|
|
"Were explosives used to bring down the buildings?"
Perhaps.... it was that big ass airplane that flew into it?
--
I do have my wonders though, I'd rather view the movie before making any judgments on the matter... My all time favorite is when Rumsfeld accidentally said 'missile' when he was shooting for 'airplane'.
A "big ass" airplane? The building was designed to have a Boeing 747 hit it which is bigger than a Boeing 707 which actually hit the building and did I mention that explosives went off in the building 10 seconds before the plane actually hit? Explain why WTC 7 fell, most people don't even know about that... what about the Pentagon? Explain how the so called accused "hijacker" can make a 270 degree downward spiral to Penetrate through Pentagon airspace and make a maneuver just meters from the ground to hit the pentagon at an area where there was construction done so hardly any government officials died? How did the towers collapse at free-fall speed? Thats 8 floors per second, what could move mass out of the way so fast that it could simultaneously have all the central core columns fail? Explosives. I could go on for days explaining facts.
Firstly, No. Buildings arn't designed to take planes, thats just pure !@#$%. Secondly, You CANT design a building too take planes, especially the way the Trade Centers were built. Thirdly, they're built to withstand Earthquakes, Fourthly, Yes explosions...wait, do you think that the main structure in the inside of the building WOULDN'T make a noise as it began to crumble? And I assume your on about the small building next to the WTC? If so, well you know, there is such a thing as Debris...and you know that stuff can get pretty big and thrown at high speeds causing high damage, just a suggestion like. And yeah, The Pentagon is very suspisious, I must admit.
And right about now, I shall stops so's not too flame you or anything, Will continue a bit later on.
You have obviously never taken a course in architecture... buildings can be designed so that when one part of the building is damaged that is does not cause the entire structure to fall. WTC 7, there were fires on 2 floors and literally NO debris, the collapses of building 1, 2 & 7 all have trademarks of controlled demolitions. The 9/11 Commision Report made by the U.S. Government did not even mention WTC 7 because they could not explain how it fell. The owner of the WTC complex even admitted that it was a controlled demolition, the previous month he took out a $7,000,000,000 Insurance policy... B as in Billion. Therefore the owner of the Complex is happy and so is the U.S. Government for pulling off a false flag operation so they could invade parts of the middle east for oil which they have been wanting to do for YEARS. IT JUST MAKES SENSE PEOPLE.
AGAIN: NO DEBRIS HARDELY EVEN HIT WTC 7, there were 2 other building closer to WTC 1 & 2 which did not collapse and they alot more debris. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Just look at the video, it is a perfect controlled demolition. I have studied this for years, trust me... I know what I'm talking about.
So then, this person that admited it was all fake, then if so, why hasn't there been some huge ass 'ITS ALL FAKE' being made public, except by some fuckwits sitting around watching videos of PLANES hitting the Trade Towers, editing them, then adding some gay voice over that 'THIS IS WHERE LIKE THE DEMOLITIONS WERE PLACED TRUST ME I GOT A PhD IN SOMETHING ERM... OR WAS IT THQ I FORGET NOW'.
And okay TWO BUILDINGS COLLAPSE, and theres no debris? NO DEBRIS? What are you drunk at the current time of making this post? Seriously, even if it was controlled demolition there would be debris, EVERYTHING leaves debris from small pieces to large pieces, and I dont think the Government would of had enough time to create some incredibally strong net to wrap around the site and catch all the pieces of debris.
I'm assuming that that was the part where you fake some degree in something relevent? cool.
IT JUST MAKES SENSE PEOPLE. suuuuuuuure
I have studied this for years, trust me... I know what I'm talking about.
Uh huh. Because after all, your obviously, some million dollar architect.
I really dont know why I care so much, your countries !@#$% up to the point where you allow people to carry around weapons. So glad I'm British.
the pools of molten steel at the base of building seven are in the official report, however, they were not "officially" explained, even though the only way they could have been there was from explosives.
unless they have had deposits of molten steel there for years all along.
it really does look like they were just hoping no one would be filming building 7 
The fuel in the Jet engines would of burnt to the point of melting point of the fuel used in the braces protecting it from EARTHQUAKES. Most likely explaining the Molten.
I'm not some Architect, I'm just saying... I've looked into it alot since I heard about it being the U.S. Government in around 2005. About the Debris hitting WTC 7, there was basically none, the building was too far away from where tower 1 & 2 were to be hit.  Maybe you should actually look into before you make biased assumptions as to what happened. How come WTC 3 and 4 never collapsed? They were far, far closer to where the debris hit.
Logged
|
Author
Topic: People seriously need to get a grip. (Read 20992 times)