• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone left who believes the WTC towers were NOT a demolition?[W:249]

CATiwampus said:
To express the point here, the "crash" could have been a missile, a drone, a modified military aircraft but it was most certainly NOT a hijacked airliner.

The fires are not a guarantee of total destruction, tall buildings have had fires many times in the past and did not threaten to destroy the whole building.

WTC7 is a major smoking gun, the descent of the building
with it keeping its shape on the way down,
is a super huge give-away that this was an engineered event.

The fact is that there are a multitude of scenarios where the WTC
buildings could have suffered damage, but not total destruction.
Click to expand...

Provide your evidence of the object into the WTC 1,2 was"certainly NOT a hijacked airliner".

As far as WTC7, a possible explanation as valid as your CD
Single Point Failure. Read the article.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
 
mike2810 said:
Provide your evidence of the object into the WTC 1,2 was"certainly NOT a hijacked airliner".
Click to expand...

He:

- saw a video on youtube
- some guy at the bar told him
- dun trust da gubmint!
 
OldWorldOrder said:
He:

- saw a video on youtube
- some guy at the bar told him
- dun trust da gubmint!
Click to expand...

Read my post ( #60 ) under "Pilots For Truth Made A Fake VG Diagram"

The whole hijacked airliners bit is a total FARCE!
and in addition, note that the planners would have no data at all
as to the performance of an airliner with regards to slamming one
against the wall(s) of WTC or Pentagon, there was the possibility
that the airliner would shatter upon contact with the wall and spoil the effect.
 
CATiwampus said:
Read my post
Click to expand...

No. Truthers are a cosmic joke.

As evidenced by the rest of your post, in fact. Because they couldn't know if it would take down the buildings, it must be fake? Somehow I think you'd contend that if they knew it would take down the buildings, that'd also be evidence of a little too much knowledge for some terrorists, right?
 
CATiwampus said:
Does anyone have any calculations as to how much energy it would take to destroy an airliner?
and in addition, how much energy it would take to penetrate the WTC wall?
its ALL educated guesses and so the OFFICIAL story rests on "educated guesses"
and it boils down to an alleged game of "my experts are smarter than your experts"
but there is a bit more to it than that, the fact that an alleged airliner is seen to "melt"
into the side of a building and nobody wants to question why it doesn't slow down
upon penetration?
Click to expand...

Does anyone have any reasonable doubt that a Boeing 767 travelling at 404 to 513 knots could penetrate a building and be completely destroyed in the process?

Didn't think so.

And your point was,...?
 
Mark F said:
Does anyone have any reasonable doubt that a Boeing 767 travelling at 404 to 513 knots could penetrate a building and be completely destroyed in the process?

Didn't think so.

And your point was,...?
Click to expand...
In fact "Does anyone reasonable have any doubt that a Boeing 767....." :mrgreen:
 
CATiwampus said:
Read my post ( #60 ) under "Pilots For Truth Made A Fake VG Diagram"

The whole hijacked airliners bit is a total FARCE!
and in addition, note that the planners would have no data at all
as to the performance of an airliner with regards to slamming one
against the wall(s) of WTC or Pentagon, there was the possibility
that the airliner would shatter upon contact with the wall and spoil the effect.
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't any chance of that but it also doesn't matter. I have pointed out many times before that for the terrorists everything after hijacking airliner was a win - that includes going splat against a building if that is what came of it. The terror plot by no means required complete destruction of any building in order to count a success. If complete destruction of buildings was the goal they would not have attacked the Pentagon at all.

Doesn't that lend rather more credibility to the idea that it was terrorists and not some plot by evil unseen forces of authority?
 
Mark F said:
Does anyone have any reasonable doubt that a Boeing 767 travelling at 404 to 513 knots could penetrate a building and be completely destroyed in the process?

Didn't think so.

And your point was,...?
Click to expand...

why so many witnesses claim that there were no planes that it just blew up?

then why the need to fake the videos?







more video fakery!




Invincible beer can flies right though the building and out the other side!







no real impact video! Got one?




yeh what possible reason would a blind man have to doubt there was a plane?
 
Still waiting for a the reasonable bit to be met.
 
ozeco41 said:
In fact "Does anyone reasonable have any doubt that a Boeing 767....." :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

whats reasonable about seeing something thats not there?
 
I do not believe the collapse of the Twin Towers was a demolition, to answer the OP question.
 
In the sense that the foundation was bombed in 1983, and then hit with airplanes, in a sense it was a demolition by terrorists.
 
Beatrice said:
In the sense that the foundation was bombed in 1983, and then hit with airplanes, in a sense it was a demolition by terrorists.
Click to expand...

Wasnt that 93?

Yeh the fbi supplied the explosives.

their operative was wearing a wire. and recorded the whole thing
 
KokomoJojo said:
Wasnt that 93?

Yeh the fbi supplied the explosives.

their operative was wearing a wire. and recorded the whole thing
Click to expand...

Why did you accuse me of threatening you in the first place if it was off topic? Was it just an empty effort at saving a little face?

Do you believe that any attack has ever been done against the US without US government assistance? How is it that for so many years, the government so consistently attacks its own people? They keep finding people that want to do this? Wild.
 
KokomoJojo said:
I dont see an object

Click to expand...

nice blurred photo.:mrgreen:
Is it your stance that is the only photo that exists regarding the events of 9/11?

It is noted you have no comment or rebuttal to the linked article regarding single point failure for WTC7 from my previous post.
 
The FBI did not provide a gosh darn thing. I've worked in DC and all in all the government is true to form. Operative find something on line to back that up.
 
No CD on 911. 911 truth has no clue what it was.
 
Sunzi said:
No CD on 911. 911 truth has no clue what it was.
Click to expand...

May I present a case(?)

A: things that fall at free fall acceleration have no resistance under them.
B: things that are 330 ft across and are seen falling at free fall acceleration, without deformation of the falling mass, very clearly have had all of the support removed out from under it and all at the same time.

Therefore, WTC7 was not just a "it could happen like that"
it was an engineered event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom