News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Stop spreading dis-information. Please name the Conspiracy Theorist on the Video link I provided. You can't, so please stick to the facts. This is a montague of clips from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC.

Cry more n00b, it was a joke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another good documentary here Ganymede:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But they weren't impacted with 4 trillion foot pounds of impact of energy, That is the amount of energy from a 767, that weighs 171,000 pounds, delivers at 550 miles per hour. Just a little bit of difference between the incidents you cite and the WTC collapse.

That is the equivalent of 2000lb. of Military grade TNT, those other building had fires, but there was no impact damage, and large sections of the framing structure were not compromised.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is relevant because you think a 767 is apparently a giant coke can with wings...untrue, 171,000 lbs of metal and thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel is enough to bring down a building, get over yourself.

 

I watched the whole thing - damn if I will again, just to verify what I noted first time through, which was that no one in the video actually saw a bomb in the building themselves.

And no bombs went off in the lower floors, as far as we can see in any of the video of the firefighting or the collapse.

And the video was strangely edited - I would be leaning forward, realizing that the next few moments were key, and those few moments would be cut off. By the third or fourth time that happened, I couldn't help but get a bit suspicious of the editing.

One problem with all the bomb stuff is that we saw the building collapse, right on camera, from the top down, starting just above the airplane impact level (jsut where the structure was msot damaged and the fire hottest) without involving anything at all on the lower floors.

Another feature of this overwrought bomb stuff is that it doesn't change the essential story - nothing says AQ was incapable of planting a coordinated street bomb, maybe something designed to trap the firefighters with fires below them - on the assumption that they would be fighting fires above them. That would be recognizable AQ tactics. Even the actual presence of a bomb in one or more of the buildings would not support, in itself, a conclusion of US government instigation of 9/11.

And so forth.

One of the reasons we haven't been able to get a decent investigation of the US government's relationship to 9/11 is that any such inquiry gets sidetracked into this gaseous swamp of rumors and nonsense - most of it on video, where the contradictions and improbabilites can be slid past reason a bit more easily.

The most likely conspiracy for which that video is evidence is that this distraction is deliberate - that there's some kind of dirty tricks department run out of the Whie House that arranges for this noise every time people settle down and start asking real questions.

 

oh, it was a joke??? sociopaths have a sense of humor too.

 

I said 'some of those youtube videos', that is part of your problem. Pay attention.

 

What type of power source did the towers use?

Gas
Oil

Do electrical supplies cause explosions?:scratchin:

 

Wow. That video took me right back to that day. But it doesn't prove there was a conspiracy. It simply brings back the massive confusion and shock of that day. No one knew what the fuck was happening.

 

Bitch, have you not heard of the damn 9/11 Commission? Give your head a shake, it's stuck.

They weren't hit by 200 tons of airplane and gas. I feel dumber just by talking to you.

I got five words for you: fire and massive gas reserves. Shut it, and go away.

 

Initial reportings of big news events almost always contain many errors and misinformation....so its DEBUNKED

Checkmate!

 

Checkmate!

LOL.

 

One thing I've never heard any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories explain is "why"? What purpose would be served by the government blowing up the WTC?

 

That's easy. They say it was to justify the evil neocon's plan to take over the world via war in the middle east. Kind of a burning of the Reichstag redux.

 

If it was to take away some basic freedoms in the U.S, it was an outstanding success.

 

I am with Ganymede on this. I saw the events in New York that day from the corner of Church and Duane Street and I trust what my ears and eyes witnessed. It was obvious that there were LARGE explosions going off in the lower areas of the towers. Not just cars exploding... but MUCH larger explosions. I've spent one year in Iraq serving my country, and I know the difference between a high powered explosive and a car exploding. And when cars DO explode, the shockwave is not nearly enough to knock a person on thier feet unless they are literally standing on or less than a foot away from the car. Furthermore, after witnessing the impact of the planes into the towers, there were several small explosions as well as many LARGE ones, large explosions that were powerful enough to throw people across the street at the base of the towers. Sorry bud, but no car exlposion is ever that powerful.

Also, take a look at steel buildings that were TOTALLY engulfed in flames and had burned for WEEKS and did not collapse. Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact??? Please...

Now, Im no expert but I do have the advantage of being able of having first-hand knowledge of both the tragic events of 9/11 as well as experience with explosive devices due to my military career.

Furthermore, if, infact, the explosions were caused by devices planted before hand, it would be impossible to know if it was placed by us or a terrorist organization, as I am sure that either one of them would have "covered thier tracks".

 

Many of the secondary small explosions were due to interstage water tanks exploding (in tall buildings you need to stage the acsent of water to the top), and even emergency lighting batteries. Much larger explosions could easily be due to pockets of pressurized gas being driven by the impact to many different levels within cavities in the building such as elevator shafts, and either causing simple pressure explosions, or igniting when the fuel-air mixture was critical.

And as we all have such extensive experience with high-energy, fuel-laden projectiles impacting structures, it must be obvious what all of the effects might be. Right? Idiots.

Ganymede, you're an aggressive, ignorant asshat. And you FAIL at science. Ha!

 

Actually it was more like an hour.

The WTC buildings had a central core of huge steel beams that could not simply desintegrate in less than fifteen seconds. Remember that the top floors descended in 'free fall' time

There had to be planted internal explosions involved.

Again, this documentary is the most exhaustive explanation of the engineering problems involved you'll ever find on the net:

http://divxlive.com/video-44-1220755

 

No, they didn't. It's been measured to be significantly less.

Umm... no.

 

Nevertheless... that is an insanely short period of time.