



Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
Gribble said:
I'll post this again because I would love some sort of explanation for what is being said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA

Please listen to every word



Asked and answered my friend. Especially considering thats not building 7



Max King of the Wild on 17 January 2013
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
zero129 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
Max King of the Wild said:
DieAppleDie said:
a simple fire cannot bring down a building like that
look im from Spain, and here we had the Windsor Hotel that had some heavy fire going on, it burned out completely for days
and the core columns resisted that with no problem, the structure was intact

that would be nice if the building was strictly on fire. However, it wasn't it sustaned massive damage from objects being expelled at 100,000psi from the other collapses. Just look at the damage the collapses caused to other buildings a lot further than a footbal field away



look, buildings dont fall like that because of random, not uniform damage caused by shrapnel and standard fire it just doesnt make sense



Except when the damage is a completely missing chunk in a corner of the building and huge gash on its front

So why didnt it fall on that side??, why did it cave into its self like most demoliton take downs of buildings??.

Why are we told such a fall would take weaks of planning??

Care to explain yourself a little more??



not to you... i thought you werent responding till the OP came

I wasnt going to but somehow i feel you and the OP have a lot in common...


We may both have common sense

Common sense wouldnt be the word id use but ok...

No, for you I'd use willfully ignorant. The theories have been debunked over and again. Instead of moving to something other evidence (or lack thereof) you parrot what you've been told by the mis-informed truthers