Do you think 9/11 is a conspiracy?

weakened beams on some levels of the building would not cause the entire building to fall symmetrically in its own footprints. read the engineers/architects report lol....

 
Says which engineers from where at what time? All these truthers just spout stuff on the internet. Mythbusters tested the steel factor and heated steel with jet fuel and within 20 minutes or something the steel completely failed.
 
Yes but you also need to be able to close certain thoughts in your mind when they are proven false or dismissed. If an idea has not been proven wrong/has some evidence in its favor by all means keep the idea do more research. Sometimes you gotta move on.
 
I think you're severely overestimating the architectural redundancy of a a skyscraper.

Remember that the contract to design and build one is given to whoever can do it the cheapest and fastest.

just a "few" weakened beams is far more than enough to bring down a building.

Oh and throughout the day there were very few firefighters in the building because it had already been evacuated. They double checked, made a few attempts to put out fires, and finally cleared the building at 3:30pm. The building collapsed at 5:20pm. Hardly a case of them opting to pull out then bringing it down right after.
 
Jet fuel from the airplane that that buried itself into the side of the building. The beams wouldnt have to melt only fail. Which happens at far lower temperatures.
 
I don't know if you're serious or not but he was referring to the 90s I believe. when bombs were actually packed inside the World Trade Center.
 
no, i know. i was referring to the thread from awhile ago.

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/646075/

 
no fucking shit einstein.......it's not enough to bring the entire building down symmetrically like a demo(like it did)

and what jet fuel?? 7 was never hit, there must have been a shitload of jet fuel from debris lol?
 
i don't even?.......you want me to cite the official 911 report, why? since you're at work are you bored and attempting to troll?
 
So witnesses who were inside the building even though it was evacuated say they saw it melted. The building was evacuated for 2 hours before it fell. if the builiding fell because the steel melted then it would have fallen immediately after the steel metled so anyone who witnessed the steel melting would have been squished. Unless the steel melted and then 2 hours later the building fell
 
the burden of proof is on you. You're the one trying to claim it was a controlled demolition, which is against what the official report says.

and how else do you propose the buildings fall other than symmetrically? 3 major skyscrapers collapsed that day, and they were the first 3 of their size to ever come down...and yet all 3 fell in a relatively similar way.

here's some light reading for you to do

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805
 
you're getting there......but you mean the people who saw and examined the steel/rubble after the fact, not while it was taking place.
 
If its from the 9/11 commission report (which it isn't, because that only deals with the events leading up to the attacks) then give a page number. If its in the NIST report, give a page number. If its from an eyewitness, give a name and where it is reported.

This is basic stuff, you should have learned it in middle school.
 
"“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

and no...he did not mean pull firefighters out since even your beloved PM claims there were none inside lol."

You just went 110% retard son. The reason there were no firefighters in the building at the time of the collapse, is because they'd been PULLED.
 
you are debating.

need you to cite more exactly. What you've done is narrowed it down, which is nice. But that's like me telling you I found something online, and saying if you just go to google, you'll find it.

and I just rewatched the collapse...strange, it certainly does remind me an awful lot of the way wtc1 and 2 went down.
 
lol i'm not though, so just be happy i linked you to the official report for the greater good of mankind because it's honestly on page i don't give a fuck if you're gay. i'm not re-reading that bs.
 
Thermite cuts it does not melt. It would take a retarded large amount of thermite to melt down tons of steel. Just cutting through one beam would be possible but melting a beam would take tons. Now I do know that it cuts by melting the steel blah blah blah but saying they used thermite to melt all the beams is stupid.
 
yes, there is more than just one person on NS who regurgitates mainstream media and is detached from reality....

since you didn't reply i can only assume your answer is no? or are you "tackling" that now?
 
How else would they find molten metal in the rubble without thermite. The NIST report even says that the jet fuel wouldn't do it and no regular fires + jet fuel wouldn't either.

Okay if Thermite didn't melt the beams what did.
 
The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

 
Let me explain this slowly since you apparently have less brain cells than fingers.

When Silverstein said "pull" he was referring to the firefighters. After all, he was speaking to the fire chief, Daniel Nigro. The fact that they made this decision to pull firefighting operations is the reason that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 at the time it collapsed.

Following this?
 
well he left or
4698786.jpg
maybe it's his new account.
 
there were no firefighters in 7 prior to the call though........even pm makes this claim. how much $ did silverstein claim? following this?
 
Cite your source that there were no firefighters in the vicinity prior to that call. I doubt PM makes this claim since they explain that he meant the firefighters in their article.
 
As for the claim that Silverstein made money from the attacks. It's true that he netted about 500 million after the insurance claim, but the replacement for tower 7 cost about $700 million to build.
 
lol this is from memory, you bastard. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

last part says no firefighting. but i think you need to relax, i'm just stating facts. i never claimed it wasn't islamic terrorists, i said it could even be the toothfairy. my personal opinion is that the muslim brotherhood is one of the greatest threats to the west. the fact that you have found a solid conclusion means you have not done enough questioning. you can try to disparage me all you want, kid. i guess it makes you a patriot, but i don't see the point? have a nice day.

 
It said there was no forefighting, but there were firefighters in the building and the surrounding area, UNTIL they were pulled.

Think about what you're actually claiming. You're claiming that Silverstein is criminally involved in the greatest conspiracy ever and just tells everyone about it on a TV interview. Does that make any sense?

Now consider the alternative. He was referring to the firefighters, who were in the area. He was after all talking to the fire chief, and we know that the firefighters were pulled because there weren't any of them left at the building when it came down.

You can decide which one makes more sense to you.
 
jeeeeez. :(Second,

a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC

7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel

that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the

building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to

a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current

working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the

fire] for a long period of time."

wat? i must've missed where it said that?

"Think about what you're actually claiming. You're claiming that Silverstein is criminally involved in the greatest conspiracy ever and just tells everyone about it on a TV interview. Does that make any sense?"

wanna know how i know you're new to reality?

you can decide which one makes more sense to you, i will keep questioning. actually, your alternative does not seem likely since there wasn't any firefighting.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top