ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

[ebola?]

WAKE UP:

The Twin Towers never existed in the first place!
...
seems like I forgot about something yesterday. . .

ebola

 

[Shrooms00087]

That's one of the better conspiracies, should write a book.

 

[rickolasnice]

I can't be arsed to address the other points right now but the "no plane at pentagon" theory really pisses me off.

There is not one shred of evidence that The Pentagon was ever hit by a plane, they have surveillance footage which they released enough to see the explosion, but not enough to see the plane, what is the fucking point in that? They are clearly hiding the fact it was a bomb or missile.

..

So there was no plane wreckage? There were not countless witnesses that saw plane wreckage?

99% of witnesses didn't say that they saw a plane? And a large percentage of them didn't say it looks like a passenger airliner?

There has not been released audio and video of the conversation with air control along with the satellite image? There were no calls made from on board the plane?

Fuck it. I suppose there was no missing plane, passengers or crew either?

Jesus Christ.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ There was no plane wreckage, there was some debris around the area, I am quite sure if it were a missile that hit this would also leave some debris. Look up plane crashes and plane wreckages and contrast these photos with the photo of the pentagon that had supposedly just been hit by a plane, there is absolutely fuck all debris compared to an actual plane crash.

There may be a lot of witnesses who said they saw a plane, if someone saw a missile for a split second and was then told straight after that it was a plane, I can imagine that some people might get confused, after all, they two objects do bear some resemblance and seeing a plane is a much more common occurrence than a missile. I doubt if most people have ever seen a live missile fired. I know there are many who were there that day who say they didn't see a plane, and people who were working in the Pentagon that day who felt that it was a bomb that had gone off.

Highly experienced pilots have claimed they would be unable to perform the manoeuvre that the plane supposedly performed to hit the Pentagon at the angle it did, the man who was allegedly flying the plane Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot. Just one month before 9/11 he went to hire a light aircraft Cessna 172, they took him on three test runs in which he had trouble controlling and landing the plane, a plane that by all accounts is infinitely easier to control than a Boeing 727. The airfield would not even hire the Cessna 172 to Hani Hanjour because his piloting skills were that bad. How are we supposed to believe a few weeks later he performed a complex manoeuvre in a hijacked Boeing 727 that experienced pilots would struggle to recreate?

The fact is the pentagon could clear this up easily by releasing a handful of extra frames of video footage, yet they will not do this. The only feasible explanation why is that they are hiding something, it would be one thing to refuse to release any footage at all, but why it is okay to release footage of the explosion but not the plane just before it hit the building? That reeks of a cover up if you ask me.

I don't see how people making calls from a plane means it hit the Pentagon? Unless they said on the phone "Oh theres the Pentagon we are about to hit it", what exactly does this prove in relation to a plane striking the Pentagon?

Obviously you are entitled to whatever opinion you choose, but personally I feel it is clear that it was not a plane that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. Even if I were somehow wrong on this, the evidence that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon that day is not as strong as you are suggesting.

 

[bit_pattern]

^ There was no plane wreckage

That's just not true.

It's been done to death in this thread, I'm not going to go over it again, but I would strongly recommend engaging more critically with the sources that are telling you this, do some independent research, then ask yourself if your sources can so convincingly sway you on this point what else they might be distorting to make their case.

 

[bit_pattern]

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I have seen the photos dude, its true there is some debris, but it is not enough to be consistent with a plane crash. A missile would leave debris too....

A lot of the photo's you have provided are completely without context, and do not show them at the crash site. Even if there happen to be a few bits and bobs that were consistent with items that would be on a plane, it does not change the fact that on the whole there is much less debris than any other plane crash I have seen a photo of.

I am not saying this is what happened, but if one were to launch a missile at an object with the intention of claiming it was a plane, would it be THAT hard to put a few items on/in the missile to make the impact site look vaguely like a plane crash?

What about the fact that the guy who was allegedly piloting the plane could not have possibly performed the manoeuvre necessary to hit the Pentagon?

What about the fact that The Pentagon could easily prove all the nay sayers wrong by releasing a few frames of footage, which they wont do? What possible motivation is there for that without something to hide? I could understand if people said it was to prevent distress among relatives of those on the plane, but when they have released the image of the alleged plane being blown to smithereens I think it kind of debunks that side of things...

It is a couple years or more since I really looked into any of this, and I admit my recollection on some of it may be a little rusty. Trust me when I say I am not one to only look at sources that confirm my side of the story, I tried to be as balanced as possible when looking at the two sides presenting evidence, for me at least, the evidence on the side that the official story is a crock is a lot more compelling. When the 911 commission wont go to the bother of addressing how tower 7 fell, it is pretty transparent how little thought those pushing the official story want anybody to put into the events of that day beyond "oh my god terrorism!"

Even if I were wrong about a plane hitting the Pentagon, and I am not even conceding that at this point, it doesn't change the fact that there are a billion other obvious holes in the official story of 9/11. Fire did not cause steel buildings to collapse, thermite didn't appear on the rubble by magic and it is no coincidence NORAD was playing war games that day.

 

[bit_pattern]

^ I have seen the photos dude, its true there is some debris, but it is not enough to be consistent with a plane crash. A missile would leave debris too....

Actually it IS perfectly consistent and - yes - a missile would leave debris but not the type of debris found at the site - things like airline black boxes, Boeing wheels, tail-sections, airline uniforms and body parts.

What about the fact that The Pentagon could easily prove all the nay sayers wrong by releasing a few frames of footage, which they wont do?

Footage from *all* CCTVs in the vicinity has been released

Fire did not cause steel buildings to collapse

No. But he high speed impact that weakened the superstructure of the building COMBINED with high intensity fire did though.

 

[drug_mentor]

You are entitled to those views, they are not views which I share.

If one were to fire a missile at an object with the express intention of making the impact site look like a plane crash, it would not be difficult and would actually be logical for them to attach certain objects one would normally find on a plane to the missile. If one were to engage on a conspiracy of this scale, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination that they would do this.

You have also failed to address the fact that the alleged pilot was incapable of moving the plane in the fashion he supposedly did, a manoeuvre which did not need to be performed for the aircraft to hit the Pentagon. The fact that Hani Hanjour was a shitty pilot and the supposed flight trajectory for flight 77 was difficult for experienced pilots to pull off is very well documented, and is enough to tell me that it did not happen.

High speed impact and fire doesn't explain the fall of tower 7, which sustained no high speed impact. It also fails to account for the thermite residue that has been found at ground zero, the fact there was molten steel at the site of ground zero and the fact that many people who were inside the World Trade Centres on 9/11 have said they felt and heard bombs going off in the basement of the building. Also, if the fires were so intense so as to melt steel, how did a passport get from inside one of the planes that hit the buildings out onto the street? That makes no sense whatsoever.

For the record, I didn't come into this thread with the intention of arguing with anybody, or the illusion I would change anybodies mind on the subject. Priesttheycalledhim asked for those who voted yes on the thread poll to elaborate why believe what they do, I merely responded to that question, and it is only after part of my response was pretty much ridiculed that I have continued to comment.

 

[spacejunk]

The reason I don't buy the 'pentagon was a missile' line is the fact that the pentagon is right in the middle of one of the largest media hubs on the planet.
That building, and the area that surrounds it, was immediately the focus of intense scrutiny (early reports suggested that there was a fire or bomb in 'the Mall' or the State Department building - while both inaccurate, it is clear that people were hastily trying to work out what had happened) with reports coming to the world media time faster than they could be investigated or confirmed.
To suggest that people were running around planting evidence seems a bit fanciful to me.

I was particularly aware of this because someone very close to me was living in DC at the time, I was speaking to her on the phone just before (and immediately after) events unfolded; she was about 3 miles away from the Pentagon.

Not to say she knew what was happening any more than anyone else at the time - but the live reports are still really clear in my memory, as it was unclear to begin with what caused the explosion that shook her house. Having visited her just a year or so before, I was familiar with Washington at the time.

What I'm getting at is that it is pretty unrealistic to suggest plane wreckage was moved to the site (in the middle of a huge city) and even more so, that it was 'attached to a missile'. Missiles don't generally leave a whole lot of debris, as much as they create it.
I'm no expert in the forensics of explosives, but this seems relatively straightforward.

Of all of the theories I've heard, this seems to me to be one of the least plausible.

Edit - not trying to argue or ridicule anyone's point of view, but it is an interesting topic of discussion IMO

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I am really not even trying to push the idea that plane parts were attached to a missile, just that it was a possibility. I agree that by nature a missile would destroy a lot of whatever was attached to it, but the fact of the matter is that the items were supposed to resemble a crash, so explosive damage does not exactly make them useless for the purpose of this deception. I merely threw that idea out there as one possibility, and in fact prefaced my first mention of it by saying I am not trying to suggest this is what happened. Personally, I don't see how that is a more far fetched idea than an incompetent pilot performing a complex manoeuvre in the highest stress scenario one could possibly think of.

Also, there was very little debris at the site of the Pentagon compared to every other plane crash site I have seen photographs of, nor is there any sign of the combined 12 tonnes of steel and titanium which comprised the two jet engines.

Perhaps a plane did hit the Pentagon, although if it did I would suggest at the very least it was not being flown by Hani Hanjour, a man who three weeks earlier demonstrated such a lack of proficiency at flying that an airfield would not let him rent a Cessna 172. The angle they say he flew the plane makes no sense either, as even experienced pilots would have a great deal of trouble keeping that flight trajectory, and he did not need to take such a difficult trajectory to hit the Pentagon. I love how all the people who like to accuse me of being a tin foil hat wearer don't have one thing to say about this element of the official story.

You talk about Washington DC being one of the largest media hubs on the planet, I find it interesting that, despite this, there is no clear footage of the plane flying directly into The Pentagon, as there is with both World Trade Centres. There is CCTV footage from The Pentagon, and for whatever reason they choose to only show enough to see the very tip of an object that could easily be a plane or a missile and then an explosion. The Pentagon could easily put this to bed by releasing CCTV that plainly and irrefutably show a plane approaching and hitting the building, given that the place is literally covered by surveillance camera's I don't personally buy that there is only the one camera that captured the incident.

Bit_pattern, you claim all CCTV in the vicinity has been released, but there was at least a gas station and a hotel who had camera's that would of captured what happened to the Pentagon that day, according to those who were working at the time, the FBI arrived within minutes (before they could even review the footage themselves) and confiscated the tapes. Has this footage been released without me being aware? If it has, then it should clearly show a plane hitting the Pentagon and clear up any confusion.

I do find this an interesting topic of discussion as well, but it just shits me that someone with my point of view has a hard time sharing their legitimate doubts over the official story without a condescending tone or outright ridicule being adopted by the other side of the debate.

There might be some holes in what I believe, but equally, there are many holes in the official story. For example, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, I am no physicist, but I don't understand how a hard impact on a steel structure changes the chemical composition of steel, making it more inclined to melt, which is what bit_pattern is essentially saying. There are photographs that clearly illustrate steel in that building had melted. This is much more in line with the theory of thermite being used, which there is evidence of, than it is in line with the theory that impact+fire made steel melt. I am no expert, but that is my opinion.

I don't pretend to know what happened that day, but I am beyond certain that the official story is not the true one. I do not know to what extent the US Government was involved in 9/11, but to me it is clear that they likely had something to do with it, both because of the events of that day and everything that has happened after it.

The odd thing to me is, it seems like nobody in the West wants to believe the US Government is capable of such a thing, but you tell a bunch of Western citizens that this evil Brown bastard in the desert did this or that (Saddam and WoMD, Assad and chemical weapons, etc.) and they swallow it hook, line and sinker. The US has at the very least considered false flag operations to get support for wars in the past, and has also engaged in deception to gather support for wars like the Gulf of Tonkin incident for the Vietnam war.

 

[bit_pattern]

You are entitled to those views, they are not views which I share.

If one were to fire a missile at an object with the express intention of making the impact site look like a plane crash, it would not be difficult and would actually be logical for them to attach certain objects one would normally find on a plane to the missile.

Like, say, body part? If it was a missile then WTF happened to the plane full of real people that would otherwise have vanished off the face of the planet?

If one were to engage on a conspiracy of this scale, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination that they would do this.

With fallacious reasoning like that you can prove pretty much anything. Take climate change - if the conspiracy is so big that all of the scientists are in on it then the evidence is worthless because it is so big the evidence is being made up by those involved.

You have also failed to address the fact that the alleged pilot was incapable of moving the plane in the fashion he supposedly did, a manoeuvre which did not need to be performed for the aircraft to hit the Pentagon. The fact that Hani Hanjour was a shitty pilot and the supposed flight trajectory for flight 77 was difficult for experienced pilots to pull off is very well documented, and is enough to tell me that it did not happen.

Documented by whom?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

It would be good if you could apply the same level of scepticism to the "documented" sources you rely on as you do to the "official" version of events

High speed impact and fire doesn't explain the fall of tower 7, which sustained no high speed impact. It also fails to account for the thermite residue that has been found at ground zero, the fact there was molten steel at the site of ground zero and the fact that many people who were inside the World Trade Centres on 9/11 have said they felt and heard bombs going off in the basement of the building. Also, if the fires were so intense so as to melt steel, how did a passport get from inside one of the planes that hit the buildings out onto the street? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Building 7: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Thermite: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/

Passport: Apparently a lot of debris from the plane was found on th

e street before the towers collapsed - a coincidence, sure, but not a smoking gun

Also, there was very little debris at the site of the Pentagon compared to every other plane crash site I have seen photographs of,

Actually, crashed airliners disintegrate all the time - seeing a couple of photos that may or may not confirm you biases doth not evidence make

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...igators-says-jet-disintegrated-on-impact.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html?iref=24hours

Bit_pattern, you claim all CCTV in the vicinity has been released, but there was at least a gas station and a hotel who had camera's that would of captured what happened to the Pentagon that day, according to those who were working at the time, the FBI arrived within minutes (before they could even review the footage themselves) and confiscated the tapes. Has this footage been released without me being aware? If it has, then it should clearly show a plane hitting the Pentagon and clear up any confusion.

Yes, it was released in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

I merely responded to that question, and it is only after part of my response was pretty much ridiculed that I have continued to comment.

That's because your response is ridiculous. I've seen Rick engage in the Pentagon debate numerous times, people get kind of sick of debunking the same crap over and over in the same thread.

I dont mean to be a prick about it - you're a smart guy, I've known you here for many years, I respect your intelligence but... I jsut wish you'd apply the same critical scepticism to the sources you rely on as you do the official story.

I used to buy into this crap myself. The thing that made me start to think was when I started engaging in the climate change debate. I realised that the denier conspiracies were ludicrous and the more I looked into it and argued the science the more I started to see correlation with the way deniers distort evidence and the stories I'd been led to believe about 9/11. It made me start to question my own beliefs and to start critically challenging the stuff I'd accepted because I was biased towards believing that the nefarious powers that would could and would be capable of such a thing. The capability side of it I can still accept that it's not outside the realm of believability - but where the whole thing departs the realm of believability is the quality of the evidence provided.

 

[spacejunk]

The thing about so many conspiracy theories (as we know them today) is that they distract us from the real conspiracies in our world.
The corruption and horror that is out in the open.
I was pretty enthralled by a lot of the 9/11 stuff too - and I'm still not entirely convinced either way, but I think if it were an 'inside job', it was much more covert than any of the alternative theories suggest.

But like most "conspiracy theories", we'll probably never know for sure - and the conversation will go around and around for generations. But then again - who knows? All we have to go off with the Kennedy assassination is a home video and Polaroid photos, some dubious witness testimony and government investigations, and a whole lot of bureaucracy and paperwork to research.

In this - the information age - who knows what may come to light?

But again - even if a "smoking gun" reveals itself; who are we to believe anything we're told anyway?
Fuck, I mean Fox News were reporting a few years back that Elvis Presley is still alive. The King is dead - long live the King!

 

[drug_mentor]

Like, say, body part? If it was a missile then WTF happened to the plane full of real people that would otherwise have vanished off the face of the planet?

I don't have a precise answer to that, however I don't think it would be difficult for the Government to have made them disappear in any number of ways, I do concede that pretty much any scenario in which they did that without just crashing the plane does seem to be going to pointless effort.

With fallacious reasoning like that you can prove pretty much anything. Take climate change - if the conspiracy is so big that all of the scientists are in on it then the evidence is worthless because it is so big the evidence is being made up by those involved.

There is a bit of a difference, I was arguing a possibility for something that would require little effort, like attaching some plane pieces to a missile, this hardly requires effort on any scale close to controlling and censoring all the evidence about an issue in the whole world.

Documented by whom?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

I am aware he had his licences but even your source seems to acknowledge that a month prior to 911 he couldn't rent a Cessna 172 due to poor flying skills. I can't explain how he got his licences, but it would seem to me that if the CIA or some other secretive Government agency was going to use someone for this type of false flag operation that securing piloting licences for said operative would be one of the more straight forward elements of the conspiracy.

I have seen more than a handful of experienced pilots claim they couldn't perform the manoeuvre that Hanjour did, even if you can argue that he was a competent pilot, when skilled pilots could not do what he allegedly did something doesn't add up. Russ Wittenburg, a commercial and airforce pilot with experience flying the type of aircraft in question said; "[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall.", "The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."

Also, for the damage the Pentagon sustained the plane would of had to penetrate 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, despite the fact the plane is made from lightweight materials. It makes no sense that the lightweight nose of the plane penetrated all these walls, yet the engine on each wing, which were 6 tonnes of steel and titanium each, did not seem to penetrate the walls.

It would be good if you could apply the same level of scepticism to the "documented" sources you rely on as you do to the "official" version of events

Building 7: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Thermite: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/

I will concede the evidence for Thermite seems to be less strong than I thought. It does seem kind of funny though, that on one hand you rely on NIST as a source, but the thermite source references at least one prior attempt by NIST to discredit conspiracy theories by using misleading evidence. The NIST source claims that tower 7 would of fallen even without the structural damage, purely cause of the fire, I don't believe that. No other steel structured buildings have totally collapsed from fire yet they would have you believe that it happened three times in one day.

Passport: Apparently a lot of debris from the plane was found on th

e street before the towers collapsed - a coincidence, sure, but not a smoking gun

I see this as a huge contradiction, the plane blew up in an inferno so hot that it caused steel to melt but an object from inside the plane, that was made with paper, a material quite susceptible to combustion, made it out unharmed!? Personally, that is one thing that I just cannot believe and it is clear to me that the passport was planted. You can't have it both ways, this fire was so hot and out of control that it brought down the World Trade Centres but not intense enough to decimate a fucking passport. A few pieces from the planes exterior making it out onto the street relatively unscathed is a far cry from a piece of paper from inside the plane making it onto the street I am afraid.

Actually, crashed airliners disintegrate all the time - seeing a couple of photos that may or may not confirm you biases doth not evidence make

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...igators-says-jet-disintegrated-on-impact.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html?iref=24hours

I can admit that after looking up photos of both the crashes you cited that there was less debris left than that of other plane crashes I have seen. I still feel like there is considerably more debris at both those sites than there was at the Pentagon.

Yes, it was released in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

I watched that video and honestly did not see the part where a plane hit the Pentagon. I wasn't sure which camera to look at and didn't feel like repeatedly rewatching a 5 minute video of poor quality to see if I could pick it up. Do you happen to know at which point in time and/or on which camera the impact is captured clearly?

That's because your response is ridiculous. I've seen Rick engage in the Pentagon debate numerous times, people get kind of sick of debunking the same crap over and over in the same thread.

I dont mean to be a prick about it - you're a smart guy, I've known you here for many years, I respect your intelligence but... I jsut wish you'd apply the same critical scepticism to the sources you rely on as you do the official story.

Maybe this has been addressed in the over forty pages of this thread before, I only recently started posting in CE&P and didn't realise it was a pre requisite that I had to read all forty pages before I could respond to the question posed by Priesttheycalledhim.

Just because I see things differently to you does not make my response or my point of view ridiculous, frankly, I think the same thing regarding your point of view in relation to a passport making it into the street and jet fuel burning hot enough to melt steel, but I don't feel the need to get condescending about it.

You are correct that I should have applied more critical skepticism to some sources that helped shape my opinion, in future that is something I will have to watch out for. However, I feel like a lot of questions remain unanswered and really, the onus is on those pushing the official story to prove that is what happened. I am not saying anything specific happened, I am calling into question the credibility and authenticity of the official account.

I used to buy into this crap myself. The thing that made me start to think was when I started engaging in the climate change debate. I realised that the denier conspiracies were ludicrous and the more I looked into it and argued the science the more I started to see correlation with the way deniers distort evidence and the stories I'd been led to believe about 9/11. It made me start to question my own beliefs and to start critically challenging the stuff I'd accepted because I was biased towards believing that the nefarious powers that would could and would be capable of such a thing. The capability side of it I can still accept that it's not outside the realm of believability - but where the whole thing departs the realm of believability is the quality of the evidence provided.

You can certainly discredit the quality of a lot of the evidence by conspiracy theorists, but equally you can on the official story. There are too many convenient coincidences and other things that just don't add up. I don't think it has been sufficiently explained how a kerosene fire could cause numerous steel structured buildings to collapse at almost free fall speed. I don't think it was some coincidence that NORAD was playing war games that day. There were many eyewitness accounts of bombs going off in all the World Trade Centre's prior to their collapse. The list goes on and on.

At the end of the day, I don't care what anybody else believes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I didn't come into this thread with the intention or the illusion that I would change anybodies mind on this issue, I merely responded to a question.

I actually do respect your intelligence and your point of view, all I ask is that you don't mock or belittle mine. The truth is that nobody knows 100% what happened on that day, and smug as some people like to feel, they could just as easily be wrong as anybody else.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You are entitled to those views, they are not views which I share.

rofl

 

[drug_mentor]

Thanks for your utterly pointless contribution.

 

[Jabberwocky]

no problem

 

[Shrooms00087]

This is alternative theories pointless contributions are welcome! Just as long as you funnel hatred at something, you can dream about anything.

 

[rickolasnice]

kk just quickly (again.. don't frequent bluelight as much as i once did.. i'm a busy man now )

I apologise for the way i spoke to you in my past post.. It's true what bit_pattern said.. It does get get tedious to the point of frustrating to the point of FUCK ME.. but i understand this is the first time you have been involved..

What i said still stands true though.. The evidence is out there.. you only have to step away from the conspiracy sites and look up the counter sites to realise the conspiracy sites talk sooo much shit.. To be fair i once believe in the *alternative* story until i realised there is so much more information i'm unaware of i couldn't possibly come to a worthwhile conclusion.. It's clear that you've spend a lot of time researching 9/11 from one side of the fence while completely ignoring what information is present on the other side..

I see this as a huge contradiction, the plane blew up in an inferno so hot that it caused steel to melt but an object from inside the plane, that was made with paper, a material quite susceptible to combustion, made it out unharmed!?

You can run your hand through a flame feeling little more than a slight rise in temperature.. leave that hand in the flame and it will burn.. saying a passport couldn't survive if the steel couldn't, in this case, would be like quickly passing a piece of paper through a flame (easily come out unscathed) while throwing a log on a fire (will burn to ashes).. The passport as well as other things from the plane would have been blown from the building almost instantly.. while the structure would have been exposed to hours of intense raging fires..

The initial crash and fuel fire would not have been enough to bring the twin towers down, you're right.. the fuel would have burnt too quickly to cause enough damage.. but the fuel fire was just the beginning.. just the spark, if you will.. as for it melting steel.. it didn't.. it merely had to weaken it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Anndd.. I'm sorry but that's about the best quality post you're gonna get from me right now Will probably have more time at the weekend.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

^ There are so many reasons it is not funny.

The fact that no other steel structured buildings have collapsed due to being hit by planes or a prolonged fire would be one, if I recall correctly there was one big building in Venezuela that burned for 17 hours and did not collapse. Further, if you want me to believe that jet fuel vapourised at such a high temperature that steel could melt, how in the fuck did they find the passport of one of the hijackers at ground zero? That was so obviously planted.

Actually, the theory isn't that steel would melt, but would weaken.

If you don't even know the official theory of the collapse, how can we take your criticism of it seriously?

Funny enough, speaking of steel, years before 9/11, I remember seeing a picture of a steel beam supported by heavy wooden beams in a log cabin that was consumed by fire. The picture was taken to show the effects of the fire on both. The thick heavy timbers survived. The steel beam had visibly sagged due to heat.

Also: