WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer., page 2

reply to post by Gando702

---

Thanks for clearing up 10 years of head scratching on how those towers fell.

So you're saying we need to invade Iran?
Thanks for the laffs xavi1000.

reply to post by DemonicUFO

---

Did you read anything? At all, really, did you read anything at all? I came back to see if maybe you or the other guy clarified anything, but nope! You just assumed I knew what you meant. What did you mean by "looks at me weird"? I don't know you. This is an internet messageboard, meaning things are lost in interpretation if you don't have quality writing skills. So say what you mean. Don't leave anything open to interpretation.

You "heard" the Towers were designed to withstand the impact from any plane in existence? You just "heard" that? From where, a YouTube video? You also know that they were designed in the SIXTIES, right? That's FIFTY YEARS AGO.

Argh, you know what, there's no use. Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

reply to post by Gando702

---

thanks for resorting to name calling, hope it makes you feel real manly.

reply to post by Gando702

---

Anyways here you go kid
Towers designed to withstand impact from largest planes.


The World Trade Center Construction manager says that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 (which was the largest plane at the time) and that such an impact would to nothing to the structural integrity of the building.

goes on to say the buildings could actually take multiple planes.. k? Thx owned

reply to post by Gando702

---

Two things you should long know.

1. A plane cannot not behave like this in a real world collision.

Hologram says he. C.G.I. says me.

That's all you need to know right there to know the video is faked, as indeed must
be all video showing this collision. This is a very important point, as it should bring us to
question the veracity of all footage released and wonder (and investigate) whether or not it
was a computer generated, virtual reality movie we were witness to, and paid dearly to see.

2. The weaker upper section of the tower cannot crush and overcome the stronger bottom section
in a gravity driven collapse. 10% steel does not trump 90%. Full stop.

Your arguments are pretty weak but if you can find a way around the two above points,
then you might have a point. (Though even then, I would still seriously doubt it.)

You have fallen asleep and slipped back into a dull dream.

Please wake up!

reply to post by pshea38

---

Eh look at the footage closely, why does the building explode exactly the same way the plane is shaped, thats what bothers me about the no plane thoery.

reply to post by cartenz

---

Simple the guy cant take the heat, hes being hit with facts left and right, cant even answer any questions, hes upset because we're not happy hes acting like a sheeple again. im not going to praise someone who decides to be blind. he was truther but changed his mind because the people around him influenced him and would not argue with him.

reply to post by micpsi

---

Well said micpsi.

I echo your every comment.

reply to post by DemonicUFO

---

Well if he cant take the heat of being a tool of disinformation than he should send back his paychecks--those are your tax dollars at work.

Im surprised his co-workers didnt jump in more to help him out, he was clearly drowning. New Media Manipulation FAIL!

reply to post by Human0815

---

Well you have a point, we cant really trust a construction manager 100% or anyone for that matter, I was only presenting the evidence I had seen to the OP before he ran off crying about how ATS is this and that.

so please explain this then because this building got hit by a plane...yet today its still standing tall and was older then the towers....www.aerospaceweb.org...

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
reply to post by pshea38

---

Eh look at the footage closely, why does the building explode exactly the same way the plane is shaped, thats what bothers me about the no plane thoery.

lots of things bother me about the "no-planes" theory... but thats another story

reply to post by Gando702

---

This is the first time I've heard of a "Truther" turning "OSer", assuming that's what you've become or are you on the fence?

The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed.

Wrong!
I'm sure you must have read the excellent post by micpsi.

But consider this.

Whatever hit the towers, if anything, were not commercial passenger aircraft.
Such an aircraft travelling at the alleged c500mph would have had its wings ripped of through drag well before getting anywhere near the towers.
Even if a plane did reach the tower intact, it would have crumpled up against the building like a bug hitting a car windscreen. The engines may have made something of an impression on the 4inch steel walls, perhaps even enough to penetrate.
The poor special effects we saw on the MSM of the butter plane passing through the intense steel grid of the towers right up to the wingtips like warm butter passing through a hot egg slicer are just laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Analysis of the videos proves that the "plane" didn't even slow down.
Impossible!

Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges.

Wrong!
The destruction of the towers was controlled demolition in its true sense.

Most of the structure of the towers was pulverised in mid air before hitting the ground and distributed over Manhattan.
Large pieces of the structure couldn't be allowed to hit the ground since that would risk damaging the "bathtub" - the consequences of which were undesireable by the perpetraitors.

reply to post by Gando702

---

The mock simulation tests being done for the same attacks on the same day is the one that leaves me stractching my head.. Funny the same thing happened in the UK on 7/7. Mock terrorist attacks being carries out at the same stations at the same time as the real ones.
I wish someone could explain these away for me............

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 12 days ago with 48 member flags

9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags

9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up
  Posted 5 days ago with 39 member flags

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags

Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 16 days ago with 13 member flags

Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags

British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: