9/11 Intercepted

reply to post by ColoradoJens

I find it odd that the shift of focus on this thread relates to the creator of the film being a bum, sleeping on couches, how a "cartoon" is not expensive to make, etc etc.

It's not odd.. it's just the only thing they got left. hoping that people wont watch the video because it was made only to rip them off. even if it's free.

reply to post by maxella1


maxella1,

Have you ever heard a good excuse as to why both buildings fell the exact same way even though they were not damaged the exact same way? Wouldn't we expect to see different results if the damage to the buildings were different? And to the debunkers, don't just say "they were both hit by planes!" They were hit in different spots, and clearly the second plane had much of its fuel consumed in the initial explosion. How could two different actions cause the exact same reaction?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by maxella1

 

maxella1,

Have you ever heard a good excuse as to why both buildings fell the exact same way even though they were not damaged the exact same way? Wouldn't we expect to see different results if the damage to the buildings were different? And to the debunkers, don't just say "they were both hit by planes!" They were hit in different spots, and clearly the second plane had much of its fuel consumed in the initial explosion. How could two different actions cause the exact same reaction?

CJ

My favorite excuse is when they act surprised that the buildings didn't collapse even sooner. Because you know big airplanes hit them.

And WTC 7 just suffered a sudden building collapse syndrome because the penthouse collapsed six seconds prior to the rest of the skyscraper.

This one was pretty funny too...

Originally posted by Varemia

The tower designs excluded the possibility of a partial collapse, since they require the entire system to remain standing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by maxella1


Riiight. If indeed the bulidings had structural damage, they were built to completely fall to the ground. That is a good one. I just find it strange that it would be impossbile for both to react the same way when the traumatic events to them are different. And if indeed the steel weakend to a point of collapse, there is no way the "stronger" steel below wouldn't have affected the fall by slowing it or halting it.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens


Have you ever heard a good excuse as to why both buildings fell the exact same way even though they were not damaged the exact same way?

They both fell down CJ...what way should they have fallen?

reply to post by Classified Info


Any number of things could have happend. They both fell down the exact same way. Is it hard to see that if you have two varying events that cause damage to the same structures, they will react differently?

CJ

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia
The tower designs excluded the possibility of a partial collapse, since they require the entire system to remain standing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is just priceless.

So I'm wondering how the towers stayed standing while they were being built?

Why didn't they collapse after the '93 bombing that took out 3 floors...

Damage Caused by the 1993 WTC Bombing

Originally posted by Classified Info
They both fell down CJ...what way should they have fallen?

They shouldn't have fallen at all. There is nothing the plane impacts, and fire, did that would cause complete collapse.

You only believe it because that's what you've been told.

When are you going to answer my question? How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns?

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by maxella1

 

Riiight. If indeed the bulidings had structural damage, they were built to completely fall to the ground. That is a good one. I just find it strange that it would be impossbile for both to react the same way when the traumatic events to them are different. And if indeed the steel weakend to a point of collapse, there is no way the "stronger" steel below wouldn't have affected the fall by slowing it or halting it.

CJ

First they refused to admit that there is even a difference between a building completely collapsing and partially collapsing. I tried to explain that EVERY single firefighter, police officer or EMS testimony that i have read or personally talked to were shocked by what happened to the buildings. I know because I'm in that field and personally know some of the ones that survived.

I quoted a few that I could find.. They did not anticipated a total collapse of any of the buildings.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If anybody found testimony where they state that they expected building seven to do what it did i would love to read it.

But debunkers keep arguing that WTC 7 was damaged and the fireman setup a transit on it and established a collapse zone. which is true but they never said that they expected the whole 47 story building completely collapsing to the ground in seconds. That is simply not possible without explosives or damage to the entire building.

So when they can't find anything else to say they come up with nonsense such as "towers design excluded a possibility of a partial collapse"

The firefighters set up collapse zones around many buildings because they were damaged and there were crap falling down all over the place. But by a coincidence building with A LOT of government agencies in it was the only one that actually did collapse.

You need to consider that In 1999 Giuliani build a $13 million emergency command center on the 23rd floor of Building 7. An armored, self-contained facility designed to provide a safe haven for leadership in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

But the OEMEOC was empty before any of the buildings collapsed.

When Giuliani was building that 'BUNKER" a lot of people were against it being so close to the WTC since it was a know target for terrorists. But we were assured that it's like a bunker designed to withstand almost any kind of disaster. So why wasn't Giuliani where he was supposed to be, and why did this 'Bunker" was the only building besides the towers to collapse on 9/11? What happened to the "BUNKER" itself?

The embedded debunkers come up with new stuff all the time. Remember the diesel fuel tanks in the basement? or Con Edison something? And now it's simply that it was designed to collapse ONLY completely and not partially.

Originally posted by ANOK

You only believe it because that's what you've been told.

No. Back on that day when I was watching the towers burn I said to my co-workers, "They better get out those towers are going to fall"....or something like that. It did not surprise me at all that they fell. Since that day over 10 years ago I have had many doubts and questions. They have all been adequately answered to my satisfaction years ago. I am not being closed minded...I kept an open mind and my questions have been answered.

When are you going to answer my question? How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns?

I have the faintest idea. I am not a structural engineer and never have pretended to be so.

reply to post by Classified Info

No. Back on that day when I was watching the towers burn I said to my co-workers, "They better get out those towers are going to fall"....or something like that. It did not surprise me at all that they fell. Since that day over 10 years ago I have had many doubts and questions. They have all been adequately answered to my satisfaction years ago. I am not being closed minded...I kept an open mind and my questions have been answered.

That's nice.

All questions were answered to your satisfaction, and you are telling us that there is nothing wrong with the official conspiracy theory... Right?

Originally posted by Classified Info
Since that day over 10 years ago I have had many doubts and questions. They have all been adequately answered to my satisfaction years ago. I am not being closed minded...I kept an open mind and my questions have been answered.

Just out of curiosity, if all your doubts and questions have been answered then why are you in the 9/11 forum?

What were your doubts before your questions were all answered?

reply to post by maxella1


Official conspiracy theory?

Basically yes, everything has been answered to my satisfaction. 2 planes hit the 2 towers. The towers collapsed.... hopefully we can all agree on that. I do not believe the towers collapsed because of some kind of controlled demolition or such. Yes, that has been adequately answered to my satisfaction.

A plane hit the Pentagon.

Does this make me a paid disinfo agent?

Originally posted by ANOK
How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns?

I offered to demonstrate it for you.

A flexible tube with frozen water inside. Each end attached to a column and a weight placed in the middle.

All you have to do is tell us what you think will happen when the water melts.

Are you afraid to give us your prediction.

Originally posted by thegameisup

Just out of curiosity, if all your doubts and questions have been answered then why are you in the 9/11 forum?

Dont make me go through that again. My answer is about the same as some of the others on here. Heres one: I see a thread where posters are claiming that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane while all the while ignoring the dozens of eyewitness who state a plane did indeed hit the pentagon and even claiming that the debris from the plane was planted on the lawn......how can any reasonable person leave something like that alone?

What were your doubts before your questions were all answered?

Same as many of the people on here; how could rookie fly a plane into the Pentagon? that did kind of look like a controlled demolition? wtc7 falls without being touched? etc,etc; If you remember what Alex Jones was spewing back then then I probably fell for it.

Some of the stuff that I fell for back then was later proven to be outright lies. Some of the stuff that I believed back then was a result of lack of good information. As more and more information came out it started to answer some of my questions.

Originally posted by Classified Info
reply to post by maxella1

 

Official conspiracy theory?

Basically yes, everything has been answered to my satisfaction. 2 planes hit the 2 towers. The towers collapsed.... hopefully we can all agree on that. I do not believe the towers collapsed because of some kind of controlled demolition or such. Yes, that has been adequately answered to my satisfaction.

A plane hit the Pentagon.

Does this make me a paid disinfo agent?

It makes you a conspiracy theorist.