Creative Speculation
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I think you mean collapsing.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)that has ever 'collapsed' like that before?
I would love to learn about it, if you could provide the name of one.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... that was ever 'demolished' with thermite? I would love to learn about it, if you could provide the name of one.
If it never happened before, it couldn't have happened on 9/11, huh. Funny how bad logic is good enough for you if it gives the 'conclusion' you want.
Do you know of a building that was designed exactly like WTC7 that suffered a seven-hour unfought fire and didn't collapse? I would love to learn about it, if you could provide the name of one.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)before 9/11 there were actually no steel-framed skyscrapers that have ever been demolished by a controlled demolition, surprisingly enough.
may or may not be true, but recalling all the videos I ever saw of known and acknowledged controlled demolitions of tall buildings I realized they were all made of concrete or steel-reinforced concrete. they were not steel-frame skyscrapers. so if what I read is true then the WTC towers could be the first modern steel-frame skyscrapers to be brought down that way.
sort of makes sense. explosives would be ideal for blasting through concrete pillars and supports.
but thermite, an incendiary commonly used by welders to cut through thick steel, may be more suited for cutting through the structural steel columns and beams found in steel-framed skyscrapers.
Civilian Uses
Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Civilian_uses
the bolded would explain the large pools of molten metal witnesses saw in the aftermath of the collapses.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)There was no melted steel, and no thermite used on 911.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)am I supposed to take your word for it?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)The tallest steel-framed building ever demolished with explosives was the 28-story J.L.Hudson Department Store in Detroit (and actually, only a small part of it was that tall). Watch this video and then try again to tell me how WTC7 was anything like this:
Even though this building was considerably shorter than WTC7, it was a major technical challenge:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store
It's fair enough to say that it's theoretically possible to demolish a 47-story building with either explosives or thermite even though neither has ever been done (and even though there it's never been demonstrated that cutting a heavy column with thermite is actually possible). However, it's intellectually irresponsible to fail to consider what either would entail, and to simply imagine that either could be done in secret, in an occupied office building, in such a way that it would look like exactly like a progressive collapse caused by loss of structural integrity.
The NIST hypothesis was formulated through quantitative, physics-based analysis by dozens of structural mechanics experts, most of whom were from private industry. The CD hypothesis was concocted using imaginary physics by people who apparently don't know anything at all about structural mechanics. The NIST hypothesis does a credible job of explaining ALL the evidence, whereas the CD hypotheses falls completely apart if all the evidence is considered. When asked to justify and substantiaate such a ludicrously implausible hypothesis as CD, the best "truthers" can do is to say, "If it looks like a CD, then it must be a CD," while ignoring that the premise is not sound and that the logical inference is not valid. "Truthers" expect people to ignore that and instead just count how many signatures Richard Gage has garnered with his disingenuous presentations.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)but it wouldn't be that hard to rig the building.
it would be done under the guise of doing renovation and repair work.
skyscrapers undergo routine repairs, maintenance and construction/renovation work done to them all the time. work crews could simply close off and evacuate each floor of the building one at a time, and no one could see or figure out what they were doing.
and no modern building, steel or concrete, has ever collapsed because of fire. the idea that building 7 was brought down by a minor office fire that was isolated to one or two floors and melted its steel columns is laughable. it wasn't a towering inferno. and in the past when buildings caught fire and became great big towering infernos on multiple dozens of floors, blazing for hours and hours on end, guess what? they still remained standing tall after the fires were put out and did not collapse.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)WTC 7 was a major fire, not fought. You lie about the fire, they burned unchecked.
High-rise buildings that did not collapse, fire were fought. No fires in 1, 2, or 7 were fought on 911.
911 truth lost this BS, but they can try harder with Bigfoot, they can use the same evidence, aka nothing.
One Meridian Plaza was evacuated because it might collapse, it was on fire, it was never was used again.
Many buildings have been totaled by fire, steel fails in fire, 911 truth lies, two facts true.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
You should do some research before spreading lies about 911. A building totaled by fire, steel...
Fire can't bend steel... fires fought keep buildings standing, but can't save them. Office fire, little office fire did this, oops, 911 truth lied, you are spreading the lie of little fires... Why
Never used again!!! Like WTC 7, but it did not fall, it was taken down, too damaged to be used again, BY FIRE. 911 truth lied.
Wow, steel fails in fire. Who knew, 911 truth has no clue.
911 truth lies, fire destroys, "ordinary" fires. 911 truth lies about fire, why did the people jump if WTC fires were small? Why does 911 truth lie? Why do you support idiotic lies.
In the 13th year of lies, 911 truth fails on fire.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)but it didn't collapse.
the Meridian Plaza was evacuated because it was on fire, genius.
not because it was in danger of collapsing.
once again, no modern building has ever collapsed due to fire.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)That claim alone totally discredits anything you have to say.
The reason fireproofing is applied to the steel beams in buildings is because they are vulnerable to collapsing. Fireproofing is no good against unfought fires.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)no modern building has ever collapsed due to fire.
what part of that do you not understand?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and you are wrong again:
At Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, on May 13, 2008, the steel-framed building of the Faculty of Architecture was destroyed by fire, presumably caused by a short circuit in a coffee machine due to a ruptured water pipe:
Looking forward to the inevitable hand waving away.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)looks like its still standing, perfectly straight up, at the end.
but thanks for disproving the official fairy tale!
...which is so easy to do, its almost sad.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)...a day after the fire was put out.
again, where is the collapse?
it doesn't even look like a steel-frame building. I don't see any exposed steel columns. a short building with only 5 or 6 floors doesn't need to be built with a steel frame anyway. it looks like a pretty flimsy structure, and yet it still stands after being gutted on all floors by an all-consuming fire.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)would break the perfect little bubble the truthers have insulated themselves in.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I normally link short videos so there's no excuse not to watch them, unless he has issues watching videos on his computer.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Delft Technology building is:
1. not a steel-frame building
2. only 5 stories high...not a high-rise or even close to it
3. all 5 floors remains standing the day after the fire
bzzzz. sorry try again.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)1 - It absolutely was steel-framed. What imaginary magic construction material do you imagine holds up all that conrete with such large spans - and survives a fire? Unicorn bones?
2 - It was 13 stories tall... not 5.
3 - Several stories of one part of the building collapsed.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Unicorn bones actually are used in many buildings in the United States thanks to the powerful Unicorn Bones Lobby or UBL.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)its actually two buildings in one. the main part of the structure is only 5 or 6 stories. the skinny part in front of the main structure is 13 stories, which is the part of the building that collapsed, and even then it was only a partial collapse of the secondary structure. and 13 stories is no high-rise. the other thing is, the 13 stories of the secondary structure is almost the same height as the main structure at 6 stories.
the most significant thing to know is that the main structure of the Delft Technology building, which was not a highrise , remained standing after the fire was put out. whereas the twin towers and building 7, on the other hand, were total collapses of high-rises where nothing remained standing.
to try to compare them reeks of desperation because they are in no way comparable.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)but not all the way to the ground like the WTCs.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)designed like WTC 1 or 2 or 7?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)> but it wouldn't be that hard to rig the building.
> it would be done under the guise of doing renovation and repair work.
I seriously doubt that you say things that absurd when you aren't talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)said the explosions happened at ground level?
So which one is it?
Oh, BTW, that's a collapse, not an explosion.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts) 
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)Educate yourself indeed.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)the Iron gate keeper? 
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)indicates a controlled demolition, but not a standard one where the structure is imploded and contained more or less into its own footprint.
speed of collapse is much too fast to be explained by pancaking floors. and I use the term collapse loosely because it is not a collapse but is being exploded from the top down at a tremendous rate of speed. what kind of force could create temperatures high enough to melt steel and reduce a modern 110-story skyscraper to a pile of dust within a matter of seconds? only thing I could think of is advanced military-grade explosives to pull off something like that. certainly not an office fire can do that.
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel via supersonic shock waves. Subsonic explosions are created by low explosives through a slower burning process known as deflagration. When caused by a man-made device such as an exploding rocket or firework, the audible component of an explosion is referred to as its "report" (which can also be used as a verb, i.e., "the rocket reported loudly upon impact".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
sounds exactly like what is taking place in the video. coincidence? I think not
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"indicates a controlled demolition, but not a standard one where the structure is imploded and contained more or less into its own footprint. "
I also think it's highly possible that the plane that crashed(or was shot down) in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit building 7. But it failed but they had to demolish it anyway to destroy certain evidence of crimes that were in the building. IMHOOC!
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)about the Pennsylvania flight. may very well be true.
I think Bdlg 7 was supposed to come down at the same time as the twin towers so the larger buildings could mask the destruction of Bldg 7. but there was a technical glitch and it failed to come down as planned. which meant that when it did come down later in the day the whole world could see Bldg 7 was an obvious CD. so then they were forced to come up with their ridiculous story of office fires as the cause of the collapse.
OOPS .
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
IronGate
(2,186 posts) 
AZCat
(8,339 posts)then that indicates you have some sort of expectation for the duration of conventional collapses (non-controlled demolition). Can you provide that expectation and an explanation of how you determined that to be an appropriate duration?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)in other words it shouldn't have collapsed at all.
pancaking floor by definition would create a decrease in acceleration (and corresponding increase in time) - a jolt or interruption - every time the pile driver hit another floor on its way down. but that is clearly not the case with the wtc buildings. in fact the buildings are actually accelerating, the same type of smooth acceleration you expect from an object in freefall with nothing below it to break its fall until it reaches the ground, with no jolts.
what happens when you hit a standard steel nail with a hammer? the fall of the hammer is interrupted and is actually stopped in its tracks when it strikes the nail. you then must lift the hammer up high above the nail and strike the nail once again, and again, and again until the nail is driven all the way into the wood. the hammer doesn't just keep falling as if the nail wasn't even there. the nail isn't just going to give way on the first strike, or even the second or third strike of the hammer.
in short the pancaking/pile driver theory is not possible under the known laws of motion and physics. its utterly absurd.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I did a simple one myself several years ago, and the collapse times I calculated were pretty close to the times reported by NIST. You shouldn't notice much of a deceleration once the collapse gets underway because the difference in mass between the falling portion and subsequent floors is quite significant. Jolts, if at all measurable in collapse initiation (good luck finding decent locations to measure from), soon become insignificant compared to the overall noise in the collapse mechanism.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)You shouldn't notice much of a deceleration once the collapse gets underway because the difference in mass between the falling portion and subsequent floors is quite significant.
that might be true if the building was made out of balsa wood and toothpicks. then maybe fire could have turned it into a pile of ashes within a matter of seconds. but 90 floors and 47 core columns made of the strongest structural steel known to man...is going to provide quite a massive amount of resistance to the alleged pile driver or falling upper block which supposedly consisted of the 10 or 20 floors above the impact zone.
Physics 101: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
hence the upper block isn't going to destroy the much more massive lower block, without first destroying itself, long before it can reach the ground. so the official explanation, is beyond ludicrous.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)It's scarily easy for the collapse to progress to completion once initiated, because the individual columns are loaded beyond their capacity by the failure of others. The math is pretty simple if you have the geometry laid out correctly and your materials modeled appropriately. Even the baseline loads calculated for the towers by NIST had some structural members (including both perimeter and core columns) with DCRs greater than 1.0.
Your "Physics 101" claim isn't going to do much good if you don't allow for all the relevant forces. Neglecting gravity is going to cause problems in your model, because that's the reason the falling mass doesn't just disappear. That mass has to go somewhere, and the dominant force acting on it is gravity, so it goes down.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)is that a joke?
I'm pretty sure the engineers and architects took that into account when they designed the wtc buildings. I don't think any competent structural engineer would fail to take the forces of gravity into account when designing any kind of structure, at least not in the first world. so you're really reaching there to put it mildly.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)The system you're describing is subject to external forces in addition to forces created by the interactions between parts of the system. The upper and lower parts of the towers are both subject to gravity, which is an external force.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)its Newton's Third Law, and well established science taught in every science classroom in the country. look it up if have to. I'm pretty sure Sir Newton took the forces of gravity into account when he discovered it.
please show me a real world example or experiment where one object can completely destroy another object made of the same material and mass, using the force of gravity alone, without destroying itself in the process, while falling at the same rate of speed of the twin towers. with smooth acceleration all the way through, without jolts or interruptions.
would be incredible if you could show us something like that. you would get the Nobel Prize for proving Mr. Newton wrong.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Your application of that particular law, however, is not appropriate. Neither is your strawman in the second paragraph.
I do recommend, though, if you are trying to convince people of something you should probably stick to terms and concepts with which you are familiar. Your description of the collapse of the towers indicates you are not as familiar with basic physics as you might think. Terms like "speed" and "acceleration" have specific meanings, and you've managed to jumble them up into an incoherent mess. This is not uncommon for laypeople, but is an excellent example why some discussions aren't meant to include everyone. Perhaps you should just leave this to the experienced professionals?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)is a strawman is in your universe? I don't know where you are from, but here on earth science is conducted with real world testing and experiments not just theories and ridiculous claims. it can't be called science if you can't prove it.
This is science:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This is non-scientific hocus pocus voodoo aka the NIST report:
NIST official FAQs
22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
See the difference?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)However, there is a world of difference between the paragraph I referenced and an accurate description of the collapses. That paragraph is a strawman, because it asks for a "real world example or experiment" supposedly with the purpose of validating the science behind the collapses by example, but the description is incorrect and the idea itself depends on an understanding of the science that is wholly lacking. It is not necessary to have witnessed a prior event that matches the characteristics of the event in question in order for us to understand the behavior.
Again, perhaps this should be left to experienced professionals. Engineering through Google isn't sufficient for the task, at least in your case.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)an 'experienced professional?'
you may need to take a few remedial high school science classes before you can claim such a lofty title. just a friendly suggestion.
...still waiting on that real world example Mr. Experienced Professional *crickets*
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)8 days later, nothing but crickets.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)No wonder you're so confused about the collapses.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I'm not the one, however, making mistakes about fundamental physics concepts. That would be you, a couple of posts above this one.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)I ask you for a real world example to back up and prove your ludicrous claims.
You choose to keep blowing hot air.
Do you not understand the question? Let me repeat it for you.
Try reading it slowly this time, maybe that will help.
please show me a real world example or experiment where one object can completely destroy another object made of the same material and mass, using the force of gravity alone, without destroying itself in the process, while falling at the same rate of speed of the twin towers. with smooth acceleration all the way through, without jolts or interruptions.
Failing that, try enrolling in an Introduction to Physics course at your local community college. Maybe they could help you to finally grasp and comprehend this simple request , and perhaps explain to you how Newton's Laws of Motion works. Then get back to me and let me know if you learned anything. It's not rocket science (but apparently for you it is).
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Repeating it isn't going to make it any better. Now that you've correctly identified the offending paragraph, can you identify the errors it contains?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Have you had any luck finding them? It should be trivial for anyone with appropriate experience and training. Maybe that's just not you.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Whether or not you know it, you are. But we know you'll never admit to it.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)It is you and your cohorts who are in error. I have substantial arguments on my side, while all your side has is arguments from incredulity and poorly-supported technical arguments that are easily dismissed by anyone with a grasp of physics. This has been demonstrated time and time again on the internet and in real life. If you can't see it by now then you never will, and I feel sorry for you.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)But it's still wrong! I don't however feel sorry for you. You fall for what ever unfounded speculation idiots and hacks make up over eye witnesses all you want. The science still stands! Molten steel! Speed of collapse. Symmetry of collapse, byproducts of thermitic reactions and official coverups and much much more say you're wrong. No one has satisfactorily solved these issues. So we shall continue to disagree on this matter.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)However, I have performed calculations myself that confirm my conclusions, and they are far more robust than those performed by the truth movement. Official coverups of political issues aside, the collapses were mostly as described in the NIST reports. Both the duration of the collapses and the so-called symmetry are well within the limits of expected behavior for natural collapses. It isn't my fault that a whole collection of uninformed laypeople think they know better than the professionals.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"I have performed calculations myself that confirm my conclusions, and they are far more robust than those performed by the truth movement."
well sure you have. Damn, That's too funny! Thanks. I needed that.
" Both the duration of the collapses and the so-called symmetry are well within the limits of expected behavior for natural collapses."
What natural collapse do you speak of BTW? Cite me one please where a steel framed hirise completely collapsed to ground.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)You're making the same mistake as gyroscope, that an event needs to have a similar predecessor in order to be understood. I suggest you read up on examples like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which had no predecessor but was still able to be analyzed and understood by engineers.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)vs over two thousand architects & engineers that dissagree with you. 
Yep! I'm with them.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)And if we're counting numbers I'm afraid you're a bit short. Regardless, the arguments put forth by whatever number of "engineers" supporting your cause are considered specious by actual professionals.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I can show you the list.
Might we see your list?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And over 150,00 registered architects.
You really want to tout numbers?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)have voiced their support of the official line? maybe 5?
how many engineers? show me the list. Or their written support? The evidence?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Why would they?
Same with architects and engineers having to vocally support the NIST findings.
Why would they have to?
When the answer is right, they don't have to say anything.
In fact, the 2 million architects and engineers that HAVEN'T joined this silly group is ample evidence of their support of the NIST findings.
Just because a few cranks are out there doesn't mean they all are.
Try again and tell us how impressive that .01 of engineers are in this silly group.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)That is less than 0.1 percent of engineers who have fallen for lies from Gage. I bet most of them don't support CD, explosives and the insanity of thermite. Where do you guys get your silent explosives for your CD fantasy?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Engineers like Tony Szamboti and Judy Wood aren't producing substantive critiques of the NIST reports, and there is a resounding silence from the remainder.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)then I think that says it all. Your 2,000 is more like 0, if we're counting people with decent skillsets.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)The was no melted steel - 911 truth made up the melted steel to fool people.
Speed of collapse, is exactly how it should collapse, 911 truth can't do physics.
Symmetry, there was no symmetry; that is math, and 911 truth can't do math. The symmetry claim is super dumbed down, and it means nothing.
Byproducts of thermite? lol, you mean thermite, not by products. You don't understand, there was no iron found, that is a byproduct of thermite, zero found at the WTC. oops
What official cover-up? You offer no evidence.
You support lies about 911, there is no disagreement, you post lies.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)That was the former excuse for "truther" nonsense. Some "truthers" that haven't kept up with "truther" BS still make that claim.
Now "truthers" make the exact opposite claim. Their "falling into its own footprint" claim was then transfered to the WTC7 collapse. You can't let that BS go to waste.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts) cpwm17
(3,829 posts)obviously
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)superbeachnut
(381 posts)13th years of no action on fantasy
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)when it recorded this video.
the mic isn't going to pick up sounds from that distance, if it was even turned on.
and there is such a thing called an incendiary which is almost silent, and which is what thermite is.
most likely, a combination of explosives and incendiaries were used to bring down these buildings.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)There were zero sounds of explosives on 911, but then 911 truth can't have the truth.
13th year for lies from 911 truth showing a building falling with the energy of E=mgh released, and they have no clue each tower energy due to gravity was like 130 2,000 pound bombs. No clue 911 truth followers fall for insane lies of explosives because they don't understand simile.
No thermite damage to any steel on 911, not one failed cult member of thermite 911 truth can show evidence of thermite; the paper by Jones was a fake conclusion because Jones lied; Jones best work is work where Christ walked in the new world. Good luck with your lies.
WovenGems
(776 posts)Why do all conspiracies require thousands of participants and no real motive for the conspiracy. A friend once said "If it isn't an act of God then it's a conspiracy". Is that what this is about?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Regardless of who's version you believe is true. There was a conspiracy! I just happen to not believe the official ridiculous CT put forward by the anti-truthers.
WovenGems
(776 posts)The minimum number of participants for this conspiracy?
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals that originated within the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States government in 1962. The proposals, which called for the Central Intelligence Agency, or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere, were rejected by the Kennedy administration.
-----------------
If Bush and Cheney were in office in 1962 (instead of Kennedy)?
No doubt they would have greenlighted this.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)Looks like some idiotic plan a 911 truth follower were make up.
Operations Northwoods did not call for killing anyone. 911 truth can't read. Do you read anything before spreading lies?
Is this indicative of why you fall for 911 truth lies.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)ABC News
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
By David Ruppe
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities...continued
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
----------------------
Operation Northwoods proves that the US government, or at least certain high level elements within it, are capable of carrying out something like 911. All they needed was the right commander in chief to sign off on it.
superbeachnut
(381 posts)Operations Northwoods proves silly plans like 911 truth followers would make up, are rejected.
You can't use Operations Northwoods for 911, UBL had no Joint Cheif of Staff - and UBL approved the murder of thousands.
You spread lies about 911, using plans not done as proof of your fantasy; but you have no evidence.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Where does it say kill, or murder anyone? I did see "Conduct funerals for mock-victims".
How does a plan not approved support your fantasy version of 911.
Looks like you and UBL think plans like this are good to do - Why do you apologize for the 19 terrorists by making up lies about 911
LOL, 911 truth logic takes a plan turned down, and use it support a plan the US government did in their fantasy version of 911. Now that is extra credit 911 truth super logic of woo
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)superbeachnut
(381 posts)19 terrorists did 911 with 4 aircraft, they only hit 75 percent of their targets.
911 truth with no evidence has failed, hitting 0 percent of their targets.
19 terrorists is not a theory, it is a fact. Not like 911 truth's idiotic inside job CD thermite claptrap.
911 truth spreads lies, their only product; in the 13th year of failure.
The plot is too complex for the 911 truth followers who spread lies for 911 truth.
911 plot.
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes
Wow, that is too complex for most people to comprehend...
A 767/757 become deadly kinetic energy weapons when flying 470 to 590 mph. Each plane on 911 had impacts equal to 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT. Like bullets with the energy of a 2,000 pound bomb.
Called steal your weapon of mass destruction - 19 terrorists used customs of how the US treats hijackings to fool the USA.
911 truth, called fraud, uses ignorance of its followers as a way to spread lies about the USA, apologize for terrorists, and like NAZIs, form a following of dumb down McVeigh like followers, chanting inside job.
911 truth lies about 911, and follower follow blindly, no clue there is no evidence for their claims.
