There are thousands of 'suspicious' videos made by people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time to document an event-youtube is filled with them. Besides which just about everyone today can make high quality video with their phone. No 'plane came out of a tower after it hit. Lots of debris, yes, but no 'plane. Furthermore the exterior of the WTC towers was largely cosmetic; the critical structural bits were inside so, yes, an aeroplane, strongly built to withstand stresses and travelling close to 500 mph could easily penetrate the exterior fabric of the building. Next; do you know how long it takes to make a complex CGI film? Footage of the collisions was on our TV screens within hours of the event so your suggestion that Hollywood was involved is ludicrous when the reality is that it can take months to complete even a short sequence. http://www.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_it_take_to_make_a_CGI_film
1945; an aluminium B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State building at about 250mph. It smashed through seven (7) walls and there was very little of it left recognisable as an aeroplane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLWh8Rbp7o
well posers really should update all their worn out long ago trampled wackadoodle theories that they have not been able to prove. Not even one FFS. WOrse they cant even present a reasoned argument in support of their official wackadoodle theory. Which one do you think is real again?
exactly,you owned them.its comical they actually think an aluminum airliner can pass in and out of a steel framed high rise building and ignore how you can easily CGI a fake plane.Just ask steven spielberg.
The exterior walls were largely cosmetic? Who told you that, Dick Cheney? I took a tour there many years ago, and the tour guide pointed out that the exterior walls of the towers were called "exo skeleton", and very much part of the structure. Such design features are fairly rare, but there are other examples in the world with those features.
Video doesn't do debunking but tells us what people for or against the notion of an inside conspiracy have said or think. Sideshow attraction when I hoped for meat and potatoes.
Just a totally false/dishonest claim. [video=youtube_share;1pvEge5HPJU]http://youtu.be/1pvEge5HPJU[/video]
A totally accurate claim as they were built before any airliners were invented. Before jumping in with something stupid learn what is being discussed.
Talk about stupid, in your desperate attempt to contradict an expert, you jump in with something amazingly stupid. At least try to read what you write before posting it.
For the slow we were not discussing the WTC. That is why your post is the one beyond stupid. Your " expert " has nothing to do with the pentagon. Keep up with what was being discussed or run along
Yeah I know, airliners were not invented when the towers were built, I certainly can't keep up with that amazing fact because I'm too "slow". And the conversation started with: ... where I guess in your world WTC really stands for the Pentagon. And MY expert, you know, the one I own, really knows nothing and is probably not an expert even though he belongs to me. Do you do comedy on the side? If so, please keep your day job, just a suggestion.
Yeah I could never figure out what an airliner is, I should go back to college where they give a course on Airliner 101. Friggin amazing some of the posts I read.
The post you responded to was this one: The WTC was what was being discussed in the above post, of which, you quoted and the preceding shameful ruse has commenced.
Leslie Robertson (Reflections On The World Trade Center, NAE 2002) stated the following (from the abstract): "The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires..." "...The events of September 11 ended the lives of almost 2,900 people, many of them snuffed out by the collapse of structures designed by me. The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space..." "...The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed..." http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
Yes, the towers were designed to be robust. Alas, apparently WTC7 wasn't, as it collapsed at free fall even without an airplane strike.
No, that is a lie. It did not collapse at free fall and I've shown you the evidence, so why do you lie? Is calumny all 9/11 truth is capable of providing? Where's that common sense now? It seems you missed this little snippet of info: "At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed..." From the architect.
