Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

How did the World Trade Center buildings collapse?

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that the buildings were built to withstand aircraft impact......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    But everyone know's we went to war on false evidence already, hell the British government just downloaded their evidence from the net. No one cares!
    It means there's a lot more to it than "they staged 9/11 to start a war with Iraq". It's any issue of globalists trying to take control of multiple western nationstates. Again, if it is true.
    And what evidence about 7/7? There are eye witnesses of people who watched them do it, unless they were really dedicated MI5 agents I fail to see what conspiricy there can be.
    There is far less evidence, or at least I have heard of far less. But questions have to asked about why, with the attack on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings, the respective governments of the US and UK have been running drills that mime the actual events almost perfectly. I'd also be curious to know why the bus that blew up was the only bus to be rerouted off its normal transit course that day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So can anyone explain to me why the mass off energy in that much rubble/building falling that far, didnt cause some steel to get very hot and melt?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that the buildings were built to withstand aircraft impact......

    They weren't built to withstand big fuck off jet airliners laden with fuel being deliberately flown into them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is far less evidence, or at least I have heard of far less. But questions have to asked about why, with the attack on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings, the respective governments of the US and UK have been running drills that mime the actual events almost perfectly.

    They weren't.
    I'd also be curious to know why the bus that blew up was the only bus to be rerouted off its normal transit course that day.

    It wasn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    They weren't.
    you don't say.....?


    It wasn't.
    Quite a compelling argument you have there :chin: guess I never thought of it that way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    They weren't built to withstand big fuck off jet airliners laden with fuel being deliberately flown into them.

    Well that's not strictly true, they we're built to survive a Boeing 707 back in the 70's. There was some program awhile back that said the engineers had supposedly taken everything into account.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is far less evidence, or at least I have heard of far less. But questions have to asked about why, with the attack on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings, the respective governments of the US and UK have been running drills that mime the actual events almost perfectly. I'd also be curious to know why the bus that blew up was the only bus to be rerouted off its normal transit course that day.

    I'm not aware of any mimes of 9/11 - but I'm surprised you don't know why the government would be trialing a terrorist attack on the london transport system.

    They declared war, they've had 30 years of terrorist attacks and it's simply mind numbing obviously that if a terrorist was to attack the civilian population of london, they'd do it through the rush hour.

    Every news program identified it as an obvious target, every person down the pub knew it. The questions would be if the government HADN'T been running trials based on it.

    By the way the bus was re-routed because the tube explosions had taken place nearly an hour earlier. The whole 30 route was re-routed, as were many others. You're claiming that ONLY that bus was re-routed, so please post up a link about about that.

    It happened just round the corner from us, and many of our friends were affected or there when it happened. So at least follow the rules by providing the link to claims. Obviously the 9/11 cult is too developed to expect that, but at least we can hope that people talking about 7/7 will base their beliefs on fact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you don't say.....?

    I do say. Yes, there was an exercise, no it wasn't exactly the same as what happened. These exercises happen all the time.

    Quite a compelling argument you have there :chin: guess I never thought of it that way.

    Well, it wasn't the only bus re-routed. End of really. What more do you want me to say?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the twin towers stuff was way too convinient for the US government imo, people that lap up all the stuff that the US government have tried to explain about it are the kind of citizens they like though :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    these kind of threads just don't go anywhere because it happened too long ago and people's opinions are too polarised to accept the alternatives.....i still find it laughable that people swallow the official line unquestioningly, and then accuse other people of not having critical faculties....lol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i still find it laughable that people swallow the official line unquestioningly

    Who said that it was unquestioningly?

    Just because someone hasn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that they haven't also asked questions. They've just come to a different conclusion.

    Problem is that there isn't a ingle "killer" fact which debunks the official line. In spite ofr what some may want you to believe.

    I do think that the attack has been used by some to further their own cause, but that doesn't mean that they were behind that attack in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who said that it was unquestioningly?

    Just because someone hasn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that they haven't also asked questions. They've just come to a different conclusion.

    Problem is that there isn't a ingle "killer" fact which debunks the official line. In spite ofr what some may want you to believe.

    I do think that the attack has been used by some to further their own cause, but that doesn't mean that they were behind that attack in the first place.

    so you accept the (albeit unlikely) possibility that it was an inside job? there are actually lots of facts that don't match up with the official line, i really can't be arsed to list them all here because it's been done to death........

    one example is the official government story that WTC7 collapsed from small fires, but i've seen a video clip of larry silverstein (WTC leaseholder) admitting that WTC 7 was 'pulled' intentionally i.e. with explosives, now how does that match the official line exactly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    They weren't built to withstand big fuck off jet airliners laden with fuel being deliberately flown into them.

    Oh yes they were... Like has already been said they were built to withstand fully laiden 707s which would have had far more momentum than what actually hit them.

    The energy that caused the rubble and brought the towers down could have done that much damage to the steel, the querey is where that energy came from, it doesn't really add up to say just the planes.

    Just for the record I don't think the governement did it, I just think they skimped on the report somewhat to cover up other failings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The exact clip is in the previous thread, and plenty of people heard it as him being told by the fire service that due to structural damage the firemen were being pulled from the building - just do a search in politics to see it again.

    It's simply another fact that people can see in different ways - and no one is saying there shouldn't be discussion, but you have to accept that your interpretation of facts isn't going to be the same as other peoples.

    For me the biggest problem is the way so many people hear an offical discription of facts and then fantatically assume it can't be true (not that I'm saying your doing that) without considering whether it could be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was quite happy with the official line, until I thought it would be interesting to use an example of structural failure and went looking, when I found what I think to be flaws in the official report.

    Discussion is good, it's a shame when the only come backs people can think of are random insults really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well i get what you're saying that you can interpret stuff to suit whichever way you're coming from, in the clip i saw what the geezer said is (word for word): "......maybe the smartest decision is to pull it....."

    now to me that's pretty unambiguous but hey.....i can't see that clip btw, here's the one i'm talking about.....

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=wtc+7

    i was quite young at the time and actually believed the official line for quite a while until i looked into it further, believe me i wish i hadn't lol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who said that it was unquestioningly?

    Just because someone hasn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that they haven't also asked questions. They've just come to a different conclusion.

    Problem is that there isn't a ingle "killer" fact which debunks the official line. In spite ofr what some may want you to believe.

    I do think that the attack has been used by some to further their own cause, but that doesn't mean that they were behind that attack in the first place.

    Exactly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was quite happy with the official line, until I thought it would be interesting to use an example of structural failure and went looking, when I found what I think to be flaws in the official report.

    Discussion is good, it's a shame when the only come backs people can think of are random insults really.

    Ha ha ha! I posted a link to page which questions your pov and you dismiss it out of hand. Hypocrite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sory, that was a bit strong. I'm just sick to death of people saying that they don't believe the official line but then believing any old crap they read on prisonplanet or whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never heard of prison planet, but I'm going to make a leap of judgement and guess it's not a particularly reliable source.

    My criticism of your link was it's credibilty, I did trawl through it rather than dismissing it out of hand. I looked at it and I didn't find it to be well supported. What I have been taught to look for when assessing a 'story' is RAVEN.

    R Reliabilty/References
    A Ability to see
    V Vested interest
    E Experience (including qualifications)
    N Neutrality.

    Unfortunately at times this means I have high standards and if something is badly supported with the 9/11myths site is it doesn't cut it to my standards.

    RAVEN's great, if something does a good job in at least 3/5 I like it, if it gets to 5/5 it's got to be sus!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It means there's a lot more to it than "they staged 9/11 to start a war with Iraq". It's any issue of globalists trying to take control of multiple western nationstates. Again, if it is true.

    There is far less evidence, or at least I have heard of far less. But questions have to asked about why, with the attack on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings, the respective governments of the US and UK have been running drills that mime the actual events almost perfectly.

    Which multipule western nation states? The UK may well be following the US exactly, but we've virtually been doing that all the way since the World War. And, if I'm not mistaken we still have our own government (even if it is crap).

    Yes, both governments were planning for terrorist attacks, good, thats the sort of thing they should do, plan for the worst. We've had bombings in London for generations so the government has been planning what to do about terrorism for years.

    And, I'll stress again, there are people who were injured on the 7th of July who watched it happen, so unless the bombs were planted on the men, or they were really dedicated MI5 people, it seems like it was a suicide bombing by muslim terrorists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    They weren't built to withstand big fuck off jet airliners laden with fuel being deliberately flown into them.

    If you have reached the conclusion that the jets were deliberately flown into buildings (rather than by accident) then I assume you have critical reasoning as to WHO was flying them. If not, how can you reach the conclusion that they were deliberately flown into the buildings ? :chin:
Sign In or Register to comment.