Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse w/videos

Originally posted by Griff
Doesn't that tell you right there that something was wrong?

I was saying that both Rudy and I were surprised that it fell in on itself. He used the word 'imploded' ... for a lack of a better word. I was saying that I understood why he used that word .. and that just because he used
that word is in no way indicitive that he was part of a conspiracy to blow
up the World Trade Center.

IMHO - it is entirely possible that there was a safety net of sorts - possibly put in after the first world trade center bombing. A safety net that if the towers looked like they would topple over, that it would be brought down. Strategically stationed demolition explosives to bring it down on itself instead of allowing it to topple into the city.

But as far as I'm concerned, there was enough damage by the airplanes and enough damage with an out of control fire to bring it down.

Originally posted by selfless
there is no way to make you see that it would not collapse from just one plane crash

"JUST" one plane crash? That was a pretty big plane crash .. with lots of damage and an out of control fire ...

I have seen enough evidence on TV, the History Channel, etc that shows exactly how the towers had enough damage to bring them down. Ya'll have failed to convince me of a conspiracy that Rudy (or Bush 43) brought them down.

Originally posted by SR
the whole law of physics is thrown out of the window ...

It's called common sense (and engineers make many mistakes). Common sense - 10 big planes full of fuel, hitting the building at high speed will definately bring down the building.

I don't care what engineer says it won't. I'm married to an engineer and get stuck listening to them all the time about their engineering ... they are humans and make human mistakes. They aren't perfect.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
IMHO - it is entirely possible that there was a safety net of sorts - possibly put in after the first world trade center bombing. A safety net that if the towers looked like they would topple over, that it would be brought down. Strategically stationed demolition explosives to bring it down on itself instead of allowing it to topple into the city.

And if one day officials came out and used that very excuse, would you really believe that? C'mon FF. That would have been the perfect excuse right from the very beginning, all except for the fact that they told people to go back to work.

All I can say is when there's not a lie, everything falls neatly into place. When there is a lie, you're constantly having to spin, which is what's been going on the past six years. Just like your parents could tell when you were lying or telling the truth.

Peace

Originally posted by FlyersFan
"JUST" one plane crash? That was a pretty big plane crash .. with lots of damage and an out of control fire ...

Are you joking?

You mean, this out of control fire?



Did you see the female in the hole of the world trade center where there was the fire? She was not even burned.

www.dc911truth.org...



Once again I will have to show what a real out of control fire looks like and ironically enough, this building did not even collapse. Funny huh?




And look here, no collapse...



Is it safe to say that this building was not as solid as the world trade center and yet it did not collapse from a far worst fire that lasted 24 hours.





[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SR

Originally posted by selfless
The towers were structurally engineered in a manner that could allow 10 planes to crash into them and not fall...

1 - I don't believe that those structures could possibly stand 10 big planes full of fuel pounding into each of them at such an excessive rate of speed ... no freak'n way.

2 - What ever engineer(s) said that they could ... they are wrong. Plain and simple. Engineers are humans and they make mistakes and who ever said that, they made a whopper of a mistake. that's insane.

I agree on both accounts. One plane took out 15% of the outer columns. Just simple math tells us that 10 planes would do 150% damage. That's one and a half buildings.

Do you have a background in engineering that would make your claim credible?

Yes, BS civil engineering, 1996. P.E. pending. Not sure about credible. You yourself said that engineers are human and make mistakes.

The 1 and 2 points are not my own even though it says's so in the box i messed up the original quote box my response is written a few spaces down in the original post just to clear things up.

Some people are missing the point here.

Imagine if the president of Virginia Tech came on the tv and said he was warned that shootings were going to take place and that he then decided to go get off campus.

The logical question on the mind of everyone would be who warned him of this and why was the warning not passed on?

Rudy is the only figure on record saying he was warned the buildings were going to collapse. This demands further explanation. Why were firefighters being sent to put out the small pockets of fire, as they described them, if the mayor knew the building was going to collapse anyway?

It is not CONSPIRACY THEORY to state the obvious and ask for answers that common sense tells you should be answered.

The girl in the video is related to one of the firefighters that died. Meanwhile Rudy earned around $10 million last year alone for his 9/11 speaking engagements.

Good points sfj.

Sorry for the one liner.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by FlyersFan
"JUST" one plane crash? That was a pretty big plane crash .. with lots of damage and an out of control fire ...

Are you joking?

Did you see the female in the hole of the world trade center where there was the fire? She was not even burned.

Once again I will have to show what a real out of control fire looks like and ironically enough, this building did not even collapse. Funny huh?

And look here, no collapse...

Is it safe to say that this building was not as solid as the world trade center and yet it did not collapse from a far worst fire that lasted 24 hours.




[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

It's also safe to say that these buildings you referenced had no structural damage caused by being impacted by large commercial aircraft.

The point being that repeatedly citing other building fires as some sort of proof that explosives were used at WTC is pointless.

Here's the irony. While claiming that the *only* explanation for the WTCs collapse is a controlled demolition, you overlook the possibility of an *uncotrolled* demolition. If it's true that bombs could have taken down the WTCs, then it's also true that FL 175 and FL 11 were the most obvious bombs seen that day.

These were multi-ton bombs filled with thousands of pounds of explosives, and were lauched at the WTCs at hundreds of miles per hour. Yet CTers tend to believe that the planes could *NOT* have been the explosives that caused the collapse. They claim that additional controlled explosives brought down the WTCs, but that it would be impossible for the huge bombs/planes to bring down the WTCs.

Imo, this is an intellectually dishonest position to take. How can anybody claim that the exploding planes could *NOT* have caused the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, but that other explosives *must* be the cause of the collapses?

Because the towers fell 1 hour after they were hit in a perfectly controlled demolition manner.

Edit: And if the planes had bombs on them and that's the only thing that took down the world trade center then it would have been brought down on impact. There is no way that a bomb can be kept intact from a plane crash and then detonated 1 hour later....



[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Guiliani let New York down because he was our governor, hes suppose to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, warn us that this is going down. But he chose money over being a hero.

And stop supporting guiliani he was an accomplice to this mass murder

[edit on 30-5-2007 by spiritp0wer]

Originally posted by nick7261
It's also safe to say that these buildings you referenced had no structural damage caused by being impacted by large commercial aircraft.

If i had to put my life on the line and I had 2 choices that a building would stay up between the madrid fire and the world trade center plane crash.

I would choose the plane crash because i would feel safe that the WTC being hit by a plane would not collapse from structural failure.

The madrid fire was way more intense in a destruction stand point.

So this leaves me with the opinion that the world trade center was not brought down by simple plane crashes only.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by nick7261
It's also safe to say that these buildings you referenced had no structural damage caused by being impacted by large commercial aircraft.

If i had to put my life on the line and I had 2 choices that a building would stay up between the madrid fire and the world trade center plane crash.

I would choose the plane crash because i would feel safe that the WTC being hit by a plane would not collapse from structural failure.

The madrid fire was way more intense in a destruction stand point.

So this leaves me with the opinion that the world trade center was not brought down by simple plane crashes only.

The Madrid fire destroyed everything BUT the steel framing of the building. There doesn't seem to *be* any structural support damage.

At the WTCs, there was both damage to the support beams and large fires. It was the combination of both the structural damage and the fires that most likely led to the collapse.

In any event, because there is a fundamental difference between the Madrid fire and the WTCs, it's really useless to trot out the Madrid fire as proof of CD at the WTCs. There may be other evidence of a CD at the WTCs, but the Madrid fire certainly isn't part of that evidence.

Originally posted by selfless

There is no way that a bomb can be kept intact from a plane crash and then detonated 1 hour later....

Yet pre-rigged explosives that were placed 1-2 weeks before hand remained intact? John Lear says he could not hit the buildings, I disagree. I think I could have and I admit that I do not have the fight time to give a proper preflight compaired to one done by Mr. Lear. Now flying into a specific area that would not set off bombs preset to do a clean CD that big? No way, no one is that good of a pilot.

Notice the wing waggle that the planes do before impact. That is not a salute, that is last minute adjustment to directly hit the building. The second plane almost missed, that is why the corner was struck. They almost missed and then you would have had a wing clip on the building with the plane hitting another building or landing on the street. Maybe would have done a sharp left into the other side of the tower. No matter the outcome it would have rained burning fuel down the side to the ground below.

Originally posted by nick7261
The Madrid fire destroyed everything BUT the steel framing of the building. There doesn't seem to *be* any structural support damage.

Thus proving that the world trade center tiny little fire did not melt any steel.

Originally posted by nick7261
At the WTCs, there was both damage to the support beams and large fires. It was the combination of both the structural damage and the fires that most likely led to the collapse.

Hmmm no... first of all, the fire was almost none existent. Second of all, the plane hit the corner of the building most likely missing the center core.

Even if the plane some how made it's way to the center core of the building, it would not be enough to cause a global collapse, get real here...

Originally posted by nick7261
In any event, because there is a fundamental difference between the Madrid fire and the WTCs, it's really useless to trot out the Madrid fire as proof of CD at the WTCs. There may be other evidence of a CD at the WTCs, but the Madrid fire certainly isn't part of that evidence.

No it's really not useless to compare the two incidents on a common sense point of view.

Here we have people saying that the steel of the world trade center was melted by a tiny little almost none existent fire that lasted no longer then 1 hour and at the same time we have the madrid building that was an inferno blaze for at least 24 hours and you said it your self, it did not even melt the steel center core.

So yes, it is indeed part of the collective gathering of evidence, it supports common sense that no steel was melted from the miniature fire of the world trade center and since no steel was melted it leaves very little possibility of why the buildings comes down other then controlled demolition.

So i would say that comparing the two incidents is very well relative.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Yet pre-rigged explosives that were placed 1-2 weeks before hand remained intact?

No matter how they executed the plan, it wasn't planes alone that brought down these buildings...

Maybe they didn't put explosives above the plane target floors? Maybe the explosives was set underground of the buildings.

We don't exactly know how it was done but i would put my life on the line that a plane crash like that could not take down the world trade center in a pan cake collapse fashion.

Yeah, Nick the plane would explain why building 7 fell...

Oh, wait, it DIDN'T. Odd how 7 fell just like the twins when it wasn't hit by a plane, huh?

Originally posted by truthseeka
Yeah, Nick the plane would explain why building 7 fell...

Oh, wait, it DIDN'T. Odd how 7 fell just like the twins when it wasn't hit by a plane, huh?

The hindenburg wasn't hit by a plane either. Must be a conspiracy. London bridge wasn't hit by a plane when it came down either. That too must be a conspiracy.

So anything that collapses or is destroyed can only be accounted for by being hit by a plane right? Because surely hundreds of tons of falling debris crashing into the building and 7 hours of fires couldn't have had anything to do with it right?

remember, Challanger wasn't hit by a plane either.

Originally posted by esdad71
The NWO is within the democratic party, not the GOP. take a look at the history through the ages at teh Democrats....

Are you serious? You continue to lose credibility with responses like this.


It's not my fault it's your fault.

You believe there's an NWO, but you don't think that they had anything to do with 9/11, considering that day has kickstarted our constitutional overhaul, with more executive orders than we have bill of rights, which completely undermines the intent of the original document.

"A man who sacrifices freedoms for security deserve neither."

Guess who said that?

AAC

implode is a very specific word.

collapse and implode are completely different.

flyersfan, you wear some of the rosiest coloured glasses ever.
he was in london for the 7/7/7 global illuminati ritual, too.

just a coincidence, OF COURSE!!

bush: i saw the first plane hit the tower on TV.

rummy: they shot down the plane over shanksville.....planes and missiles used

silverstien: pull IT (as in, not pull OUT, or pull BACK)

kerry: that wall was in danger, they did it(demolition, -bb) in a controlled fashion.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Yet pre-rigged explosives that were placed 1-2 weeks before hand remained intact? John Lear says he could not hit the buildings, I disagree. I think I could have and I admit that I do not have the fight time to give a proper preflight compaired to one done by Mr. Lear. Now flying into a specific area that would not set off bombs preset to do a clean CD that big? No way, no one is that good of a pilot.

I'm getting so sick of saying this. BTW, so sick I might just leave this board. It's unreal. No matter where the planes hit, if they took out the core, the buildings WOULD COLLAPSE FROM THE IMPACT ZONE!!!!!!!~~~!

I'm not saying it again here.

Originally posted by snoopy
The hindenburg wasn't hit by a plane either. Must be a conspiracy. London bridge wasn't hit by a plane when it came down either. That too must be a conspiracy.

Oh Snoop. I've missed shooting you down. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

So anything that collapses or is destroyed can only be accounted for by being hit by a plane right? Because surely hundreds of tons of falling debris crashing into the building and 7 hours of fires couldn't have had anything to do with it right?

remember, Challanger wasn't hit by a plane either.

Gee, can we go any more off topic of what he was talking about. You know, my penis wasn't hit by a plane either but it tingled that day. Is that a conspiracy? Get real.