Posted on 04/19/2015 5:23:00 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
9/11 COVER-UP? The latest claim isn’t from conspiracy theorists--it’s from a former top US Senator. He says documents prove Saudi Arabia helped pull off the attacks, and that the FBI hid the truth. Shep has details:
You just have no idea.
Anyone have a facile explanation as to why the collapse of building 7 was announced on tv twenty minutes before it occurred?
I'm not here to give you a hard time regarding this. I disagree, but I'm not going to get hostile over it.
You have a 747 filled with explosives. It crashes into one of the twin towers. All it does is make a plane shaped impression on the entry side of the structure, and bury into the building.
Where's the evidence of an explosion? All it did was burn, which is exactly what a plane almost full of fuel would do.
If that 747 was full of explosives, the building would have been blown to smithereens as soon as the aircraft impacted. Neither building suffered that sort of explosion. I don't think there's a rational explanation for that other than that the aircraft simply were not filled with explosives. If you think about that for a few moments, you should see a major problem with this theory.
As for Building Seven, it was 200 feet from one of the towers that came down. It was consumed by fire. LINK
The video down toward the bottom of the page shows the building with massive flames coming out of it about half the way to the top. You can see the damage to it, and see things being blown off the building in the video.
I'm sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Once a building starts to go, if there are five to ten perhaps twenty floors over the ones that remain firm, the weight of those five floors will not evenly distribute like they did when they were structurally sound. This adds five to ten to twenty times the normal weight the sound floor would normally have to support. It just can't do it.
Pancaking is what you'll wind up with.
Imagine your home with twenty other homes dropped from 100 feet on it. Do you think it would hesitate before going flat as a pancake? I don't.
Can you fly a jet?
Could you learn to fly a jet?
People claim that too is complicated...
Lets pull it a part. How many man hours are needed?
When did they start to plan 9/11????? 1995? They had more than enough time to either train people or bring in experienced hands.... and do whatever they wanted.... hypothetically speaking.
Maybe we should ask the all time waterboarding champ....
If they have such documents, they should release them. I’m not here to defend the Saudis against firm proof. If they are guilty of conspiracy, then let the chips fall where they will. I have no problem with that.
Thanks for the mention.
Whether they did or not, all will be rectified when we nuke Mecca, as surely someday we must.
You seriously want to claim the towers and seven 'pancaked down in collapse? Really? No, the buildings were not exploded. I do not believe they were controlled demolition collapsed either, with cutting explosives. I don't know the exact method used, but the idiocy of claiming the floors pancaked in collapse, the weight of the upper dustifying the floors one after the other is shear lack of Physics comprehension ... the towers came down at near freefall speed, an impossibility for pancaking mechanical energy. That you are unable to comprehend that is likely due to some bias toward what you want to believe rather than what the evidence shows. You have accpet a lie as to WHAT happened on 911.
Landing is a bit complicated depending on when and how you are doing it.
Bringing down a building in the way that you are suggesting is very hard, takes a great deal of training and practice and still gets flubbed often enough that they always have a couple of back up plans.
You have to do a number of other things in order to weaken the building so it comes down as well. I believe a group of people knocking out support columns and taking down load bearing walls on every floor would possibly have been noticed.
You might as well be saying that hypothetically speaking the Martians brought them down with anti-gravity rays.
And it is all so needless. The fuel from a fully fueled burning plane that knocked out enough supports to cause the upper floors to begin to pancake works quite nicely.
Hypothetically speaking... they had many years to position their people, position charges.... and timers and cell phones are a dime a dozen. From there it’s just orchestration.
Hypothetically speaking..... one could start a campaign at their same level... however attack them with facts.
The greater problem is there is a huge audience prepared to buy in to the propaganda that got cooked up to get rid of Bush. Those same people gave us nObama.
The greater conspiracy was that there were democrfats and republicans who knew exactly who that muslim POS was.
He was foisted on America.
To many knew and failed to protect America.
Yes, it burned so hot that a woman was videoed waving for rescue standing in the hole left from the plane slamming into the building. Get real.
It is a fantasy to presume that building seven was prepared for controlled demolition during the raging fire. But it is also fantasy to say that the building didn’t come down at freefall speed. When you watch the video of the South tower right before collapse you see the top thirty five floors tipping off og bertical. THose rigid body floors turned to dust before reaching Manhattan. They were not ‘exploded’, yet that rigid body suddenly was not rigid. The tipping was directly over an intersection of streets which we have before and after video of and the upper thirty five floors never crashed into the intertsection, but turned to dust in mid-fall. How do you do that? Not with explosives, but I don’t know how that happens. And those thirty-five floors did not register on tremor tracings of the events, as they would had the floors slammed in to Manhattan as a rigid body, taking out the intersection and anyone near it, which didn’t happen!
You questioned my contention that there were 747s involve on 09/11. You were right to. The conventional 747 body design was not the type of aircraft involved.
I have revealed the aircraft involved below. There are links to stats about each aircraft.
It should be noted that the point I was trying to make, is that the Trade Center towers were not designed with today's larger aircraft in mind, even though I referenced the wrong aircraft design, 747 vs 757 and 767 series.
I have included 727 stats below for reference.
The 727 has a fuel capacity of around 8,000 gallons. The 757 as a fuel capacity of around 11.5 thousand. The 767 series has a fuel capacity of 16.7 to 21.1 thousand gallons.
These larger capacities for fuel are what I was concerned about, allowing more burn time and hotter fires that would be more likely to compromise the girders in the building.
That's a point I hope you understand holds up despite my error.
Thank you for the mention.
World Trade Center (WTC) tower one
American Airlines Flight 11
The Boeing 767-223ER (not a typical 474 type body design)
SEARCH RESULTS This Type of Aircraft / not the same aircraft
Capacity: 16.7 thousand to 24.1 thousand gallons of fuel
World Trade Center (WTC) tower two
United Airlines Flight 175
The Boeing 767-200 (not a typical 474 type body design)
SEARCH RESULTS This Type of Aircraft / not the same aircraft
Capacity: 16.7 thousand to 24.1 thousand gallons of fuel
Pentagon
American Airlines Flight 77
The Boeing 757-223 (not a typical 747 type body design)
SEARCH RESULTS This Type of Aircraft / not the same aircraft
Capacity: 11.2 thousand to 11.5 thousand gallons of fuel
Boeing 727
Capacity: 7.7 thousand to 8.1 thousand gallons of fuel
Make me nauseous.
I agree with your thoughts.
Do you know anything about jet fuel and how fast it burns when ignited in an unconfined space? Did you see the fireballs made from the impacts? Are you aware that the smoke coming from the towers got to the black stage, signifying that the fires were low temp burns starved for oxygen at that stage? Are you aware that firemen radioed from the upper floors that at most three hoses could extinguish the fires still burning on the involved floors, tight before the collapse of the first tower? Are you aware that there is video of controllers telling people to get back from bldg 7 because it was being brought down? Bldg seven was a controlled demolition, but the chrges which brought it fown were not planted the day it caught fire!
When I reference the situation, I’m talking about the people and government of Iraq. I am not referencing ISIS, because if we had stood up to them or even bombed them appropriately, they would be nothing but dust right now.
Obama didn’t want them stopped. Can’t blame that on Iraq, as far as that goes. Iraq did fail to live up to its mandate to defend itself.
That’s a fair argument. This ISIS thing caught the nations in the area flat footed.
Thanks for the clarification.
In a round-about way, I agree.
I think Hussein had done himself in by shooting his mouth off. He had been urging terrorists to take out the United States for years. When some did attack, he was out there on the end of the plank all ready to be had.
He wasn’t complying with terms to end the first gulf war. He wasn’t allowing inspectors in. Even the U. N. boys thought he probably had WMDs.
He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 per. It was natural to think he was either involved, financing, or contributing some way to terrorist activity.
Yes Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, and other nations in the region were protected by our actions. I agree with that. I’m not sure that was our number one objective.
After 09/11, the bill came due for Hussein shooting off his mouth. That’s my take on it.
What made Building 7 collapse?
What caused building 7 to collapse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.