Large Depository of 9/11 Pictures & Videos

ducky · #61 ● 01-25-2018, 03:56 PM

Glad you countered my arguments with personal assualts rather than facts to back your claims...

Coreym07 · #62 ● 01-25-2018, 08:13 PM

You're funny. If you've ever had to deal with "witnesses" you'll know that the worst witness is a witness. Everything a witness claims must be taken with a truckload of salt.

"Ma'am, can you describe the gun that was pointed at you?"
"it was a huge gun, black, long barrel, very big bullets."
Reality: The gun was a small handgun that is the size of your palm.

Taking anything someone says, especially in the moment, does not mean actual bombs went off or anything that you claim so and so said, including but not limited too, NYPD, FDNY.

Funkynumber7 · #63 ● 01-30-2018, 07:57 AM

Do the research folks.....like the man said.... the story runs deep not hijackers who hated America cmon please

doesn't is "crazy" based solely off the fact that it's not what they believe. It's funny, though, because they can never provide evidence that it wasn't an "inside job" while the people who believe it was have accumulated a mountain of evidence proving that the official story is bullshit.

1.They actually believe that the Pentagon only had one working camera that day.

2.They believe the official story of fire causing all of it despite the fact that are a huge amount of radio and video recordings of the NYFD, NYPD, and rescue workers, news reporters, and civilians stating over and over again that there were bombs going off in both towers...and video of firemen running
for their lives from the second Tower as everything starts to explode.

3.They believe that it makes sense that 4 jets, all the passengers, their luggage, and all the "black boxes" were vaporized in every crash despite there never being any other instance of it happening.

4.They believe the official story despite the fact that 5-10 of the 19 terrorists have been proven to be alive.

5.They think WTC7 collapsed due to fire despite but there being proof of 4,5, and 6 being in complete ruins but never collapsing...while 7, with almost no exterior damage, collapsed and turned to dust because of an office fire.

6.They think it's normal for four planes to fly around for 90 minutes and not a single one was ever intercepted by the Air Force.

7.They think that news outlets reporting WTC7's collapse 30 minute before it happened isn't a big deal.

Do yourself a favor and actually do some research. The people that don't believe the official story aren't "nuts" they were just smart enough to know that it is impossible for it to be true.

Oh, yeah...and the 9/11 Comission Report that doesn't even acknowledge WTC7's collapse. Can't imagine why they would want to hide that.[/QUOTE]

KillingJoke · #64 ● 02-16-2018, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by ducky ↗

Only in America do steel skyscrapers collapse from fire. Just google steel skyscraper fire... Spain, China... both burned, completely engulfed for DAYS! Didnt collapse... there was one recently, I believe it was the UK.... didnt collapse.

Tell me oh great one, how is it that 2 sky scrapers DESIGNED to be impacted MULTIPLE TIMES by the achetect, collapsed, from one plane each, in under an hour?

Explain the puffs coming from the sides of the buildings as they collapse... rush of air? really, your smarter than that...

My God you're an idiot.

First of all, the WTC buildings 1&2 did not collapse solely due to fire - they collapsed due to substantial structural damage AND fire.

WTC 7 has a fire in the lower 19 floors that rated out of control because the water mains were severed by the tower's collapse.

In steel buildings with fires that did not collapse, they had functioning sprinkler systems that reduced the heat load.

Also, there certainly have been steel structures that collapsed due to fire, with well known cases in russia, canada, and the UK, not just the US.

Further, there were unique design aspects to the towers, due to the clear span/tube/core design that made them susceptible to this form of collapse when they lost such a large percentage of the bearing structure.

IMPACTS

The towers were designed to withstand take force winds. The engineer did some calculations and found they should withstand impact from a 707 traveling at APPROACH SPEED (about 150 mph). He did not take fire into account for this.

Thus planes that struck the towers were 767s, flying past Vne (velocity never exceed). The much heavier plane, flying much faster actually exerted 131 TIMES MORE FORCE than a 707 at approach speed. (Force increases by the square of velocity).

Finally, a few Windows being blown out due to compression effects is obvious and sell understood.

In short, the conversation is academic - elaborate computer models show that the tower structures failed exactly as should have been expected.