Liverpool FC Forum

[Emerald Red]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

[The Manhattan Project]

Manhatten, mate. I'm not posting images of the wrong plane. I'm well aware that the first plane had a flash too, but there is NO other footage of that plane hitting the building.

The French tape made by the brothers making a video on the firehouse probie is the only footage, that is correct.

The second plane has the same flash. Why don't you just go and look at the video of it. You'll see it happen.

I have posted it, in extreme close-up. It clearly shows that the yellow flash occurs when the nose the United plane strikes the South Tower.

I'm pretty sure that if more footage was taken of the first plane, and at better angles, you would more than certainly see the same anomaly underneath the plane. The fact that it's even on the second plane is questionable, nevermind the first one.

Nothing is "questionable". I've already shown that no "anomaly" exists. Fuselage markings and a wing attachment bulge. That's all they are.

[LFC2007]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

I don't want an answer regurgitated from a conspiracy theorists' website, I want an answer to my basic questions.

The structural questions have been answered.

When a jet hits a sh!t high building that subsequently collapses, it's no surprise that almost everything turned to dust.

[The Manhattan Project]

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

Yes, a serious amount of energy would be needed.

Such as the energy generated by two fully fuelled jets striking a skyscraper at top speed igniting an enormous amount of jet fuel then these gigantic buildings collapsing with extraordinary physical forces and violence.

[Emerald Red]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

I don't want an answer regurgitated from a conspiracy theorists' website, I want an answer to my basic questions.

The structural questions have been answered.

When a jet hits a sh!t high building that subsequently collapses, it's no surprise that almost everything turned to dust.

How is that? It's not possible. Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down? Wouldn't at least office desks, chairs, copying machines be crushed at least, but remain intact? They weren't. They were reduced to a very fine powder. It just doesn't seem right. And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Here's another interesting video.

Link

[The Manhattan Project]

Here's another interesting video.

Yes, it's a very interesting video.....it's the ONE I JUST POSTED!!!

[The Manhattan Project]

And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Actually they have. When a 747 crashed into a residential area in Amsterdam, it left an an enormous gaping hole in the block killing over 40 people. Nothing was left of the building at the impact point.

[LFC2007]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

I don't want an answer regurgitated from a conspiracy theorists' website, I want an answer to my basic questions.

The structural questions have been answered.

When a jet hits a sh!t high building that subsequently collapses, it's no surprise that almost everything turned to dust.

How is that? It's not possible. Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down? Wouldn't at least office desks, chairs, copying machines be crushed at least, but remain intact? They weren't. They were reduced to a very fine powder. It just doesn't seem right. And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Here's another interesting video.

Link

As the building crashed, it gained momentum and speed. The pancake effect accelerated. Your idea that somehow as the resistance increased it surely would have slowed down is completely flawed and absurd. What resistance? The resistance of office equpment? Compared to tonnes and tonnes of steel gurders and beams crashing down at an increasing velocity?

Explain how the rate of descent would slow? It wouldn't.

These questions have been explained by qualified structural engineers anyway.

It seems you won't answer my questions but would rather play the regurgitation game.

[Emerald Red]

And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Actually they have. When a 747 crashed into a residential area in Amsterdam, it left an an enormous gaping hole in the block killing over 200 people. Nothing was left of the building at the impact point.

I've seen that one. Much smaller building, but most of it still stood regardless.

Most of the video from above is mainly misdirected clips put together to make it sound like bombs were going off left right and centre. Most of it is misinformation, as most of the time the people are talking about the explosions from the planes. But some of the accounts talk of explosions from underneath. It's interesting.

[The Manhattan Project]

Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down?

No, because the floors, already weakened by destroyed fireproof and intense fires, were only made from lightweight sections, bolted to the outer wall with relatively fragile connection points and supported by lightweight trusses. They would have presented insignificant resistance to the top section of a skyscraper crushing them.

[account deleted by request]

loose change (short version)

For anyone who's not seen it , it asks some interesting questions and gives some reasons for 911

[Emerald Red]

So basically Emerald Red, you're trying to tell us how the US gov't managed to rig one of the tallest sky scrapers in the world with explosives, without anyone knowing and without anyone questioning what they were doing at the time, in what is one of, if not the most densely populated cities in America, and the rest of the world.

You can find and regurgitate info you have found on conspiracy theory websites, but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing and I certainly wouldn't call the evidence 'reliable'. There is a very strong possibility that it is bull sh!t spouted from far left websites who simply hate the U.S. gov't, which is very common.

No-one can provide a sufficient motive for the conspiracy, nobody.

When you think about it, it would have been very simple to do it and over a long period of time. A building that size would take a serious amount of maintenance. I don't know how many charges it would take to do that kind of damage or bring something like that down, but in a space where work is all a distraction, and especially in NY, then sure it's possible. Dress like a maintenance worker, go in, do the job. I'm thinking if anything was planted, it would have been planted in the thing that keeps the building standing, and that's the core. In the core, I'm not sure how many there were, but there were, but there was close to 100 elevators. It would have been simple to stall one of those and get into the shaft. Weaken the core, and the whole lot come down like it did, section by section. This thing just cannot fall how it did. Think of it like a tree trunk. Would it make sense for a tree trunk to drop straight down into itself?

Her you can see the trajectory point of the second plane. Does it look as if it was going to threaten the integrity of the core in any way enough to destabilise the whole building?

So you're telling me, in a city with so many people and with so many security cameras, undercover gov't agents purposely rigged the building with explosives without anyone realising. Walking past their fellow Americans, who they know are likely to die, rigging the building and then strolling out without a mark on their conscience and a smiley face. Get real FFS.


I think it's far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far more feasible, that somehow, for whatever structural reason the jet caused the tower to come down, or whatever structural weaknesses arose from the impact. Structural engineers have explained how and why the building came down, but I suppose they're also in on it?


For every major catastrophe, there will be a conspiracy theory. This one just happens to be the most absurd one of the lot.

Yeah, but tell me how that everything in those buildings was reduced to nothing but dust. They never found a single keyboard or printer. Not anything larger than the size of half a keyboard. They have no answer for that. It would take a serious amount of energy to do that. In other words, they'd have to have been exploded.

I don't want an answer regurgitated from a conspiracy theorists' website, I want an answer to my basic questions.

The structural questions have been answered.

When a jet hits a sh!t high building that subsequently collapses, it's no surprise that almost everything turned to dust.

How is that? It's not possible. Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down? Wouldn't at least office desks, chairs, copying machines be crushed at least, but remain intact? They weren't. They were reduced to a very fine powder. It just doesn't seem right. And planes have hit buildings before and burned for days, and they haven't done what those two have.

Here's another interesting video.

Link

As the building crashed, it gained momentum and speed. The pancake effect accelerated. Your idea that somehow as the resistance increased it surely would have slowed down is completely flawed and absurd. What resistance? The resistance of office equpment? Compared to tonnes and tonnes of steel gurders and beams crashing down at an increasing velocity?

Explain how the rate of descent would slow? It wouldn't.

These questions have been explained by qualified structural engineers anyway.

It seems you won't answer my questions but would rather play the regurgitation game.

Because the time it took for them to fall. Count it. Just over 11 seconds. Freefall speed is just over 10. It would still take time for the building to gain that kind of momentum for freefall speed. And yes, there was resistance of stuff like concrete floors and steel beams and trusses. It wasn't just all thin air, you know.

[Emerald Red]

Think, if even the top half of that building fell, and somehow managed to go through the floors in some kind of pancaking effect, wouldn't the rate of decent slow as more and more resistance gathered and slowed it down?

No, because the floors, already weakened by destroyed fireproof and intense fires, were only made from lightweight sections, bolted to the outer wall with relatively fragile connection points and supported by lightweight trusses. They would have presented insignificant resistance to the top section of a skyscraper crushing them.

So what about the core?

[The Manhattan Project]

I've seen that one. Much smaller building, but most of it still stood regardless.

It stood because it was far wider spread that the World Trade Center towers, so only a relatively small part of the building was actually struck. The point is the same, that at the impact point, nothing was left but rubble, fire, death and a huge hole.

Most of the video from above is mainly misdirected clips put together to make it sound like bombs were going off left right and centre. Most of it is misinformation, as most of the time the people are talking about the explosions from the planes. But some of the accounts talk of explosions from underneath. It's interesting.

Dude, I'm afraid you are seeing conspiracies everywhere. You suggest one, I conclusively debunk it, you ignore the evidence and simply move onto the next conspiracy.


You display all the marks of a person who's been reading paranoid websites and then reposting what you've read.

[The Manhattan Project]

So what about the core?

What about it? The impact of the planes along with the destroyed fireproofing shattered their defences. The core of the twin towers was only protected by lightweight material. The force of the impact simply blew this away. Many of the survivors reported that this core protection material was laying over the stairs. It was destroyed leaving the core exposed.