Jacksgranda Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Quite worrying to think that our governments have all our office buildings rigged with explosives "just in case" I don't think many people believe that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I find myself frustrated with regards to the physical evidence at the pentagon and the lack of clear footage of the event Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venti Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 How did 9/11 even happen? I can see Hulk, Batman & Cap in the background. Their fault IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 This is a decent set of videos although the guy is an annoying p***k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc&list=PLcIKuuE3KJDHEHIGtNKx-nQervL8OGjaD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I reckon it was probably the big f**k off Boeings that Al Qaeda flew into them that made the towers fall down tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I reckon it was probably the big f**k off Boeings that Al Qaeda flew into them that made the towers fall down tbh. IIRC that was not the official version of the reason for the collapse, it was blamed on the fire destabilising the structure. This has been challenged by others who claim that fire could not get sufficiently hot to cause this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L1WOnR2KBY I reckon it was Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 How did the firemen at building 7 know the building was coming down, who gave the information to evacuate everyone. This assumes the explosives were already set up. Obviously placed long before, who would go into a burning building and set explosives up ? Set up before the sham, stitch up. Some people actually swallow the US government spin. Incredible. Why fly a plane into a building which has bombs in it? The easy lie in that situation would be...terrorists planted bombs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 IIRC that was not the official version of the reason for the collapse, it was blamed on the fire destabilising the structure. This has been challenged by others who claim that fire could not get sufficiently hot to cause this. A combination of both was the official account - this being said its quite worrying for steel framed buildings if fire is going to be a major factor in total building failure and collapse!! The first point that i said before was annoying about what "truthers" think happen was ignoring the fact that a complex wiring system that would be needed to plant charges and make them explode using some sort of remote device would be completely severed by the damage inflicted by the planes. Another thing that they claim happen is a "free fall and symmetrical collapse" Which isn't the case. The south tower is the clearest example of this as it falls forward into the dent the plane left, like a tree would if you were to hit it with an axe and then push it into the axe wound, The collapse isn't free fall and in the north tower especially you can still see the core of the building standing about 40 stories up a good few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed which wouldn't be the case if there were demolition charges involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 IIRC that was not the official version of the reason for the collapse, it was blamed on the fire destabilising the structure. This has been challenged by others who claim that fire could not get sufficiently hot to cause this. Probably all that jet fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 How come the native Americans haven't been blamed yet? They built all the skyscrapers supposedly and have been waiting a long time for a bit of payback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleMoo Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Probably all that jet fuelThis.The planes were laden with aviation fuel. I'm sure I watched a documentary that also argued that the aluminium that the planes were built with also caused the resulting fires to burn unbelievably hot. Don't ask me how. Some complicated chemistry shit going on! In fact IIRC they actually thought the melting aluminium, when it came into contact with water from the sprinkler systems, could cause explosions weakening the structure of the buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The truthers just go from one bit of desperate speculation from another as each in turn gets disproved. They claimed that red fragments that were found were proof of explosives. Turned out to be primer paint so they've dropped that one. Now they're claiming the Boeings were holographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I reckon it was Fred I think it was all the big fat Americans running down the stairs at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Why fly a plane into a building which has bombs in it? The easy lie in that situation would be...terrorists planted bombs This, its possibly the most simple question, yet one that destroys all the conspiracy theorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The truthers just go from one bit of desperate speculation from another as each in turn gets disproved. They claimed that red fragments that were found were proof of explosives. Turned out to be primer paint so they've dropped that one. Now they're claiming the Boeings were holographs. These are the most ridiculous claims - there is one youtube documentary done by some geezer from the Newcastle area that claims that no planes hit the buildings that is just ridiculous. Conspiracy theorists throw bits and pieces that they think don't add up and then draw the conclusion that the government was responsible for carrying out the attacks. The video i posted earlier was by a young amateur English lad and isn't perfect but gives a good insight into the collapse of WTC7 and a few other things. Also includes an interview with activist Charlie Veitch who went to America on the BBC conspiracy road trip as a truther and ended up changing his mind, a pretty decent watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I found this a bit addictive in a trancey kind of way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LYH8bv5ZN4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The QE2 Conference Centre in Westminster has a huge multifloor basement where the Government is supposed to hide in the event of an imminent nuclear war, with the above ground floors designed to collapse to protect the base. So someone told me whilst I was briefly working there anyway. They were bullshitting. The government's rat hole was the Kelvedon Hatch, buried about 125 foot underground in Brentwood. They & the other bunkers were scrapped & never replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Probably all that jet fuel Knew it. The US govt planted jet fuel all over the place... Seriously, haven't watched the above vid yet but no conspiracy theory has yet to convince me that I didn't see two planes comandeered by religious-nutters flying into the twin towers. That doesn't make me George Bush either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The reason the buildings collapsed wasn't because the fires "melted steel" but because they done enough damage to fundamentally weaken it. Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.