Ah sorry, I just realized the site uses iframes. I was trying to link to the "sources" page:

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/MarkyX/sources.html

(July 19, 2009 at 7:07 am)Tiberius Wrote: Ah sorry, I just realized the site uses iframes. I was trying to link to the "sources" page:

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/MarkyX/sources.html

Everything the 911 debunkers need to combat these idiots ... awesome ... ta!

Kyu

(July 17, 2009 at 6:43 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You do realize how easy it was to take over the planes right? They had 4-5 hijackers per plane, with weapons (and fake weapons) they managed to get aboard. Once they had access to the cockpit, they could lock the doors.

All they had to do then was turn the plane around and aim at the two largest towers in New York City.

As for your statistics, I call bullshit. I'd like to see the calculation that you obviously didn't do before you pulled that analogy out of your ass.

Finally, please explain what requirements you have to have for a plane hitting a building to be called "perfect", likewise with buildings collapsing. I can find many more videos of demolitions that are more "perfect" than what happened on that fateful day, and I also find it deeply ironic that you mention building 7 in the same sentence, given that the cause of building 7 collapsing was debris from the "perfect" collapse of the other two buildings...

I'm not arguing the take over, I'm not debating fake weapons and such, however, my question is after they hit. How convenient they fell. Buildings have been hit by objects in the past and it barely made a dent, but the biggest reach is when planned demolitions have been set forth and the buildings did not fall the first and even second go around, but take two planes and hit them wherever the hell they want and somehow like magic both fall in precision manner (not including the one that wasn't hit)....

The statistics I said was merely a figure of speech for something that should have been obvious. Again, planned and constructed demolitions have had issues in the past with taking down buildings. Explosions set in key locations and still did not take them down until the next go around. And these buildings were no where near the size and complex of the Two Towers.

---

P.S. Debris simply took down a building.....Man, you think I'm pulling numbers out of my ass.........

P.S.S. I'm not saying the "Government" was part of it or that they knew about it etc, just that there was more to it.....

The building wasn't expected to fall. The idea was to hit them from the side and knock them over. That failed. The building fell when the center support beams got weak from the intense heat. They could now longer support the tremendous weight and collasped downward with the force from the top pushing the building down. The building didn't collaspe from the bottom, which is what would of happened ahd they placed charges there. Yes, this did surprise the engineers, but that doesn't surprise me having to work with them.

So pretty much just chalk it up to a bad design flow......????

I'm not going to spend much time defending my stance on the buildings. I've seen more than enough evidence to "Question" it's fall. Again, demolitions have failed numerous times in the past in taking a building down (which was in a controlled and calculated environment), but two planes simply hitting them what ever spot came the closest not only took one, but both down. Yeah, sounds reasonable......... With one, I might be able to claim pure luck on their part and bad for the structure, but both in almost the exact same manner?? I don't have that much "Faith"....

(July 19, 2009 at 6:04 pm)Samson Wrote: So pretty much just chalk it up to a bad design flow......????

I'm not going to spend much time defending my stance on the buildings. I've seen more than enough evidence to "Question" it's fall. Again, demolitions have failed numerous times in the past in taking a building down (which was in a controlled and calculated environment), but two planes simply hitting them what ever spot came the closest not only took one, but both down. Yeah, sounds reasonable......... With one, I might be able to claim pure luck on their part and bad for the structure, but both in almost the exact same manner?? I don't have that much "Faith"....

Two identical buildings, two identical plane crashes, two indentical results. Doesn't require faith.

Let's presume that the planes didn't cause the buildings to fall. What are the other options?

Bombs or demolition explosives? If they could simply plant these explosives to take the buildings down, why bother with the planes? Why wait 55 and 100 minutess after the planes hit the buildings?

Wouldn't a plan like that involve a lot more people?

Quote:Two identical buildings, two identical plane crashes, two identical results. Doesn't require faith.

That statement in untrue. There can not be two identical plane crashes, and we know for a fact that the two buildings were hit in distinctively different ways. No one has talked about the third building, the pictures of cut supports, the liquid metal pouring out of the tower before it collapsed... The bigger picture...

To Adrian, I give as much credit to 9/11 debunkers as I do to 9/11 truthers. Well, almost as much credit. It is all hearsay about a very complex and confusing event. I don't want to read other peoples raving bias, and then consider myself learned. And I mean that one way or another, 9/11 truth, or 9/11-happened-like-we-have-been-told... I try to come to my own conclusions, as I think it is more valuable.

And remember, I only try to make claims I can support. If you read the official 9/11 Omission Report, you will see that it is not possible for that to be the real story. Literally not possible. So by stating that we are being lied to, and leaving it at that, I feel I cannot possibly be wrong. I have a bunch of ideas about what could have happened, and about what I think did not happen... But those are ideas, theories...
It's the Lucitania. Or the USS Cole. And what was that one we let the isrealies shoot up? Within history, 9/11 fits right in its place.

-Pip

Heh, I'm amused when people point to the Iraq war as proof of a conspiracy. Just because they conspired about one thing does not mean they conspired about another. That's not proof of anything. And honestly, as much as Bush tries to cover up what happened with Iraq, he couldn't. We know the lies told, maybe not to the full extent, but we know. Yet with 9/11 it's just a conspiracy theory backed up by no substantial evidence. You think a conspiracy like that could be pulled off, a conspiracy involving the worst terrorist attack in our history and it could be covered up? Use your brains people.

Eilonnwy....I'm sorry, but for me personally, Pearl Harbor was by far the worst "Terrorist" attack in our history. As far as cost goes, I'm sure the Trade Centers was much more.

Yes, I understand that one was a military base, and one was civilians. I believe it was worse on that point, but for an over all, the attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a World War, and the other gave an excuse for a bullshit war....