Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

Discussion in '9/11' started by Stndown, Jun 16, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Rickity Plumber

    Rickity Plumber Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What prompts you to insult my intelligence by stating that most people do not even know about a third building demolished on 9-11? Just because a plane never contacted WTC 7, this does not mean that your "no planes" idiotic theory is even worthy of reading your article . . . if I "put down my smart phone".
     
  2. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I say that because 'most people' CAN'T put down their cell phones long enough to stop texting their other lemming friends about some nonsense, and 'most people' DON'T even know that a third building fell that day that WASN'T hit by any plane. If that ISN'T you then, no offense.
     
  3. Rickity Plumber

    Rickity Plumber Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your tone to even those that actually knew what went on that day is demeaning.
     
  4. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, if the truth hurts then, what can I cay? If the shoe doesn't fit then, why worry about it?
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,012
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you believe in circular logic !

    In your world the absence of evidence is evidence.

    That analogy sums up your view. Also works for flat earthers.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Truth Hurts, Lies KILL
    Think about it ........

    also it is NOT simply the absence of evidence to
    prove there were hijacked airliners used as weapons,
    there is also the presents of evidence that indicates clearly
    that something is very wrong with this picture.

    The "collapse" of WTC1,2, & 7,
    the whole scene at the Pentagon ( not characteristic of an airliner crash )
    and for those who would accuse me of suddenly becoming an expert
    in airliner crash analysis, how is it that YOU so well understand that
    the alleged evidence matches up perfectly to the way an airliner crash
    should look?
     
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,012
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and the truth is this. There is overwhelming evidence that the hijacked airliners were used as weapons. That evidence is publically available and you know it exists so you are stating an outright lie claiming that there is an absence of such evidence.

    There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

    This is why the only thing you can offer is vague feelings such as claiming it is not charachteristic of an airliner crash when in fact yes it is.

    Vague feelings and impressions are not evidence. You and all the other twwofers have failed miserably to offer even the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    SO you are making a comparison between the 9/11 crashes and other crashes.

    Let us compare the characteristics of your example crashes that you are using and compare them to the characteristics of the 9/11 crashes. How many of those crashes you are using had the pilots WANTING to crash into something instead of saving the plane. Let's start with that characteristic first.

    You game?
     
  9. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for the opinion,
    This is NOT a matter of "vague feelings" this is a matter of having evidence
    and in the case of the alleged airliner hits to the Towers & Pentagon, there
    is so much about these events that prove beyond any doubt there was not
    any commercial airliner used in the attack.

    I'd like to ask you to examine your own motivation for defending
    the official story as intensely as you do, what is in it for you?
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,012
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you have only vague feelings and opinions. I have facts and evidenc eproving them to be factual. There is nothing " alleged " about the Airliners hitting the pentagon and twoers. It is proven beyond all question. You may as well argue that earth is flat than to deny those facts.

    You can name no fact or piece of evidence of any kind that there was not any commercial airliner used it is only your opinion and vague feeling.

    The official story is not an official story it is what happened and no you need to support your opinion with evidence rather than spinning.You have utterly failed to do so.
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, lets have it, what "facts" convince you beyond a reasonable doubt
    that hijacked airliners were used as weapons on 9/11/2001?
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What "facts" convince you it was explosives?
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at the pictures of the towers "collapsing"
    see the explosions? and also the fact of total destruction
    the fact is, tall buildings simply do not pulverize themselves
    into the sort of destruction that was observed on 9/11/2001
    no matter what. The magnitude of the destruction and the
    features of it like the mass quantities of pulverized material.
    make the case for controlled demolition.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That not a fact! That's you looking at a picture and making an assumption. It "looks" like an explosion to you. I want facts that back up why you think it was explosives.

    Based on what facts?! That's you opinion. You have been asked, yet never provided, examples or information to show why you have this opinion. You have been asked to show where a 208' x 208' x 1300' tube in tube skyscraper was hit by a jet, had resultant fires from that impact and stood.

    Again. Where are your comparative facts?! How do you know this is the cased for the types of buildings involved? You never present any comparative evidence that contains similar characteristics top show this to be the case. That's like me saying that ALL vehicles will burst into flames if struck from behind based on data for the Ford Pinto. You are basing your claims on generalizations when there are differences that need to taken into account.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is an often cited excuse for having the towers "collapse"
    as they did, however, skyscrapers are designed to stand, not
    fall down. Therefore in the specific design of WTC 1, 2
    there would be features that would tend to keep the structure
    together, rather than have it come apart. The manner of the
    "collapse" is worth looking at in detail, because the alleged
    mode for the destruction of the towers was that the floor
    loading was exceeded by so much that an unstoppable
    cascade failure ensued. In theory the decks were connecting
    the central core to the outer wall and because of load sharing,
    if the deck were to suddenly be removed, the outer wall and
    core would both be destabilized and thereby collapse. is it a
    total guaranteed slam-dunk to have the central core collapse
    the moment that any given deck was removed?
    and how about the uniformity of the event? the cascading collapse
    continued downward at a pace ( actually accelerating ) and did not
    jolt or halt at all but continued on with the plane of destruction being
    very near level all the way down. good trick, no?

    I stick to my earlier statement about expecting an event
    that is the result of very careful planning & preparation,
    to then be accomplished by chaotic damage & fire......
    that is some serious magic!
     
  16. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    the disinformation artists at this site and other message boards who defend the lies of the governments version everyday always end up with egg on thier faces,they never can get around that fact that there were other buildings in the area much closer and to the towers,had far more significant damage and worse fires than bld 7 did,yet they did not collapse,they have failed miserably ever since to debunk that.they can only whine and cry in defeat like they always do here.hee hee
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting thing, nobody ever answered up
    and explained what motivated them to support
    the hijacked airliners used as weapons theory.

    oh well ......
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The preponderance of the evidence.
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you do not have a super special bit, that
    closed the deal as it were, you take the quantity
    of evidence as a factor, no?
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I take the veracity of the evidence as a factor, yes.
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So when, in a taxpayer funded report
    you see "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation.... "
    you believe it totally and do not question this at all?

    People need to QUESTION EVERYTHING!

    Our "leaders" are crooks who got where they are
    by lies & fraud, and they stay rich & powerful by being crooks.

    The mainstream media = propaganda machine
    and the whole thing has become an empire that
    is controlled by a few individuals who have their
    own little exclusive club, along with the military
    industrial complex.

    Do you even believe your own eyes when you
    see "B movie" special effects presented as alleged
    NEWS on TV.

    When you are shown pix of a controlled demolition
    and told that the building collapsed because of fire.

    White is Black, up is down, slavery is freedom
    2+2=5 ...... do you see?

    The criminals are damaging our world!
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite the contrary, I did research on my own, including taking the NIST report to structural engineers and architects. I asked the opinions of engineering schools and professionals. I asked the opinion of people that work in controlled demolition.
    I read, I researched, I asked.

    et, tu?
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So in the case of the "B movie " special effects
    being presented as an airliner crash on TV,
    and there are experts who will tell you that
    it was perfectly logical for an airliner to do exactly that,
    and other experts who will tell you that its totally wrong,
    so now, how do you decide who to listen believe?

    What do YOU think?
     
  24. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The other buildings were discussed as part of the live coverage. That people don't remember things does not make it a conspiracy and, I don't know if you ever visited the WTC prior to 9/11, but those buildings were massive to say the least. The only thing the surprises me is that more buildings did not come down with them. That had to be like the epicenter of a large earthquake when those things fell.
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "large earthquake" .... have you seen the seismic data for the day?
    there are events recorded that match up with the "collapse" of
    the towers however its not as if there was a huge earthquake.
    and the feature of the short time to destroy the towers & 7
    + the fact of complete demolition, adds up to the fact that
    there had to have been some additional source of energy brought
    to bear to make it happen as it did.
     

Share This Page