I'm about a week late on the 9/11 stuff

The damn building was fucked up to hell from the first collapse.
fig-3-7A.jpg

wtc3_7064.jpg

wtc5_hole_4271.jpg


That's WTC 3, 4 & 5. Those buildings were fucked up by both Towers coming down. They burned for hours.. yet they still stood.. atleast what was left of them.

WTC7-09.jpg

100408wtc3.jpg


That's building 7. Notice any difference?
 
Last edited:
the WTC twin towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707

aircraftcomparison.gif


all steel framed buildings have withstood fire indefinitely, except wtc 1,2,7.

And that picture is your proof?


Ill contend that while considerations were thrown around; that they went out of their way to make a building specifically plane proof is laughable.


Not only was the idea of a plane crash barely even considered by the designers of these towers, Ill even bet that they never EVER would make claims about what their building could do when a fully fueled air liner hit their building. (any quotes they do exist always use the word 'may' and were used for the sake of demonstrating strength and NOT serious claims with real designs considered..... after all those stair wells were sure place in a shitty way eh?)

Why would you go out of your way? Because they sure didnt any the BIGGEST GOD DAMN MYTH of the twin towers is that they were specifically designed to withstand such an impact.

I cant believe some of you shits actually buy this stuff


and really...

if you buy into this crap

you
are
a
shit
 
Last edited:
Sometimes steel framed buildings collapse under stress and fire. It has happened before and will happen again

all it takes is a weakness in such a building tweaked in such a way that the show ends. Ever play Jenga?

thats what happened to WTC7

Wtc7_collapse_progression.png



Fucked up buildings sometimes collapse and sometimes they dont


depends on what gets damaged.
 
You don't have to believe me or anyone else on this forum really. I don't give a shit.
But maybe, just maybe, some of the 1.500+ architects, engineers and scholars who are certain that the official story could've not happened the way the government said it, might be right?
It's not like only a handful of people are saying this. Wake up man.
 
And that picture is your proof?


Ill contend that while considerations were thrown around; that they went out of their way to make a building specifically plane proof is laughable.


Not only was the idea of a plane crash barely even considered by the designers of these towers, Ill even bet that they never EVER would make claims about what their building could do when a fully fueled air liner hit their building. (any quotes they do exist always use the word 'may' and were used for the sake of demonstrating strength and NOT serious claims with real designs considered..... after all those stair wells were sure place in a shitty way eh?)

Why would you go out of your way? Because they sure didnt any the BIGGEST GOD DAMN MYTH of the twin towers is that they were specifically designed to withstand such an impact.

I cant believe some of you shits actually buy this stuff


and really...

if you buy into this crap

you
are
a
shit

to contradict your guesswork.. props to you and farts for not doing any of your own research.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4
 
I've had this conversation a million times over the last 10 years. Sheeple are in denial and REQUIRE main stream news to shout the truth before they will open their eyes.

The system has trained them since birth. Old dog old tricks. Very similar to creationists.
 
I should probably quote my sig for the sheeple.

In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.

President Eisenhower, Jan. 1961 Farewell address
Eisenhower Farewell Address

It was 17 fucking minutes long and the entire speech warned against the USA's own military! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!
 
Last edited:
I've never met anyone this stupid in real life. I guess they keep them behind closed doors, but it's good that they give them computers to entertain themselves.
 
to contradict your guesswork.. props to you and farts for not doing any of your own research.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.


A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

And they did withstand it. for more than an hour. Had the stairwell not been damaged, virtually all the occupants could have been evacuated. It is impossible to build a skyscraper that is completely impervious to heavy structural damage, removal of fire insulation, + unchecked fire.
 
Sometimes steel framed buildings collapse under stress and fire. It has happened before and will happen again

all it takes is a weakness in such a building tweaked in such a way that the show ends. Ever play Jenga?

thats what happened to WTC7

Wtc7_collapse_progression.png



Fucked up buildings sometimes collapse and sometimes they dont


depends on what gets damaged.

so if the east side "collapsed" first, how come the entire building completely collapses at the exact same time? Not even the slightest dip on the east side first.

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but the evidence of 9/11 being what the government says it was is a pretty big stretch.

No resistance whatsoever from any of the miles of steel beams supporting WTC 1 & 2. A slight shift in the weight and oops there goes the entirety of BOTH buildings in freefall. Not to mention that all the concrete was pulverized into dust instantly.

I have a very hard time believing a secret this big could ever be kept covered up. But nothing really adds up. Physics simply doesn't work the way any of these buildings collapsed.
 
Last edited:
so if the east side "collapsed" first, how come the entire building completely collapses at the exact same time? Not even the slightest dip on the east side first.

thats completely not true. You can see in the video of WTC 7 the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building seconds before the rest of it.
 
thats completely not true. You can see in the video of WTC 7 the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building seconds before the rest of it.

do you not understand how retarded and irrelevant this point is? Was the penthouse the center for the structural integrity of the building? Or was it just the highest point of the building? Was this building so piss-poorly designed compared to the Windsor in Madrid which burned for 20+ hours, had the top 6 stories collapse, then had almost the entirety of the support structure remain while the entire rest of the structure was burnt to a crisp? Or is it that once you hit 40+ stories, the only possible outcome of a building fire is an imminent collapse at freefall into its very own footprint? With nigh a tilt nor a bob on it's way down through the path of most resistance.
 
Back
Top