When I talk about the trusses failing one by one, I am not talking about the moment the building collapsed. I am talking about the time leading up to the collapse. Let me break it down (35 minutes 'till test... lol - free time!)

1. Fire erupts on floors of building.
2. Fire dies down but is still hot enough to continue to gradually heat the metal supports (trusses, I-Beams, box-beams, etc...)
3. Metal trusses which help support the floor AND hold the outer-shell in place start to sag under heat.
4. Some trusses are exposed to more heat than others. Eventually, one of them fails after sagging low enough to snap the bolt holding it up.
5. As other places reach this same state, they too start to fail. Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses.
6. When enough of the trusses have failed, the structure no longer has the rigidity to support its own weight. The outer wall, no longer held in place by enough trusses to support the load it is bearing, folds.
7. At this point, the remaining trusses and all else SNAPS under the monstrous loads that are transferred in that split second. This is when the building starts to collapse.
8. By the time the upper 15-20 stories of building falls the 10 or so feet down to the floor underneath, the weight that the impacted floor has to support is EXPONENTIALLY greater than the static force exerted on it when the building was stationary. As a result, ALL TRUSSES and everything simply snap under the weight. Remember that the floors underneath were held up by the outer wall. Now that the outer wall has been compromised, the structure has enough trouble holding each floor up on its own, much less the force of 20 stories crashing down on it.

Anyway test time! C u all in 2 hours!

Quote from SamH :

I do seriously want out of this thread.

Oddly enough i feel exactly the same about this forum as a whole

Quote from SamH :

I refuse to believe that you haven't also seen these images, since anyone with even a tiny bit of interest in this topic would surely, at SOME point, have done a simple Google search to see if they existed or not, and would have found them straight away. I have to ask, what is your motivation for re-implying something that I'm 100% sure you know is untrue?

Boris doesn't even need to go that far. He just needs to look about a dozen or so pages back in this very thread. Where he asked that very question and was give a couple of dozen or so pictures of the plane wreckage at the crash site by myself.

Thing is neither Boris and perhaps a more vocal UK41K (or whatever he's called) haven't brought any new questions to this thread. They're both regurgitating everything that Racer XYZ NZ postulated when this thread kicked off originally. Back then every conceivable theory was highlighted, questioned in detail and summarily dismissed as total bollocks by those of us with at least half a brain cell and a vaguely rational mind. Yet you all wanna keep on having the same old argument over and over again, asking the same old questions, giving the same old answers, calling each other eejits and wondering why no one respects our point of view. I swear you guys just love the 'sport' of having a good old barny regardless of the subject matter, whether it be 9/11, religion, other racing sims, Lewis Hamilton, whatever. Yeah, you can lead a horse to water but you can't stop him from picking a fight with his own reflection.

Anyway, here's a picture of ground zero i found purely by accident a couple of days ago. It brings no evidence either way as to the nature of the perpetrators or answer any questions asked in this thread. What it does show is the frightening scale of the destruction and the huge seemingly impossible task the rescue workers and the clean up staff were faced with in the aftermath of the attack. It's an enormous picture (approx 14mb) so it's best if you right click and 'save picture as' and have a good long look at it. It may be trite to say this, but, lets not forget the human cost involved in this event both during and after, lets never forget September 11th 2001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/masona/2856005424/sizes/o/

Quote from tristancliffe :

...stuff...

I seriously cannot believe that you, with all that education and knowledge, look at those collapses and think, "Yeah, that's supposed to go like that", I just can't believe it....

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

...more stuff...

Ok...

The fire was never hot enough and was beginning to burnt out, ask any NIST official, or just read their documents about the tests done on the pieces of metal, which they selected for testing themselves.

"Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses." - Would we not see, if this was infact the case, signs of this on the exterior of the building? Would we not see the tower leaning to the side in which this support structure "gradually" failed on? There was nothing gradual in these collapses, the only thing which we can all be certain on was the gradual spreading of fire throughout the damaged floors. Anything else that happened gradually would have been visible from the exterior. Like, trusses failing and the exterior walls buckling out/in, core gradually failing would lead to the tower leaning to the weakest point.

I don't know lads, you 2 are, or atleast claim to be , more educated than me but yet you can't see what I see in the collapses. I don't think I've been led astray, I don't think I'm an easily led person. Nor do I think that there's a conspiracy in everything, like some people have suggested. The only people who I have actually talked to face to face about this and who don't agree with me, is my family, well not all but the majority of them disagree. Everyone else I show this to, friends, friends of friends, all see what I see, even though up until that point they believed terrorists did it all.


@Mazz - That's a cool image I have it a while now, it's 9300x9300 pixels, so it shows the whole WTC complex in great detail. Anyway, just want to clear up the name thing. U4IK ST8 = Euphoric State

The not-so-funny-thing is that in Europe, a majority of people do believe conspirationist theories.

What do you want to demonstrate? That WTC was a controlled demolition don't you?

So, let's assume you are right.

- how much explosive is required to pull down such a building? Professional demolition engineers say 150 tons per tower, tens thousands holes, tens kilometers wires per tower. How did they install this in the towers without anyone noticing?

- how many people are required to do the task? From the same people, hundreds...why none of them was ever noticed? Why none of them ever broke the secret?

- why did they demolish the WTC 1 and 2 from top to bottom, and the WTC 7 from bottom to top?

- why did they decide to make the top of the tower fall differently in WTC1 and 2? How did they precisely know how to place the explosives to make the top tilt toward the most damaged part in such a natural way? What an incredible scenario! It required to know long time before precisely how the plane would hit the tower, and place more explosives on that side to make the top floors collapse in that direction. Just for the sake of realism? If they had demolished the towers, don't you think they would have chosen a less risky approach, with both towers being demolished vertically....instead of making one tower tilt to add more "variety"?

- what was the goal? Two planes in the WTC+Pentagon was already a strong enough terrorist attack to justify Afghanistan war. Destroying entirely the WTC caused some large unnecessary financial problems and a worldwide economic slowdown. Stupid to harm their economic power if they planned to finance a war.

Conspiracy is absurd. Because of what it implies. I think about the famous "Protocol of Elders of Zion", a propaganda document forged more than one century ago, describing a worldwide conspiracy led by jews to dominate the world. Same problem....it was absurb because of everything it implied...million people involved, total secret, world scale intervention without any witness, harmful for jews...etc.

And this protocol is still broadly used as a valid source of information precisely in countries where guys like Thierry Meyssan are hired to spread their theories. In these countries, things are easier because of illiteracy, strong influence of religion, autoritarism needing an external enemy to focus people rage, scarce access to information. These theories do not look absurd in such environment.

But in western countries, they do. Almost forgot...this protocol announced 100 years ago that jews would cause tragedies killing thousands citizens in order to start wars. Same good old record playing again...

Quote from Juls :

- how much explosive is required to pull down such a building? Professional demolition engineers say 150 tons per tower, tens thousands holes, tens kilometers wires per tower. How did they install this in the towers without anyone noticing?

150 tons per tower? 10,000 hol ... heard of cutter charges? Wires? Ever heard of radio controlled/wireless? Did you know that "Ace El ... e 9 months prior to 9/11?

Quote :

- how many people are required to do the task? From the same people, hundreds...why none of them was ever noticed? Why none of them ever broke the secret?

Well secrets are easily kept from the masses, we've gone through that. There wouldn't actually have to be that many people involved. A few workers, over the 9 months Ace Elevators were there, could easily have time to rig the building. A few to control the events of that day, 10-20. Not that many at all.

Quote :

- why did they demolish the WTC 1 and 2 from top to bottom, and the WTC 7 from bottom to top?

Eh, isn't it obvious? The planes hit the tops of the towers, they'd hardly do a "normal" demolition on the towers.

Quote :

- why did they decide to make the top of the tower fall differently in WTC1 and 2? How did they precisely know how to place the explosives to make the top tilt toward the most damaged part in such a natural way? What an incredible scenario! It required to know long time before precisely how the plane would hit the tower, and place more explosives on that side to make the top floors collapse in that direction. Just for the sake of realism? If they had demolished the towers, don't you think they would have chosen a less risky approach, with both towers being demolished vertically....instead of making one tower tilt to add more "variety"?

I believe whoever was in control that day was obviously watching the events as it unfolded, so it didn't actual have to be known in advance where the planes would hit, just watch where the hit and start from there.

Quote :

- what was the goal? Two planes in the WTC+Pentagon was already a strong enough terrorist attack to justify Afghanistan war. Destroying entirely the WTC caused some large unnecessary financial problems and a worldwide economic slowdown. Stupid to harm their economic power if they planned to finance a war.

Well see, if you actually did some research you would know that the towers were due for a huge revamp because they were full of asbestos which hasd to be removed. Using them as part of a terrorist attack was financially cheaper, plus Larry Silverstein was in for a big payout if it was a terrorist attack, since that's what his insurance covered him for. And just if you didn't know, he tried to claim each tower was a seperate terrorist attack and wanted to claim $7mil, I think he ended up getting 3 or 4mil. Not really stupid to, in your eyes, harm their economic power because they have the Fedral Reserve who prints money whenever the US government want some, so money isn't an issue with these lads.

Quote :

Conspiracy is absurd. Because of what it implies. I think about the famous "Protocol of Elders of Zion", a propaganda document forged more than one century ago, describing a worldwide conspiracy led by jews to dominate the world. Same problem....it was absurb because of everything it implied...million people involved, total secret, world scale intervention without any witness, harmful for jews...etc.

And this protocol is still broadly used as a valid source of information precisely in countries where guys like Thierry Meyssan are hired to spread their theories. In these countries, things are easier because of illiteracy, strong influence of religion, autoritarism needing an external enemy to focus people rage, scarce access to information. These theories do not look absurd in such environment.

But in western countries, they do. Almost forgot...this protocol announced 100 years ago that jews would cause tragedies killing thousands citizens in order to start wars. Same good old record playing again...

So tell me this, do you know any secrets about the Committee of 300? The Order of the Garter? The Knights of Malta? The Club of Rome? How about the Bilderberg Group? Or the Trilateral Commission, or even the Council of Foreign Relations? Tell me, do you know these groups and what they are up to? They have alot of influential powers and nobody seems to even know they exist. It's easy to keep secrets from the public, no matter how many people we think are involved, there will always be major things being controlled that we do not know who is behind it. Don't be foolish enough to think that your local, even national or international, news is there to tell you everything which is going on in the world. They are there to tell you what the "powers that be"(ie the aforementioned groups) want you to know. Why do you think all businesses are being bought out by the big guns? They're all merging into massive corporations so they'll end up controlling everything. That's their "big idea" anyway... A moto they're very fond of - "Ordo Ab Chao" = "Order out of Chaos"

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

So tell me this, do you know any secrets about the Committee of 300? The Order of the Garter? The Knights of Malta? The Club of Rome? How about the Bilderberg Group? Or the Trilateral Commission, or even the Council of Foreign Relations? Tell me, do you know these groups and what they are up to? They have alot of influential powers and nobody seems to even know they exist. It's easy to keep secrets from the public, no matter how many people we think are involved, there will always be major things being controlled that we do not know who is behind it. Don't be foolish enough to think that your local, even national or international, news is there to tell you everything which is going on in the world. They are there to tell you what the "powers that be"(ie the aforementioned groups) want you to know. Why do you think all businesses are being bought out by the big guns? They're all merging into massive corporations so they'll end up controlling everything. That's their "big idea" anyway... A moto they're very fond of - "Ordo Ab Chao" = "Order out of Chaos"

Dude, I honestly hope that you wrote this in a euphoric state. Or that you were joking. Because if you always think like that, your mind is bordering on the paranoid, and you should look for help.

I'm leaving this discussion. I hate to think that this is driving you over the edge.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Well see, if you actually did some research you would know that the towers were due for a huge revamp because they were full of asbestos which hasd to be removed. Using them as part of a terrorist attack was financially cheaper, plus Larry Silverstein was in for a big payout if it was a terrorist attack, since that's what his insurance covered him for. And just if you didn't know, he tried to claim each tower was a seperate terrorist attack and wanted to claim $7mil, I think he ended up getting 3 or 4mil. Not really stupid to, in your eyes, harm their economic power because they have the Fedral Reserve who prints money whenever the US government want some, so money isn't an issue with these lads.

First off: $3-4 million is really nothing for buildings of that size - certainly not profit - and printing money whenever you 'want some'? Surely you must be joking now. Printing new money doesn't put more money into the system, it just decreases the value instead; you can't "make" new money out of nowhere like that.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

"Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses." - Would we not see, if this was infact the case, signs of this on the exterior of the building? Would we not see the tower leaning to the side in which this support structure "gradually" failed on? There was nothing gradual in these collapses, the only thing which we can all be certain on was the gradual spreading of fire throughout the damaged floors. Anything else that happened gradually would have been visible from the exterior. Like, trusses failing and the exterior walls buckling out/in, core gradually failing would lead to the tower leaning to the weakest point.

No, you wouldn't see the building slowly lean or anything. The fact that you say that is proof that you simply don't understand how load-bearing structures cope with abnormal stress. What happens as parts start to fail, is others take the added load. They don't get compressed, or flex when that happens - usually - and as a result, the structure doesn't show signs of what is going on. A great example would be, again, an airplane.

Metal fatigue is a term given to the wear and tear that metal undergoes during routine aircraft operation. Vibrations from lift and everything else that an aircraft encounters translate into microscopic cracks in the metal (picture bending a paper clip back and forth repeatedly). Gradually, what is happening to, say, the wing of the airplane is that, at a molecular level, the support structure is breaking down. Eventually, you get to the point where the pilot tries to do something that he's done many times prior, and the wing snaps off, and the plane crashes. Why don't they ground the plane and replace the wing before this happens? Because it takes an extensive amount of testing to see what the wear level is. You can't simply look at the wing and notice it is sagging. The same goes for these buildings. Does that help?

Quote from SamH :

I said it before, and you were there I clearly remember, that not believing in the conspiracy religion does not mean that I think the official report was adequate. You can add to that, that I also do not support the war in Iraq. Nor do I support the war in Afghanistan. Nor do I support Israel's calls for the west to go to war with Iran, nor do I support Israel's recent offer to kidna ... der of the nation of Iran.

That's what i wanted to know, you agree that official report was not adequate, stop patronizing others who try to actually prove that it wasn't...
U4IK won't ever go to court with these evidence but it's an interesting discussion. Throughout history US always wanted to put their fingers where they don't belong and create warfares out of nothing, so what makes you think they are not prepared to go to extremes to justify yet more wars..

And btw, those are billions, not millions, of insurance money in Larry Silverstein's pockets.. http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/wtc-silverstein.htm

He won't go to court with WHAT evidence? There is none. None at all.

I understand there is suspicion of the government and that governments generally cannot be trusted to do right by the people. I just don't accept that you can challenge the government and expose its deceit using what amounts to clearly fictional and fabricated conspiracy theories. I've said this before in this thread too.. and I stand by it.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theories are so obstructive in getting to the true nuts and bolts of who was behind what and who stood to gain, that it remains to this day a very REAL and REASONABLE possibility that the strongest proponent of the conspiracy theories is the US government and its "friends" themselves. While everyone is immersed in the back/forth of purporting and debunking these clear works of fiction and all this blatant misinformation, nobody has the energy left over to expose the actual facts. We are now conspiracy theory-deaf. Even though large numbers of people believe there are conspiracies, it is these false conspiracies that they believe in, and they are way past caring any more.

This tactic of mis-direction is an established method of preventing the truth being exposed. The British used this tactic in WWII to fool the Germans into thinking that the allied forces would land at Calais. Warships fire aluminium foil hundreds of feet out to sea, to trick missiles into early detonation, and the government uses conspiracy theories to conceal the real truths behind what actually happened.

If you truly were interested in exposing the US government, you'd drop the conspiracy theories and begin the real hunt for the truth.. and you'd stop chasing this cloud of aluminium foil called ae911truth.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

So tell me this, do you know any secrets about the Committee of 300? The Order of the Garter? The Knights of Malta? The Club of Rome? How about the Bilderberg Group? Or the Trilateral Commission, or even the Council of Foreign Relations? Tell me, do you know these groups and what they are up to? They have alot of influential powers and nobody seems to even know they exist. It's easy to keep secrets from the public, no matter how many people we think are involved, there will always be major things being controlled that we do not know who is behind it. Don't be foolish enough to think that your local, even national or international, news is there to tell you everything which is going on in the world. They are there to tell you what the "powers that be"(ie the aforementioned groups) want you to know. Why do you think all businesses are being bought out by the big guns? They're all merging into massive corporations so they'll end up controlling everything. That's their "big idea" anyway... A moto they're very fond of - "Ordo Ab Chao" = "Order out of Chaos"

I should definitely found a secret society instead of working. A nice name, rumors about great hidden power and tentacles everywhere, and of course high subscription fees (as high as people think it is powerful).

With current paranoid, pseudo-scientific way of thinking, great success guaranteed !

But then I would have to be very careful: Mr Jones, Archeology professor and Mr Langdon symbologist would certainly try to undermine my power. Mouhahahahaha no mercy for them, I would get rid of them in an intense fish slapping dance duel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4
This video is an evidence, showing nazi u-boats are still searching their path in the Channel.

Quote from wsinda :

Dude, I honestly hope that you wrote this in a euphoric state. Or that you were joking. Because if you always think like that, your mind is bordering on the paranoid, and you should look for help.

I'm leaving this discussion. I hate to think that this is driving you over the edge.

lol I was just mentioning some groups I've heard about over the years showing that organisations, or whatever, can be kept secret without the knowledge of the "masses". Anyway, moving on...

Quote from Jertje :

First off: $3-4 million is really nothing for buildings of that size - certainly not profit - and printing money whenever you 'want some'? Surely you must be joking now. Printing new money doesn't put more money into the system, it just decreases the value instead; you can't "make" new money out of nowhere like that.

Well, I actually got my figures wrong, as Boris showed. It's actually in the billions. You think the US Federal Reserve isn't just printing money? They are flooding the US economy with money, that's why the Dollar is loosing power. Don't believe me? Watch "America: freedom to fascism" by Aaron Russo, it's on the web. The Federal Reserve isn't even owned by the US government, the government have to get loans from them. It's also the Fed. who are buying/saving all the companies from bankruptcy. Not the government....

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

No, you wouldn't see the building slowly lean or anything. The fact that you say that is proof that you simply don't understand how load-bearing structures cope with abnormal stress. What happens as parts start to fail, is others take the added load. They don't get compressed, or flex when that happens - usually - and as a result, the structure doesn't show signs of what is going on. A great example would be, again, an airplane.

You say all this, "you wouldn't see the building slowly lean" but where's your evidence for that? How can you say that about something you can't actually prove? If you can, fair enough I'm willing to see it, but don't, as SamH did, use the towers as evidence because there's too much speculation about how they fell to use them as evidence.

Quote :

Metal fatigue is a term given to the wear and tear that metal undergoes during routine aircraft operation. Vibrations from lift and everything else that an aircraft encounters translate into microscopic cracks in the metal (picture bending a paper clip back and forth repeatedly). Gradually, what is happening to, say, the wing of the airplane is that, at a molecular level, the support structure is breaking down. Eventually, you get to the point where the pilot tries to do something that he's done many times prior, and the wing snaps off, and the plane crashes. Why don't they ground the plane and replace the wing before this happens? Because it takes an extensive amount of testing to see what the wear level is. You can't simply look at the wing and notice it is sagging. The same goes for these buildings. Does that help?

I understand your explanation there about the planes wings, but can you show me an example of a wing just, unexpectidly, falling off a plane? I'll look for it myself too. It doesn't seem like a good example, to me anyway, with my "conspiratorial" brain..... There you are talking about prolonged metal fatigue, the towers only burned for under an hour, lets say it took 20-25mins(wild guess) to heat the steel to where it actually starts to sag/fail and trusses(supposidley) begin to snap the "small bolts". It seems to me to be a very small time frame, when compared to other steel frame buildings which burned for hours and only some small sections of the upper floors actually failed and fell OFF the building.

Quote from SamH :

...and you'd stop chasing this cloud of aluminium foil called ae911truth.

Can't believe you, with all your education and qualifications in this field would actually dismiss some truely qualified individuals... it's amazing....

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

where's your evidence for that? How can you say that about something you can't actually prove?

pot & kettle spring to mind......

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Can't believe you, with all your education and qualifications in this field would actually dismiss some truely qualified individuals... it's amazing....

Pot.. kettle.. pattern?

It's easy to dismiss the opinions of people who present absolutely no evidence to support their claim, or present perversions of facts in vague attempts to support wild and non-evidential theories, and who are generally regarded in their own fields as "quacks". And yes, they are.

I got curious and did a search on that BS site 911truth or whatever its called. I just wanted to see what its all about.. this link seems to sum it up quite well.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ae911truth.

It looks like it's just another paper chase.

Quote from th84 :

It looks like it's just another paper chase.

Indeed it is. It always was.

Blind faith in an entity or concept is often dependent on winding oneself up into a euphoric state. I had quite a bit of experience of the effects of euphoria as a vehicle for conversion in evangelism in my youth. The conspiracy theories are systematic exploiters of the same techniques. They depend on followers responding positively to rhetoric and being susceptible to suggestion, though. Still, there's a lot of the populous that fit that criteria

Quote :

They depend on followers responding positively to rhetoric and being susceptible to suggestion, though.

Sandwiches help a lot too.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

Sandwiches help a lot too.

Or for $50, you can forget the sandwiches and just take them out to lunch!

Ok... time for some proofs of things.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

You say all this, "you wouldn't see the building slowly lean" but where's your evidence for that? How can you say that about something you can't actually prove? If you can, fair enough I'm willing to see it, but don't, as SamH did, use the towers as evidence because there's too much speculation about how they fell to use them as evidence.

Well, by your logic, the collapse of Terminal 2E at ... Charles De Gaulle Airport should come under great suspicion. It also spontaneously collapsed!

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

I understand your explanation there about the planes wings, but can you show me an example of a wing just, unexpectidly, falling off a plane? I'll look for it myself too.

Here's some detail into one example.

And here's a video of it happening.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

It doesn't seem like a good example, to me anyway, with my "conspiratorial" brain..... There you are talking about prolonged metal fatigue, the towers only burned for under an hour, lets say it took 20-25mins(wild guess) to heat the steel to where it actually starts to sag/fail and trusses(supposidley) begin to snap the "small bolts". It seems to me to be a very small time frame, when compared to other steel frame buildings which burned for hours and only some small sections of the upper floors actually failed and fell OFF the building.

Again, there are a few things you are missing. First off, the other steel framed buildings you talk about hadn't been hit at 500mph by an airplane full of fuel. That does make a small difference. Second, and I've said this before, OTHER STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS ARE NOT BUILT LIKE THE WTC, SO YOU CAN'T COMPARE WHAT HAPPENS. Most other buildings are a solid grid of I-Beams. It takes a hell of a lot of destruction to take one of those down (that's why Graphene is the strongest material on earth... at a molecular level, it is a lot like a steel building. A massive grid-like network of bonds.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Can't believe you, with all your education and qualifications in this field would actually dismiss some truely qualified individuals... it's amazing....

I am dismissing them. Sorry. I know you could just as easily dismiss me, but there ARE lots of people out there who are supposedly "qualified" for their job who turn out to be nuts. I have proof of that too!

Don't shoot me Sam

Here's the FBI's answer for not having Bin Laden wanted for 9/11:

FBI - No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

So, let's get this straight, the whole reason for US to invade Afghanistan is to "smoke Bin Laden out of his hole". But, they don't have any evidence that he's involved So they lead the US and other countries in war for just pure guess? Nothing wrong with that?

After the Bin Laden's "confession" video, Donald Rumsfeld comented: "There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered."
Are you kidding me? Bin Laden would release a video AFTER they atacked his country?

I have a couple of questions for Sam and others, to answer maturely without sarcasm and irony..

- What's with the obviously fake video of Bin Laden confession

- Why isn't he wanted for 9/11 by the FBI

- Why start a war (two wars) in pure speculations and guessing

- Where are photos of Atta and other terrorists on airport terminals

- Where is the proper Pentagon footage

- Why hasn't there been any similair terrorist attack with such a complexity and planning as 9/11 before nor after the attack (all Terrorist attacks so far were suicide bomber attacks, driving a truck into an embassy/mall etc) not a single one with such high planning and precision
* You're telling me they were that smart all of a sudden and had info of military excersises that day and conveniantly "confused" NORAD and fighter pilots?


Just one more thing, for those more knowledgeble, what are the benefits from Afghanistan, other then huge fields of coke? Iraq obviously has petrol coming out of the walls, but what would be the benefits for invading Afghanistan?

Answers apreciated...

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Answers apreciated...

tbh, Boris, this is where I'm at. We've answered a lot of questions that U4IK ST8 and you have asked, and we have done so resoundingly and in great depth. We've posed some of our own questions of you guys too. We've also (courtesy of th84 and others) exposed some fraudsters that you guys have been quoting and whose website/s you've been linking.

I was rather thinking it would be nice for you guys, instead of just ignoring our questions and asking more of your own, to start answering some of the questions that we've been asking now. I feel that, to demonstrate that you guys have been listening to us and give a damn what any of us have to say, it really would be appreciated if you would start to answer some of OUR questions.

We could start with something simple.. like, for example, why is the "truth" movement claiming that WTC7 only had a few small fires? We know what the ACTUAL truth is, and that the building was an inferno, but we would like to know why these lies are being told. Then we can move on to some of the bigger ones, like "mini nukes" etc.

Quote from SamH :

I was rather thinking it would be nice for you guys, instead of just ignoring our questions and asking more of your own, to start answering some of the questions that we've been asking now. I feel that, to demonstrate that you guys have been listening to us and give a damn what any of us have to say, it really would be appreciated if you would start to answer some of OUR questions.

I really give a damn to what you guys say, it's just that i didn't get an honest answer for these questions i posted.

I'll answer your question, from that picture you posted about WTC 7, it does seem like the whole building is on fire, but actually, if you look closely, only the bottom floors are on fire, the other smoke is from towers debris.. I've posted a picture of WTC7 in the moment of collapse, not a single fire on the front of the building, if the whole building was a raging inferno as you say, then where is that fire on the front So fire on the back of the building, on couple of bottom floors is enough to collapse it in demolition manner? You did see the video of it collapsing? It was falling in the perfect demolition manner, first the center fails, then the left and right side follows..

Boris, the video of WTC7 clearly shows all of the building was on fire. The video is very clearly from long after the towers collapsed and all the smoke is from WTC7, not from the towers collapsing. I know you couldn't see the video, but I saw it and as I said before, all the smoke is from WTC7. There is absolutely no question that there was more than "a few small fires" at WTC7. The question that needs answering is.. WHY does the "truth" movement LIE about this?

Ok, compare the WTC 7 from the moment of collapse to the raging inferno in Madrid building, and that one did not fall:



Why does the thruth movement "lie" about it, maybe they see the perfectly preserved front side of the building with no fire whatsoever collapsing perfectly? as i see it too...

It has been repeated many times in this thread, and I will repeat it yet again, the Madrid building was not designed like the WTC towers. This is why we think you don't listen at all, and why it seems like such a waste of time talking to you about it.

NOT just a few small fires.


NOT just a few small fires.


NOT just a few small fires.


NOT just a few small fires.


To say that these images above are of "a few small fires" is not just an oversight, it is a downright lie. The images above are of a building being gutted by fire. If you cannot see that, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

I said that you would come full circle and claim that WTC7 was not an inferno and I was right. I give up, Boris, because there is absolutely no point in me wasting a single ounce more of my energy on this debate because you very obviously have selective vision - you cannot see the proof before you - and you are determined to support a group of people who despite their false claims, very clearly, very audibly, have absolutely no interest in pursuing truth.