Conspiracy theories...

[Tricky]

So with all the 9/11 stuff being back in the news (not that it ever goes away) does anyone believe that there was no flight 77 & 93 crashes?was the pentagon hit by a bunker buster missile?was the trade centre attack "set up" by the government?personally i dont believe in conspiracies,but i know theres a big movement of people who do!

[TheWalkingDude]

If people believe that garbage then they are dumber than anyone could ever imagine. Popular Science had a whole artical on this and debunked everything the morons where trying to say. But its pretty sad that they took a poll recently and 38% of the people polled was accually starting to believe this at a college they took it at because of a professor that was teaching this kind of idiotic theorys

[p2501]

So with all the 9/11 stuff being back in the news (not that it ever goes away) does anyone believe that there was no flight 77 & 93 crashes?was the pentagon hit by a bunker buster missile?was the trade centre attack "set up" by the government?personally i dont believe in conspiracies,but i know theres a big movement of people who do!


Fans of "loose change" please line up for you complimenary chemical sterilzations.

[MinionZombie]

My view on conspiracies as a whole is that they're wishful thinking by people who mostly just flat out don't "do" organised government and are generally lacking in even basic levels of trust, or people who just refuse to let themselves accept that sometimes sh*t happens that cannot be explained (heck, if the scientific community can agree that some stuff just isn't explainable, at least not yet anyway, then why not conspiracy lovers?) ... Well, I guess there's a world of difference between those two types of people.

I believe that 9/11 happened not through a conspiracy, but by flat out bad management and the failures of various people at various levels in various departments/roles (like ignoring a passenger warning, or allowing someone aboard who has no photo in their passport) - basically, people had let their guard down completely, and when your guard is down it's only a matter of time someone catches you, and that's what happened on grand scale.

For instance, people saying the planes going into the towers were missiles and had "no windows" - from that distance you cannot SEE the damn windows, especially when the plane has a silver paintjob that's reflecting the sunlight on a blue-sky day anyway! And people saying that the towers shouldn't have collapsed or that the plane that went into the Pentagon wasn't real - have these people ever flown a massive plane into the twin towers before? No they damn well haven't, it was most likely arrogance/ignorance or not enough thought on the part of the designers of the Twin Towers (heck, there was a whole documentary shortly after on Channel 4 about why the towers came down - partly due to the type of construction methods/materials used).

Besides, the size of planes we have today weren't floating around in the 1960s...

Conspiracy theories, especially the one surrounding 9/11, is just wishful thinking in my eyes. It happened, accept it...

Of course, JFK ... 3 bullets, that quick ... from one shooter? Yeah right, that strikes me as practically illogical, and why not go for the easy kill when coming down the street, rather than away from you, sideways down the next street? ... Or maybe JFK assassinated himself with the help of the Red Dwarf crew?

[Adrenochrome]

If people believe that garbage then they are dumber than anyone could ever imagine. Popular Science had a whole artical on this and debunked everything the morons where trying to say. But its pretty sad that they took a poll recently and 38% of the people polled was accually starting to believe this at a college they took it at because of a professor that was teaching this kind of idiotic theorys

people that believe in conspiracy theories never leave their house and have their groceries delivered.
Some idiot tried to convince me that Flight 93 didn't exist. My response> Dumbass.
I've seen the crappy video of the "missle" hitting the Pentagon. How can you get "missle" out of footage that skips every second of frame?
Consipracy Theorists are what terrorists love the most. They are easy to manipulate via media and boogey-man stories. Conspiracy Theorists are the cream of the crop of the simple minded.

[LoSTBoY]

Here is a good conspiracy video called Terror Storm (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216)

It's 2 hours long, but it is quite interesting. As well as American conspiracies it shows the British conspiracy theories.

I was particuarly shocked at the Brasilian guy being shot execution style about 7 times in the head. As well as not having the heavy jacket they said he was wearing (It was a light denim jacket) they were no wires shown on his body. Also if they were dealing with a bomb suspect then they wouldn't have wrestled him to the ground before shooting him. (Also heard on the news today that the Police officers involved in this is getting a promotion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5339968.stm).)

Also the fact that Bush is passing a lot of laws that he has not voted on with the congression. Or bending laws like spying on the public without due cause.

[MikePizzoff]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

A small article ABC News did a few months before "9/11". Take a read and perhaps you'll find yourself thinking conspiracy theorists may not be as far out of their minds as you think.

[Adrenochrome]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

A small article ABC News did a few months before "9/11". Take a read and perhaps you'll find yourself thinking conspiracy theorists may not be as far out of their minds as you think.

The "drive-by media" fuels the conspiracy theorists.
ALOT of what the news media has to "report" is bullsh*t in the first place.

[MikePizzoff]

The "drive-by media" fuels the conspiracy theorists.
ALOT of what the news media has to "report" is bullsh*t in the first place.

Now you're talking like an extreme conservative.

[Adrenochrome]

Now you're talking like an extreme conservative.

Oh my, no no no, don't lump me in with those psychos!
I am Tom.

[Svengoolie]

While I doubt that the Twin Towers were brought down by the US Government and all that other bull****, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it turned out that the US military shot down Flight 93.....:confused:

[MikePizzoff]

Oh my, no no no, don't lump me in with those psychos!
I am Tom.

:lol: Be careful; they are watching!

[LoSTBoY]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

A small article ABC News did a few months before "9/11". Take a read and perhaps you'll find yourself thinking conspiracy theorists may not be as far out of their minds as you think.

I think that is mentioned in the video I linked above. It's called a False Flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag).

[LouCipherr]

While I doubt that the Twin Towers were brought down by the US Government and all that other bull****, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it turned out that the US military shot down Flight 93.....:confused:

That, I might be able to beleive, but for the love of God, don't get these people started again. We went through this for 4 pages a few months ago and it was a pretty intense debate - although it still has never been 'proven' that it was an inside job, and it never will.

Why?

'CAUSE IT WASN'T!

:p

That's it, I'm putting in a call to the Illuminati - they'll straighten you conspiracy theory peoples out. :D

LC

[EvilNed]

Yeah all that's just bull****. The best part of the conspiracies are when the people who claim they are true present facts that are easily disproven by a quick google search... And if you say that Google is unreliable, I'll tell you that I believe in google a heck of alot more than I believe in some crackpot!

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm not sure that I believe in a "conspiracy", but I have always wondered why both towers (and also one of the other, smaller building in the complex) perfectly went straight down, as if they were imploded. I can accept that the large amount of fuel burning caused the steel beams to melt, causing the top of the building to become unstable, but why didnt they topple over at the point of impact? I mean, the steel on the 80 stories below the point of impact shouldnt have been affected, wouldnt that section of the building stayed intact? It was already holding up the weight of the upper floors to begin with.

[Arcades057]

9/11 was instigated by the Crab People and carried out by the Japanese via a nuclear submarine-launched 737... with lasers. Micheal Moore's next film will be about this.

Seriously though, the only conspiracy theory I ever gave thought to was the JFK assassination. Sure, it's been proven that it was just one man, but none of the proof really proved it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hell, an X-Files episode proved it better...

But anyway... The 9/11 "conspiracy" is about as real as the moon landing "conspiracy."

[MikePizzoff]

I'm not sure that I believe in a "conspiracy", but I have always wondered why both towers (and also one of the other, smaller building in the complex) perfectly went straight down, as if they were imploded. I can accept that the large amount of fuel burning caused the steel beams to melt, causing the top of the building to become unstable, but why didnt they topple over at the point of impact? I mean, the steel on the 80 stories below the point of impact shouldnt have been affected, wouldnt that section of the building stayed intact? It was already holding up the weight of the upper floors to begin with.

Exactly! Also go ahead and conduct an interview with any architect/foreman/whatever and see what he/she says about the construction of sky-scrapers and their being built to with-stand intense fires for WEEKS.

Ask a science major how hot structural steel needs to burn before it is hot enough to bend, collapse, or melt. I believe it's somewhere between 2700 and 2900 degrees farenheit. The highest temperature jet fuel burns (I believe) between 800 and 1500 degrees.

PS - Yes, I'm crazy.

[Svengoolie]

Well...and I honestly mean no disrespect to the conspiracy theorists out there, but most of the time I gotta laugh when I hear these various theories floating around out there--especially when they have to do with the Government.

I spent almost ten years in government service, and I gotta tell ya--those theories give government employees WAY too much credit in the brains department. Hell, I knew Deputies with the Sheriff's Office that literally couldn't read or write!

Is the stuff we hear in the media bull****? Sure it is. Alot of it is. But, it's not because the government is manipulating us towards a certain agenda--most of the time, the "official" report of what happened is bull**** because it's just a case of government employees covering up how they screwed up.

[p2501]

Exactly! Also go ahead and conduct an interview with any architect/foreman/whatever and see what he/she says about the construction of sky-scrapers and their being built to with-stand intense fires for WEEKS.

Ask a science major how hot structural steel needs to burn before it is hot enough to bend, collapse, or melt. I believe it's somewhere between 2700 and 2900 degrees farenheit. The highest temperature jet fuel burns (I believe) between 800 and 1500 degrees.

PS - Yes, I'm crazy.


once and done.

I don't know what you do vocationally, but i sincerely hope it doesn't involve you reasoning skills. becuase they're sadly lacking.

the buildings impoded due to three things.

contained heat.
structural insability
and time.

the planes' impact undermined the steel exoskeletal structure of the building, in additon to the inner walls. Both of these structures served as load beaing systems.

further. jet fuel depending on the mix and area conditions burns between 1500-1750 degrees as a median. but if you want to dispute that i can get a friend that works for the FAA to fact check it. that fire combined with all of the various Polycarbonate and Thermoplastic junk most offices are built out of are both high yeild and high temperature burnables. so once these objects went they further fueled the fire. A fire and series of rising temperatures that were contained by the surviving structures around it.

the fire didn't have to get hot enough to slag the steel. all it had to do was minorly weaking that structure enough to allow a plain drop on the overhead floors. at that point Newton takes over.

in all due truth the plane impacts alone would have kill the towers on a long enough time line. the fires just expedited the process.


and not your not crazy, just easily mislead. what happened at WTC 1-2 &7. bare absolutely no resembalance even in passing to a staged implosion. You can ask anyone that does it for a living, or has worked with high yeild explosives.



Further if anyone starts bringing up Tower 7, rest assured i'll find you and neuter you.


I'm not sure that I believe in a "conspiracy", but I have always wondered why both towers (and also one of the other, smaller building in the complex) perfectly went straight down, as if they were imploded.

P2501 says:GRAVITY

I can accept that the large amount of fuel burning caused the steel beams to melt, causing the top of the building to become unstable, but why didnt they topple over at the point of impact? I mean, the steel on the 80 stories below the point of impact shouldnt have been affected, wouldnt that section of the building stayed intact? It was already holding up the weight of the upper floors to begin with.



no disrespect intended, but a basic manual on real world physics answers all of this. and may include useful pictures.

[axlish]

I'm not sure that I believe in a "conspiracy", but I have always wondered why both towers (and also one of the other, smaller building in the complex) perfectly went straight down, as if they were imploded. I can accept that the large amount of fuel burning caused the steel beams to melt, causing the top of the building to become unstable, but why didnt they topple over at the point of impact? I mean, the steel on the 80 stories below the point of impact shouldnt have been affected, wouldnt that section of the building stayed intact? It was already holding up the weight of the upper floors to begin with.

The floors began to buckle, and then bagan caving in on themselves thus going straight down. Those top 20 or so stories were not inclined to tip over.

"THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.





Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.""
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

[p2501]

nicely done.

[MinionZombie]

Or go to Maddox's site, he did a good rant on why there is no 9/11 conspiracy ... and linked to a whole host of incredibly in-depth of nerdy-knowledge websites disproving a heck of a lot wrong with the conspiracy theory ... as well as that stupid "documentary" *cough* yet another Michael Moore rip off *cough*...

[Chakobsa]

I'm not sure that I believe in a "conspiracy", but I have always wondered why both towers (and also one of the other, smaller building in the complex) perfectly went straight down, as if they were imploded. I can accept that the large amount of fuel burning caused the steel beams to melt, causing the top of the building to become unstable, but why didnt they topple over at the point of impact? I mean, the steel on the 80 stories below the point of impact shouldnt have been affected, wouldnt that section of the building stayed intact? It was already holding up the weight of the upper floors to begin with.
This link is worth a look, Philly SWAT.:) interesting stuff.
www.popularmechanics.com/science/defence/1227842.html
It never ceases to amaze me how fast the tinfoil beannie brigade emerged after the atrocity,each with a more fanciful tale than the next, that clown David Icke was pretty fast of the mark if I recall.
It's ironic that what was once the preserve of a wild eyed few, who circulated their ideas in samizdat publications with a tiny readership is now so mainstream, the irony lies in the fact that never before have so many people had so much access to information. The sum of human knowledge is literally at our fingertips and yet it seems that the more information we have the less able we are to step back and critically evaluate it.
But then it's always been easier to get swept along by popular bogey men and let the mob think for you, it's a dangerous road to take, in the twentieth century the idea of a global Zionist conspiracy lead the world into the darkest depths of the human soul, even today people in the Middle East are taught that bull**** like the Blood libel and the sacrifice of gentiles is common place.
Conspiracy theories? approach with caution and arm yourself with Occam's razor.
Axlish beat me to it with that link, definately worth a look.(Edited thanks to my slow,sausage finger typing.)

[Arcades057]

All this has given me a great idea...

There were safety deposit boxes and strong boxes in the basement of one of the towers, right? So, let's say one of these boxes contained something of... great significance... to our gubbment! Someone comes to the decision that these items must be removed from the public sphere without causing any suspicions as to their whereabouts. What is the item? Who comes to the decision? Well, I'll have to find out as I write a new story about this for the fiction section! :D

Thanks to the originator of this thread, you've kicked my creativity on from a long hiatus.

[DeadJonas190]

One way to prove who is right and who is wrong would be to recreate the event (without real people in the buildings obviously), but that would cost too much unless it could be recreated on a smaller scale.

People can argue the science behind almost anything and there will always be somebody out there who claims they can prove them wrong as scientific findings, which are thought to be an absolute,are often found to be flawed and wrong due to some unforseen variable.

Remember, not too long ago people had proof that the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe with the solar system revolving around it.

[Chakobsa]

One way to prove who is right and who is wrong would be to recreate the event (without real people in the buildings obviously), but that would cost too much unless it could be recreated on a smaller scale.

People can argue the science behind almost anything and there will always be somebody out there who claims they can prove them wrong as scientific findings, which are thought to be an absolute,are often found to be flawed and wrong due to some unforseen variable.

Remember, not too long ago people had proof that the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe with the solar system revolving around it.
What do you mean by "proof"? Some, but not all people belived those things to be true. I could offer "proof" for many arguements and observations, this does not make them true or verifiable by any stretch of the imagination.
A lot of what people take for "fact" is actually faith.
Many of our most cherished notions about ourselves and the world we find ourselves in are constructs based on faith and little else.
One of the defining memes of our time is that of shadowy conspiracies lurking everywhere, a surfeit of easily accessed but poorly evaluated and assimilated knowledge may be partly to blame for this. Whatever. It seems to me that people are more and more willing to abdicate the responsibility to think for themselves, instead they open the door to the lazy, the half baked and the downright stupid.
BTW, this wasn't aimed at you DeadJonas, I just used your post as a handy way to state that proof of a thing is not the same as a thing being true.
Btw, as to the first part of your post, I''ll bet that if you looked you could probably find computer models of the catastrophe that would show how the crashed planes caused the structure of the towers to fail.

[p2501]

All this has given me a great idea...

There were safety deposit boxes and strong boxes in the basement of one of the towers, right? So, let's say one of these boxes contained something of... great significance... to our gubbment! Someone comes to the decision that these items must be removed from the public sphere without causing any suspicions as to their whereabouts. What is the item? Who comes to the decision? Well, I'll have to find out as I write a new story about this for the fiction section! :D

Thanks to the originator of this thread, you've kicked my creativity on from a long hiatus.

I'll go you one better. the Wolrd trade center was actually built on top of that warehouse from the end of Indiana jones.

Osama was secretly trying to destroy the Ark of the covenant!

[Adrenochrome]

I'll go you one better. the Wolrd trade center was actually built on top of that warehouse from the end of Indiana jones.

Osama was secretly trying to destroy the Ark of the covenant!

oh, I heard from Abe Lincoln and Karl Malden that the Hindenburg (LZ-129) crashed into both buildings. They say it was pioted by the Teletubbies.

(I mean no disrespect to anything or anyone)

[MinionZombie]

I wonder if the Twin Towers disaster will eventually find some humour? You know what they say, laugh at tragedy to deal with it ... and it was like that South Park episode when AIDs was "finally funny" ... and then came the incredibly catchy "Lease" jingle in Team America...

Although I don't know what sort of humour would be attached to such a thing, perhaps in a similar realm to what we have with WW2 - which isn't exactly humorous, but you know the one about Hitler only having one ball? ...

Likewise, no disrespect intended, merely thinking outloud towards the future or something...

[Adrenochrome]

I wonder if the Twin Towers disaster will eventually find some humour? You know what they say, laugh at tragedy to deal with it ... and it was like that South Park episode when AIDs was "finally funny" ... and then came the incredibly catchy "Lease" jingle in Team America...

Although I don't know what sort of humour would be attached to such a thing, perhaps in a similar realm to what we have with WW2 - which isn't exactly humorous, but you know the one about Hitler only having one ball? ...

Likewise, no disrespect intended, merely thinking outloud towards the future or something...

Humor and laughter is the best way to overcome anything negative.

[p2501]

oh, I heard from Abe Lincoln and Karl Malden that the Hindenburg (LZ-129) crashed into both buildings. They say it was pioted by the Teletubbies.

(I mean no disrespect to anything or anyone)

that would explain alot.

[Adrenochrome]

that would explain alot.

Abe says "hi":D





*now, where did I leave that midget woman from Poltergeist?* ---- *checks pockets*

[p2501]

Abe says "hi":D





*now, where did I leave that midget woman from Poltergeist?* ---- *checks pockets*


Hola abe.

You know Abe and i share the same birthday. kinda cool.....

speaking of Zelda Rubinstein i didn't know she was from Pittsburgh.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0748289/

[Adrenochrome]

Hola abe.

You know Abe and i share the same birthday. kinda cool.....



that would be a cool forum topic. "What famous person do you share a birthday with?"

[Philly_SWAT]

Sure, it's been proven that it was just one man
Have you ever read the actual Warren Commission report about the documentation? I have read a lot of it, I checked it out from the library. It is quite long, but there is a lot that is right in there that makes it hard to understand why anyone accepts the Osawald acted alone theory. The "magic bullet" theory alone is so ludicris that it throws the conclusions of the report in serious doubt.


the buildings impoded due to three things.

contained heat.
structural insability
and time.
If this is true, wouldnt it be cheaper to implode buildings in this manner rather than paying a lot of money to high-tech enineers to come in and plant all these little charges all over to implode a building? The towers seemed to come down just as well as any engineered implosion, so why dont construction crews just set a fire on the upper floors?

[p2501]

If this is true, wouldnt it be cheaper to implode buildings in this manner rather than paying a lot of money to high-tech enineers to come in and plant all these little charges all over to implode a building? The towers seemed to come down just as well as any engineered implosion, so why dont construction crews just set a fire on the upper floors?

because it's an uncontrolled collapse. WTC 1&2 created a **** load of collateral damage on their way down. WTC 7 was destroyed by the fall, and a number of other buildings were badly damaged.