See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: My Questions on 9/11 WTC explosions/collapses (VANITY)
Source:
Mehitable
URL Source: http://Mehitable
Published: Dec 23, 2005
Author: Mehitable
Post Date: 2005-12-23 10:57:26 by mehitable
Keywords: explosions/collapses, Questions, (VANITY)
Views: 835
Comments: 36
I was wondering if any of you good folks can point me to articles or information about the WTC collapse. Like most people I just took it at face value that the planes flew into the buildings, exploded, and the towers collapsed. I'm usually not gullible, but heck, I saw it with my own eyes and I'm not an engineer or physicist or explosions expert. Now I'm starting to wonder about just how a plane could fly into a skyscraper like that and make the whole thing collapse. Not just once, but twice. How is that possible? I would expect that there'd be one hell of a hole but we have tornados that hit skyscrapers and don't knock the whole thing down. I'm not some kind of crank who believes in conspiracies around every corner, but sometimes they actually do happen. I'm wondering what folks think are the best sites for info? I'm aware of Awoken but are there any others? Also, does anyone have any info on other incidents of planes flying into buildings/structures and what happened as a result? Have any computer simulations of 9/11 been done with the appropriate simulation for planes, fuel, building construction, etc., to see exactly what the most likely result of such a collision would be - scientifically speaking? Either those buildings were badly designed, which is possible, I guess - but they did withstand earlier bombings, didn't they - or there's something fishy here. I think enough time has elapsed from the grief of 9/11 to start looking at this objectively.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
#20. To: mehitable (#0)
I always tell people of Jimmy Walter's offer of one million dolars to anyone who can prove the towers were not brought down by explosives. Go Here: http://Reopen911.org Then there is the paper written by Professor Steven Jones of the BYU physics department that proves WTC 7 collapsed from explosives pre-positioned prior to 9-11. Go Here: http://www.physics.b yu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html There is a website dedicated to WTC building 7 which never was hit by a plane but collapsed in 6.6 seconds which was just .6 seconds longer than the 6 seconds it would have taken for a 47 story building to collapse in free fall. Go Here: http://www.wtc7.net
I've started looking over some of these sites, again - thank you all. It appears pretty obvious that the govt investigation into 9/11 was the 21th century version of the Warren Commission. What the govt never seems to take into consideration is that our own bias and emotions (for most people) is automatically in favor of our govt. Who wants to believe that their govt is totally corrupt, run by evil men and women, and that we have no control over it, nor any true democracy? That's a bitter pill. However, when the govt goes through such extraordinary lengths to cover up information, prevent investigation, stop witnesses from testifying, hides evidence - one has to look at the govt as the prime suspect. What other conclusion could be drawn? If the govt were not so eager to cover things up and lie to us, they could have simply presented the perfectly plausible idea that more Islamic terrorists had hidden explosives within the WTC and, timed with the plane hits, detonated them. This would have given them an entirely plausible reason for the explosions and the behavior of the buildings without having to cover anything up. But such a simple (if untrue) explanation doesn't seem to occur to these folks....
then they would've had to explain how the arab terrorists got such strong access to the building. The lights in the building were off either the night before or 2-3 nights before the event. This dimming of the lights like this had never happened since the building was first opened in early 1970's. there was evidently a massive operation to plant bombs. They didn't want to point people's attention to that. Remember, reality is created by repeating those truths on tv. A simple story sells. It doesn't matter if there are holes in the story. get people thinking too much and you can't fool them. doesn't matter if a small percentage of the population sees through their explanations. Dissent is to be squelched.
hmmm...I guess it depends on what the simplest story is. See, if I were going to lie, I would tell a lie as close to the truth as possible as I would figure it would cover just enough of the particulars to get me by, especially if I told it with conviction (like, say...Rush Limbaugh). I would think an easier lie would be to say that Islamic terrorists snuck into the building - oops, yeah our security kind of sucks, but they snuck into the building before during Clinton's admin - and damned if they didn't plant more explosives. To me, that would have been a more logical cover-up as it would explain the physical facts of the case, but just shift the blame to Islamics, which probably 99% of the American people would accept quite readily. The only question would be the security question, and the simple answer to that is...we goofed or some variation of that. However, to try to defy physical reality and science, just asks too much of too many thinking folks. These cover-ups are usually so badly designed. They're not good liars, just vigorous.
And perhaps we may still see this lie in the future. In a related story, Austrian art commandos carry contraband to Floor Ninety-One, Tower One to build a "balcony"
There are no replies to Comment # 27. End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#22. To: Horse, everyone here (#20)
#24. To: mehitable (#22)
If the govt were not so eager to cover things up and lie to us, they could have simply presented the perfectly plausible idea that more Islamic terrorists had hidden explosives within the WTC and, timed with the plane hits, detonated them. This would have given them an entirely plausible reason for the explosions and the behavior of the buildings without having to cover anything up
#26. To: Red Jones (#24)
#27. To: mehitable (#26)
I would think an easier lie would be to say that Islamic terrorists snuck into the building
Replies to Comment # 27.