200

The collapse is normal for a steel structure at 700c+
Also the structure was more like a lattice/truss where failure of one/couple of the steel could end in failure of the whole structure.

He died in 1966 and was replaced by a talenless imposter for all these years

---------

there, corrected it for you

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

macca late as usual

Thermite is an impossibility surely, they would have needed absolutely tonnes of the stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QtdPfz_faM

Is this real or was it done with controlled explosions ?!?!?!?!?!

Thermite is an impossibility surely, they would have needed absolutely tonnes of the stuff.
-----

Really ?

The official story claim fire alone was enough - so i'm guessing you dispute their claim?

Thermite, you've got to be kidding...

Though apparently thermite can be used in paint coating and stuff as heat insulation

comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 (U1661)
posted 6 minutes ago
The collapse is normal for a steel structure at 700c+
Also the structure was more like a lattice/truss where failure of one/couple of the steel could end in failure of the whole structure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If we were to drop a brick from the top of the WTC7 building at the same time of the collapse then according to the data available - they would have both fallen at near the same speed

The lack of resistance from the supporting floors is astounding.

No saying it is the case but I think you probably could hide that kind of thing if you were the CIA or and advanced agency of some sort.

..............

I give up.

You have beat me. For once stupidity will win over rationalization.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 seconds ago
No saying it is the case but I think you probably could hide that kind of thing if you were the CIA or and advanced agency of some sort.

..............

I give up.

You have beat me. For once stupidity will win over rationalization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are kidding me if you think it is an impossibility for a security agency to be incapable of hiding explosives in a building..Surely you cannot being saying that?

I'm not saying anything about fire, I don't know enough about the collapse. I do know it would take an obscene amount of thermite though, who suggested that?!

This seems to have moved on (or back to an old thread....) but my 2p on JFK...

I think people believe the conspiracy theory because the LHO scenario is improbable due to the 'magic' bullet theory. Doesn't mean it's impossible though.

My personal view is that LHO did assassinate. It was probably something that would have failed 95 times out of 100 but on that day he got the shots off and achieved what he set out to do.

It's entirely plausible - but at the extreme end of unlikely. It's also massively risky, if any one person found out, in a building full of people, the hold thing was over.

I doubt they'd have got away with just going in one night, and doing it - it would have had to happen over a few weeks.

There are obviously a lot of fantasists and credulous idiots around, who justify the scorn most people have for 'conspiracy theorists'.

Having said that, powerful people and institutions have always conspired in history and it would be naive to believe that our age is unique. We know that the US and UK governments have assassinated people, or facilitated those assassinations. In some cases (see the toppling of various Latin American governments) they were hardly dangerous figures and often more moderate than the people who replaced them. We know that there are sometimes rogue elements within security / military elites. We recently found out that the state has developed ways of eavesdropping on just about anyone they please, without democratic oversight. That was a kind of conspiracy to which thousands were party and didn't come to light until Snowdon popped up.

In that case, given the nature of the digital world and the scale of the project, it was inevitable that a whistleblower would emerge at some point. In the case of assassinations, the circle of conspirators would be much smaller and involve disciplined individuals who have been tightly vetted over years. They would also be aware of the grave consequences they'd face if they were inclined to go public.

I haven't read up on any of the big conspiracies theories we all know about. My guess would be that most of them would be random acts but probably one or two had some kind of powerful organisation behind them. Quite a lot of anti-establishment figures were blown away by single, deranged gunmen in the 60s and 70s.

You are kidding me if you think it is an impossibility for a security agency to be incapable of hiding explosives in a building..Surely you cannot being saying that?

............

I am telling you that you think someone would notice them doing it.

How long do you think it takes to prepare a building of that size for demolition?

love how the topic moved quickly to 9/11..i blame metro.

jay raises a valid point, explosives can be pretty much hidden in anything.

paintwork, computers, you name it, you can pretty much make it explode.

all joking aside, jay blew half his house away with a can of compressed air.

explosives doesnt automatically have to be red sticks of dynamite with wires coming out of it or ACME flatpacks.

We have a US Government who used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and people like Donald Rumseld to make an absolute mint and have the US in control of an absolute ton of oil.

I can fully accept a situation where a finite number of people were either brainwashed/bribed into doing their 'patriotic' duty leading up to 9/11 and helped this thing happen.

Having a bunch of people on the inside planning this leading to the very real acts of corruption in invading Iraq is a bit more believable than some terrorists with box cutters not only magically learning to fly like pros and both hit their targets and then both taking down skyscrapers.

Not to bring down a building of that size, you would need a lot.

The WTC attacks a controlled explosion? Why would someone do that....did they do it to hide the evidence of the JFK assasination and Roswell landings?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Those types of buildings are never empty though - although I guess you could fix the employment of security guards to get your own men in position. Someone would likely have noticed, and it would have taken a while to set up