9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[fuji]

This part http://28pages.org/ and their locked away. I still say it was a false flag operation, to corner us into the state we are in today, where our rights have been stripped from us.

You say it, but we have seen that you have no reasons to say it. It is a matter of religious belief for you, not a matter of fact.

Your previous post was comedy gold. The redacted portions might say it was a secret martian invasion site that the men in black blew up to protect earth. Isn't it fun what you can do with the word might?

You might be a trained monkey.

 

[TESLAMotors]

GPIDEAL, you got quiet on the "sound" issue of WTC 7, but just in case you missed it.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5359885&viewfull=1#post5359885


People heard explosions and you can hear them for yourself.

In your side-by-side video comparison, it conveniently OMITS the sequential explosive charges going off. Since we DON'T see sequential explosive charges going off in WTC 7 (not even "squibs" or puffs of smoke like you claim for the Twin Towers, which shows your inconsistent logic), Building 7 was NOT demolished by explosives. (You also conveniently leave out any sound for the right half of your video because there were probably multiple explosive charges sounding off, which is not what we hear for WTC 7. Therefore, your comparison is not demonstrative.)

WTC 7 explosions from eye witnesses IN the building and firefighters near it on the ground.
1:39 firefighters on the phone
2:59 - few seconds, listen to the guy IN WTC 7
5:33 - first responder hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom" ...
6:21 - guy heard a count down through a radio in regards to WTC 7 being brought down "3, 2, 1...." <-this one makes me very curious.

So there you have it, crazy conspiracy guys fresh on the day of 9/11 making things up, sounds they heard as well as people they heard on radios.

I hope you don't intentionally miss this again... otherwise, I'll claim selective bias. lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

TESLA, the Pentagon was a reinforced concrete structure if not huge blocks of stone and concrete. Only the fuselage core bore a hole through the wall.

The WTC was designed with structural steel-frame, the interior comprising 95% air as they say. It's curtain wall was not solid. Therefore, the planes created a hole of their silhouette for the impact point.

Yes and the towers were meant to withstand a large crash from a plane.
As you linked to various sites, I'll do the same now.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:



The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 (9/11 planes) are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.


So the planes that hit WTC 1/2 were 10 wider, 6 feet longer, 980 more gallons of fuel and the MODERN Boeing was slower.

So the towers would still take the impact just fine, but somehow the planes just etched itself into the building and a comparison by simply saying a "structural-steel frame" to dismiss it as though it were nothing compared to the Pentagon isn't fair.



Question though, any videos of the Pentagon attacks? I mean, surely one of the 80+ cameras around caught something?
Another question, if the fuselage went through the Pentagon, what happened to the wings? Debris etc? Pictures? Videos?
Okay, a third great question, why is the grass not burned up and scorched?

This is great stuff, we learn more as we go along, isn't this fun?
http://pentagonmoney.com/

 

[TESLAMotors]

These countries were all raised to the ground by planes. "Everyone and their dog" know this!!!!

 

[fuji]

Yes and the towers were meant to withstand a large crash from a plane.

And they did. The buildings remained standing for long enough for complete evacuation, the impact from the plane itself did not put the structure at risk, and below the impact sites pretty much everybody got out.

What prevented people above the impact site from getting out was that the fire blocked all the exits.

It was ultimately the fire, not the impact, that brought down the buildings.

 

[TESLAMotors]

It can't be honestly answered because you don't show the full picture and conveniently leave out the sound.

These videos were taken at a distance and indoors, as to why the audio is not available I cannot give you the answer.

However, these guys in this video here can answer that for you and you can hear for yourself as the first responders and firefighters who ARE there at the moment, you can hear explosions for yourself.

All those buildings on the right side have explosive detonations which you probably can hear if the sound was on and see if you show the original, complete videos.

Why do you keep on repeating this misleading video snippet?

To show the similarity of the buildings falling straight down.
Even if you cover half the buildings on the right side with a sheet of paper, WTC 7 and those buildings upper half look identical do they not?
Why are you avoiding such a simple question? Fuji, basketcase and yourself, can't seem to answer a truly simple visual.
I find that very funny, but clearly obvious as to why you don't care to answer it. lol

You are not in search of the truth if you omit crucial information in your analysis. This shows your bias.

No bias, I'm showing you all kinds of pictures through various posts and videos as well.
You selected to not reply to the auditory video I posted, unless it was unintentional. *cough*

So, turn on the speakers and have a listen to the video above in regards to the WTC 7 building.

You know, the one where for the first time in the history of the world, RANDOM OFFICE fires somehow managed to equally compromise steel structures and bring down a building straight down in a random/chaotic collapse? lol

 

[fuji]

There you go again yammering about WTC7 when everybody knew it was about to collapse due to the damage.

What a clown show! You and Titalian are only one ring short of a circus.

 

[TESLAMotors]

And they did. The buildings remained standing for long enough for complete evacuation, the impact from the plane itself did not put the structure at risk, and below the impact sites pretty much everybody got out.

Yes that would be obvious in any video you would see on that silly youtube site.

What prevented people above the impact site from getting out was that the fire blocked all the exits.

Why are you bringing this up? Again it's obvious, who is talking about why people did or not get out?
Is this all you have left to talk about to stay relevant in something I haven't raised a question or concern with?lol

It was ultimately the fire, not the impact, that brought down the buildings.

Yes, RANDOM OFFICE fires managed to heat structural steel to the point of absolute collapse.

The heat distributed evenly all at the same time and the building collapsed uniformly straight down. LMAO @ that :thumb:






Oh and that happened to two buildings.












No, my bad, it happened to THREE buildings, all on the same day. LOL


How silly and ironic at the same time.

 

[fuji]

Yes that would be obvious in any video you would see on that silly youtube site.

Why are you bringing this up? Again it's obvious, who is talking about why people did or not get out?
Is this all you have left to talk about to stay relevant in something I haven't raised a question or concern with?lol


Yes, RANDOM OFFICE fires managed to heat structural steel to the point of absolute collapse.

The heat distributed evenly all at the same time and the building collapsed uniformly straight down. LMAO @ that :thumb:






Oh and that happened to two buildings.












No, my bad, it happened to THREE buildings, all on the same day. LOL


How silly and ironic at the same time.

Conclusion: the building met the engineering requirement it was designed to and survived the impact of the plane. Was brought down later by fire.

Your conspiracy theory is dead and you should just stop.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Some say that the internet is a beacon for the truth since it is not controlled by state-licensed main stream media corporations, however, it is also the wild, wild west of communication and ideas, which can be deceptive and wrong.

Yes, videos of firefighters from the day of 9/11, so deceptive.
0:52 to 2:08 <---if you truly care about "hearing" the truth about explosions going off at World Trade Center. It's only a a minute and a half, not excessively long.
A guy in the lobby of the building talking about an explosion AFTER both planes hit and all the while he was in the lobby (ground floor) well before any building collapsed........he clearly survived, afterall, he's giving an interview. LOL
.......as are these two firefighters in the video.
Deceptive guys on youtube, damn them.

 

[TESLAMotors]

"Sounded like a bomb"....
from the beginning to 0:46 bomb talk....
Maybe these videos were made recently and just made to look a bit dated? Damn YOU YOUTUBE!!

 

[Titalian]

You might be a trained monkey.

I'm fighting this, and your sitting back judging, name calling. I wonder who is the true Trained monkey in this debate. You remind of an Asian Archie Bunker. :eyebrows:

 

[Titalian]

And they did. The buildings remained standing for long enough for complete evacuation, the impact from the plane itself did not put the structure at risk, and below the impact sites pretty much everybody got out.

What prevented people above the impact site from getting out was that the fire blocked all the exits.

It was ultimately the fire, not the impact, that brought down the buildings.

Good lord, its a wonder you haven't posted on the Oregon Community College shooting, what are you waiting for, your gun luving freinds need your support.

 

[Titalian]

What is it that you guys, don't understand with this picture ! Where the fuk is the plane ????????????

 

[TESLAMotors]

Why isn't the grass scorched? Jet kerosene managed to melt metal, why is the grass so damn green?

So many anomolies going on that day, go figure.

 

[Titalian]

Oh I almost forgot, Where the fuck is the plane ????????????? I luv the person in the forefront with his hands behind his back. Sort of says it all, doesn't it ?

 

[fuji]

I'm fighting this, and your sitting back judging, name calling. I wonder who is the true Trained monkey in this debate. You remind of an Asian Archie Bunker. :eyebrows:

I did not call you names. You speculated what confidential information MIGHT say, so I speculated what you MIGHT be. I will be the first to say that such speculation is totally baseless, don't you agree?

 

[fuji]

Why isn't the grass scorched? Jet kerosene managed to melt metal, why is the grass so damn green?

So many anomolies going on that day, go figure.

The only anomaly is why you are continuing to post despite having had your kooky theory totally refuted.

You two are one ring short of a circus.

 

[Titalian]

I did not call you names. You speculated what confidential information MIGHT say, so I speculated what you MIGHT be. I will be the first to say that such speculation is totally baseless, don't you agree?

Don't beat around the bush, or should I bring up old posts. You haven't brought anything constructive on this thread other than your idealistic thoughts. At least GB did some research and brought up an Idealistic Conspiracy debunker. There are too many unanswered questions on what happened that horrific day. Two of which I posted up top. On top of which, there have been too many lives taken not only on that day but the aftermath of the war, all based on unanswered question and a bias report. I'm not sure if you realise or even care how many lives this has effected. Fugi most people are fed up of the BS being fed to us and rightfully so. Chomsky said it right, if you bothered to listen, on the world stage at this point in time the consensus is the US by is far the greatest threat to world peace. I would call this terrorism on another level. And this is Not supported by the people of the US, and people of the world, but by US Government Policies.

 

[Titalian]

I just want to backup my statement above. I suggest you listen. too the whole lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_X5czMVKT8#t=20m05s