9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I just don't understand how the conspiracy theorists to reconcile the notion that the Bush White House could orchestrate the biggest false flag operation in modern history when they so badly mismanaged everything else.
 
I've seen that debunking debunked as well, although, can't remember where as it was closer to when that came out some time ago. As for what to believe??
 
wtc7an.gif
 
So, apparently, does extremely weak construction, to cause a tall building like that to collapse on itself from a fire. I'm sure no architect or engineer ever thought about the possibility of a fire in a building.
 
You're crazy if you think a fire can take down a building like that. WTC7 was almost the same height as our tallest, Wells Fargo Tower, to give you an idea of the sheer size of this building to collapse the way it did. It collapsed in a way a controlled demolition would have. George W. Bush ought to listen to a phone call from Kevin Cosgrove on 9-11, who was on 101st floor of WTC1.

<center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gUhGVpP8hCw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gUhGVpP8hCw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center>
 
Fez said:
George W. Bush ought to listen to a phone call from Kevin Cosgrove on 9-11, who was on 101st floor of WTC1.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! The Kevin Cosgrove....who originally headed up O-Live Forum?!! :eek:
 
RR7 said:
So, apparently, does extremely weak construction, to cause a tall building like that to collapse on itself from a fire. I'm sure no architect or engineer ever thought about the possibility of a fire in a building.
Click to expand...

They did. It's why there was a sprinkler system. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system failed.

It sucks. It doesn't mean that the whole thing is a hoax.

Ed O.
 
Fez said:
You're crazy if you think a fire can take down a building like that. WTC7 was almost the same height as our tallest, Wells Fargo Tower, to give you an idea of the sheer size of this building to collapse the way it did. It collapsed in a way a controlled demolition would have.
Click to expand...

How do you know how the Well Fargo Tower would fall due to fire? Just because it fell "in a way a controlled demolition would have" doesn't mean that it was a controlled demolition.

The point of controlled demolitions is to ensure that buildings fall a certain way... the costs of uncertainty are just too high. It does not mean that it's impossible for a building to fall that way without controlled circumstances.

George W. Bush ought to listen to a phone call from Kevin Cosgrove on 9-11, who was on 101st floor of WTC1.
Click to expand...

Um. Yes. That makes a TON of sense. He should listen to it right away!

Ed O.
 
one of my classmates in writing wrote a paper debunking the 9-11 conspiracies. interesting stuff.
 
Ed O said:
How do you know how the Well Fargo Tower would fall due to fire? Just because it fell "in a way a controlled demolition would have" doesn't mean that it was a controlled demolition.

The point of controlled demolitions is to ensure that buildings fall a certain way... the costs of uncertainty are just too high. It does not mean that it's impossible for a building to fall that way without controlled circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm no Yega1979, but wouldn't it make more sense then to just turn off the sprinklers and light the building on fire instead of paying to demolish it :D?

I mean, it's hard to believe that that is what happened due to fire, which traditionally just guts steel structure buildings instead of neatly demolishing them. Also, you can think this without thinking Bush did it himself by pushing a button.
 
hoojacks said:
I'm no Yega1979, but wouldn't it make more sense then to just turn off the sprinklers and light the building on fire instead of paying to demolish it :D?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm no engineer, but like I said: controlled demolitions are to ENSURE a safe destruction.

Maybe there's a 25% chance or a 95% chance that a fire would do that... that's not nearly good enough in a populated urban setting. Damage done to adjoining property can get very expensive very fast so it's a much better use of resources to all but ensure there's no chance of that happening.

An uncontrolled fire might get you there, but the risk is too high of something going wrong.

I mean, it's hard to believe that that is what happened due to fire, which traditionally just guts steel structure buildings instead of neatly demolishing them.
Click to expand...

I don't find it hard to believe at all.

If it were as unlikely as some think that it is, it seems like we'd be hearing from practically every educated architect and engineer in the country and the world how unlikely it is. Instead, we have people on the fringe and uneducated (in that area) people making common sense estimates.

*shrug*

Ed O.
 
hoojacks said:
I mean, it's hard to believe that that is what happened due to fire, which traditionally just guts steel structure buildings instead of neatly demolishing them. Also, you can think this without thinking Bush did it himself by pushing a button.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple stuff, the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt away the support for the steel and there was not enough strength left to hold those buildings up.
 
Bu tthe jet fuel wasn't burning in that building. It was hit with debris. It was hit on one of the edges primarily of the building, yet instead of collapsing from that side, which would make the most sense, it collapsed upon itself.
 
How do you expect a building like that to collapse? It wasn't a controlled demolition, the debris was quite wide spread and damaged lots of nearby buildings.
 
Denny Crane said:
How do you expect a building like that to collapse? It wasn't a controlled demolition, the debris was quite wide spread and damaged lots of nearby buildings.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why would Bush and his cabal destroy the third building? The Twin Towers obviously would have been ample enough evidence of an attack if the idea was to start a war. I can see the planning session. "Nope W, the Towers aren't enough. We need to have another building not hit by an airplane collapse at a later time! Then no one will know!"

The 9/11 Truthers really do make me laugh. There is literally no logic to their thinking, yet they plod ahead with kooky excuses.
 
[video=youtube;Q_OIXfkXEj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0[/video]
 
cloudydays said:
Pretty simple stuff, the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt away the support for the steel and there was not enough strength left to hold those buildings up.
Click to expand...

Yeah we were talking about the smaller building not hit by planes.
 
Ed O said:
Um. Yes. That makes a TON of sense. He should listen to it right away!

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess now he has lots of time on his hands.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top