Good http://fhew.ytmnd.com

1'd for your complete lack of repect for the 9/11 Truth Movement. One random man has a quote taken out of context and all of a sudden the entire 9/11 Truth Movement makes no sense. Here's a link to a video where you can actually very clearly see that WTC-7 was a demolition - as admitted in a PBS Interview by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center. Demolitions take weeks to plan, even when it's rushed.

-2

www.insidejob911.ytmnd.com

Go Science! http://winna.ytmnd.com

-1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5653955826753385916&q=WTC-7&hl=en

-1

The Larry Silverstein Quote is out of context. He could have just as easily been referring to "pulling" the remaining fire fighters from the building.

-1

But he wasn't.

Silly conspiracy theorists..

-1

Actually you're wrong foxy. Mr. Silverstein has never commented on the quote. His publicist made a 3 minute statement back in 2003 saying that he meant to "pull" the other firefighters out of the building. "Pulling" firefighters from a building isn't used by anyone in the firefighting field. However, Mr. Silverstein is deep into construction and real estate. He is extremely familiar with terms such as "pulling" in a demolition sense.

-1

WE MUST RESPECT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT!

-2

Oh, and by the way, OtacontheOtaku, I dare you to bring up anything from this "Truth Movement" that can't easily be combatted by REAL science and common sense. I'll be waiting.

-1

Meh... Bush = Stalin & Hitler

-1

Do you realize the type and scope of preparation that goes into demolition. There is months of prep, usually at least 2 weeks just to load the explosives in...and the entire building has to be gutted in the process. Instead of speculating FOR Mr. Silverstein, why don't we ask him.

-1

^9 "One random man has a quote taken out of context and all of a sudden the entire 9/11 Truth Movement makes no sense. "

Furthermore, the government has never settled on an explanation for why WTC-7 collapsed. Since 9/11 they've issued five different explanations as to why it collasped and FEMA admits they have no official explanation as to why.

-3

with that said still funny

-1

because u dont know sh*t about waht hes talking about. The buildings height and a bunch of other measurements determine the time it should take to collapse and it fell faster that that. sorry :/

-2

foxy, you don't need to gut a building, that just cuts down on harmful chemicals that could get into the air. All it would take is around 200 well placed thermate charges to take down the Twin Towers, and even less to take down WTC-7. Also, normally accessed portions of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were closed off in the weeks leading up to 9/11. This included stairwells, service passages, and so on and so forth.

-2

WTC 7: Damaged by falling debris from tower 2, starting fires on the 4-9 floors, also blowing off the fire proofing. Diesel fuel from the emergency generator, also damaged from the debris, provided fuel for a blaze lasting 8 hours...in a severely damaged building. It's a much simpler solution than controlled demolition. Ockham's Razor my friend...

-1

and if u watch the "loose change" vidoe on google video it explains it and how this could have happened so watch that, btw im not for the truth movement or anything or against it

Dozens of individuals in the 9/11 Truth Movement have tried to reach Mr. Silverstein hundreds of times in relation to his comment, yet he outright refuses to speak to any of them.

here a good site foxy: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html it even has pictures so even you could understand.

-2

Cite your sources, OtacontheOtaku. And there were nondescript threats to the WTC in the weeks leading up to 9/11 which could easily explain any blocked access.

-1

fox u have no clue waht your talking about your just reading exactly what the news had said, just because they tell you something doesnt mean its true.

-1

So by saying it fell faster than gravity, what are we proving? I'm curious, if gravity didn't make it fall then what did.

-1

actually foxy, it was already determined by FEMA that the fires never reached the generators, and even if they had, FEMA also concluded that diesel fuel isn't capable of burning at a temperature that could compromise the structure of WTC-7. We in the 9/11 Truth Movement have already ripped that Popular Mechanics article to shreds.

-2

klasky some people are saying that it was demolished

-1

I have actually done my own independent studies, instead of blindly listening to either side. I have talked with numerous "experts" on both sides of the argument, as well as experts in the fields of Physics, Structural Engineering, Fire Proofing, Metal Fatigue, and Controlled Demolitions. My tests have shown that the buildings could hardly support their own roofs after the impact and resulting fires. The south tower was approximately lost approximately 67.24 % of its structural integrity, JUST from....

The initial impact of the plane.

Also consider the vast amounts of combustibles in a normal office building including things like Hydro carbon (Fuel) based plastics that make up everything from chairs to computer cases.

I'm making a ytmnd for all you idiots right now, bad mouthing this site claiming that WTC was a f*cking demolition. Shut the f*ck up you attention whore. Please check it out when it's finished, I'll post a link here when it is, douchebags.

+1

so wait, they're saying that they put demolitions at the TOP of the building to make it fall faster?

so your says you are right as opposed to experts who completly disagree with what you just said? Experts that arent apart of the Truth movement? They have done studies to prove that fire wouldnt bring the building down at all

-1

Oh noes, altectech, don't do that. That is too harsh...Oh wait, Now I remember: I DON'T CARE.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1738 There ya go. There is an extremely vast aray of testimonials from the janitorial and maintenance staff that worked at the towers. Also, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the towers days before 9/11. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/062804ignoredclue.htm

-2

Jet929, can you cite one credible source that has done extensive research on this topic. I have yet to find anything other than "experts" who pose open ended questions and jump to conclusions.

+1

Also for fun, first hand account of bombs going off. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104anotheraccount.htm

-2

Bomb sniffing dogs were only there because of the prior vague threats issued against the buildings two weeks before hand. When that threat passed the dogs were removed...nothing out of the ordinary. Btw: What do janitors know about complex demolitions, bombs, and the like? They are not experts and are not reputable sources.

+1

Actually foxy, the reason it's obvious there were explosives used, is because of the over-engineering of the towers. They were designed to take multiple hits from air-liners, not just one. Slamming a plane into WTC 1 or 2 was the equivalent of punching a pencil through a screen door.

-2

We weren't simply talking about explosions, you wanted proof that portions of the tower were closed off that normally shouldn't have. The firefighters on 9/11 themselves said they heard explosions going off in the towers, which is why they were issued a gag-order by the state of New York.

-2

I don't even see a janitor on that site, i see an IT worker who said they upgraded the cabling in the tower the weekend before and that he saw 'engineers'. But don't you need engineers to upgrade cabling? I don't see how this proves demolition anymore than it proves that the 'engineers' were even demolition-related.

+1

Not true. Each building was designed to take ONE hit from a 707 lost in the fog at APPROACH SPPED, after dumping fuel...NOT a 767 at 550 mph, full of fuel. Straight from the video: "The impact of the explosion from whatever happened" Bombs were never mentioned. And this only shows how confusing this situation was for all involved.

+1

So far, all I have been offered as "proof of bombs" is hearsay and speculation. Where is your hard proof?

+1

lol, gravity.

+1

Actually, the buildings were never "designed to take a hit from a 707", it was a scenario proposed back during it's inception. The Towers were over-engineered to never go down. They construction in the towers was a mesh-like construction model. It was engineered thusly so that the Towers could support more than 200% of it's actual load. Losing 60% of it's structural integrity wouldn't have been sufficient to take the buildings down. In addition, most of the jet's fuel exploded outside of the Towers.

-2

Yoo hoo, I posted a video already. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5653955826753385916&q=WTC-7&hl=en The bombs running up the supports are actually very visible in this video. Also, please take care to watch and see how the roof actually begins collapsing, as the building then falls at perfect free-fall speed to the ground. WTC-7 has even been described as a "work-of-art" by demolition experts.

-2

"The Towers were over-engineered to never go down" So was the Titanic, I'm sure Jack and Rose would love to hear that. Nothing can be over engineered. Any engineer will tell you that it is a constant goal to see how close to 100% they can get. They can never achieve over 100% efficiency. Furthermore, Why involve planes if the the buildings were wired with explosives (Shouldn't the dogs have found the explosives in the weeks prior) . Simply imploding building with people inside would assure that no

+1

one could escape, ensuring a much larger tragedy.

+1

"WTC-7 has even been described as a "work-of-art" by demolition experts." Which ones, I know quite a few in the industry. Maybe I know them.

+1

That video only shows windows cracking along faults, glass is non elastic. There is no signs of the charges common to demolition.

+1

Charges are quite distinct...they need to be to take down structures. Look I can link to a video too: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg

+1

If charges are placed along main supports, as thermate is, then you don't need the charges along every single support in the building. Thermate also explains why there was molten steel for weeks after the towers collapsed, as jet fuel and subsequent fires couldn't describe why the supports of the buildings were so cleanly cut and why the steel became molten for weeks. 9/11 was the pretext for us getting into the Middle East.

-2

We didn't need buildings to be demolished, we needed something to piss off the American people to support an invasion of the Middle East. Zionists in the Middle East are extremely dangerous to America. People are too stupid to understand how dangerous and commited to their beliefs they are. That's why 9/11 had to happen. It was the only way reform in the Middle East could've happened.

-2

In 10 years, China will be a super-power again, by securing this very important route from Europe to Asia, we kill two birds with one stone. Kill the zeal driven maniacs in the Middle East, and protect the Western World from China's future super-power status.

-2

"supports of the buildings were so cleanly cut" not the supports that I saw...care to show otherwise. And are you suggesting that thermite was used...despite the fact that it has NEVER once been used in a controlled demolition in history? Thermite is highly unreliable, and does not provide the necessary reaction to efficiently take down a building.

+1

Wow, are you psychic? Apparently you are. Am I going to have a good year? Am I going to win the lottery? Maybe China should focus on it's own economy before trying to become a super power.

+1

Also on a side note, the main reason the US supports Israel is because as long as Israel exists, the extremists in the Middle East will concentrate on Israel, and not the US. They're our very convient geo-political shield.

-1

Okay, if we didn't need the buildings demolished, why not just fly planes into them, sans demolition...that should have gotten it's point across, like 7/7/05 did in England.

+1

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm voila.

-2

7/7/05 is actually under some exterme scrutiny, even by the mass-media in Britian now. Taking down a symbol of America was the point, not putting a hole in it.

-2

Also, you clearly understand very little about geo-politics. China currently has the fastest growing economy in the world. They are undergoing sweeping military reform and have promised to produce 2000 new nuclear and biological weapons by 2015. Even more horrifying, it's been predicted that China's GNP could surpass the United States' by 2025.

-2

First you say that taking the buildings down was not the point, now you say that taking down a symbol of America was the point. The buildings by your own admission were a symbol of America...which is it? Regarding the metal: Most has miniscule fissures which the metal will fail along under extreme strain, like a building falling on top of them...this also heat the metal greatly (Try it by bending a paper clip...it gets hot).

+1

I've seen that picture of those supports before, and they were at the base of the tower...far from the point of failure...so now we are getting far into scientific impossibilities.

+1

That info on China is all based on what its media allows out of its borders...which is not to be trusted. The Soviet Union looked like it was doing splendidly based on its reports too. Do you remember the Soviet Union, or was it before your time?

+1

=_= I was saying the buildings didn't need (if I could've put this in italics I would've) to be demolished, as in, a major political figure that everyone loved could've been assasinated or something to that effect. I was trying to say that the whole point was to try and strike at the heart of America.

-1

Planes alone would have done that, so would a straight to the point bombing (Like in 1993), or a complete demolition...so why hit the buildings with a plane AND bring them down? If you could have seen the terror on the faces of New Yorkers that day, you would know that the buildings being hit purposely by planes would have been sufficient.

+1

Actually, the bomb reports came from the bottom of the towers, this would also explain why the buildings fall straight down into themselves and at freefall speed. Falling straight down as a result of pressure would not have allowed the building to fall at free fall speed, it's a scientific impossibility. In addition, metal can't become molten until 1500 degrees farenheight, only thermate, which burns at nearly 3000 degrees could create molten pits like that.

Video evidence clearly shows the point of failure to be approximately at the point of impact. Bomb reports can easily be dismissed as vaporized jet fuel combusting in the elevator shafts, which had their hermetic seals broken by the impact of the planes. As I said, your only proof of bombs is hearsay and speculation.

I've conducted independent investigations into the speed of the fall, and found that the actual fall time was closer to 15 seconds, nearly double the impossible 8.4 seconds cited in the million dollar challenge.

To make it look as though those planes brought the Towers down, and not explosives. Planes just can't take down steel structures like the Twin Towers. 1993's bombing wasn't anywhere near the magnitude necessary to bring down the Towers. As far as China goes, we've come a long way since the USSR. It's much easier to track a country's growth in this day and age. It's also profoundly simplistic to track a country's GNP. On a final note, most New Yorkers believe there is a government cover-up surrounding

By the way, friction (From bending metal or similar means) alone can build up incredible amounts of heat, enough to melt metal. In the process of failure, plenty of metal would have bent...creating the friction. Office fires can easily reach 1100 degrees or hotter...which is enough to weaken steel...even structural steel significantly.

"most New Yorkers believe there is a government cover-up surrounding..." NOPE only 49.3 do...that does not equal a majority...thus it does not amount to "most"

...foxy, you can clearly see the North Tower's main antenna collapsing prior to the rest of the building, even FEMA acknowledges that this is true in their report and admit that it's only possible if the building's main structural supports failed first. For them all to simultaneously fail at once without the building tipping, you would need to use demolition explosives. Also, don't give me any crap about the South Tower, the top 30 floors didn't even tip, they are vaporized as the Towers collapse.

That should be 49.3 % ...and most only agree that the government ignored warning signs...which is an entirely different debate than the one we are in the middle of.

I have over 30 hours of video which easily shows that nothing you just said happened. Yes the antenna fell slightly early, because the towers were Hull-Cure Structures. A rare form of construction which would allow separate failures of the inner and outer support columns.

Just keep leaving comments...I have to go now, but I'll try to address any "proof" you leave me here when I return.

Friction heat only lasts minutes in large steel beams. 1100 again though is not enough to cause steel to become molten for more than three weeks after the collapse of the Towers. You're misquoting the Zogby poll and misrepresenting the info. It's 49.3% of New York City citizens believe that our leaders knew about 9/11 in advance. 41% of all of New Yorkers period believe it overall. This poll of course wasn't split down the middle. There was the third option of "unsure".

In other words, yes, the majority of New York citizens in fact believe that our government consciously failed to act on 9/11. In addition, 66% of New Yorkers want a brand new completely independent investigation into 9/11 as the original 9/11 commission had countless conflicts of interest.

Ah, so let me get this straight, what you just said contradicts the government's account of the collapse of the Towers, yet you still find them credible? Gotta love blind logic.

Meh... America now = USSR & Nazi Germany

foxymcfox's 9/11 twin towers forum!

"The Larry Silverstein Quote is out of context. He could have just as easily been referring to "pulling" the remaining fire fighters from the building." Umm...no. That's total bullsh*t.

Paradox! Oh wait... GatoGato! :D

4 for the truth. BTW, otacon, davinci, etc, you miss the big picture. You imply that the United States government is a dictatorial killing bueacracy. Then how come you conspriacy theorists are still alive? If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't the United States governement want to kill you because they worry that their plan has been leaked? Well, so far, no news of any deaths to anyone in the 9/11 "Truth" movement or the shut down of 911truth.org or the taking off of those videos from Google Video.

+1

Ho-ho-holy crap you're all a bunch of raving nutters. ATTENTION, ATTENTION, PEOPLE OF EARTH. WE LANDED ON THE MOON, JFK WAS SHOT BY ONE SHOOTER, THERE WAS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY, AND XENU WILL SOMEDAY DESTROY US ALL. 'Truth Movement'? How the hell can you idiots figure out how to breathe in the morning? Jesus.

+1

Thank you!

You theorists are idiots. People like you ruin America by coming up with these stupid stories and sh*t. BTW, Loose Change was an awful movie, and everyone with half a brain knows it was bull. This is why the world laughs at crazies like you. When you have a South Park episode where the storyline is set around parodying and making fun of idiots just like you, you should know something is wrong.

+1

what a total retard.

What IDIOT in their right mind would EVER believe that 9/11 was caused by TERRORISTS?! Or planes for that matter?! Those damn America-Lovers, thats who!

Dammit, the conspiracy theorists are even infiltrating the ytmnd comment sections. Gain some objectivity and gtfo.

why is he feeding this troll? He's clearly a person of, to put it charitably, limited intellect

Honestly, I get this stuff all the time on youtube. I mean, people trying to sound like they know what they're talking about, but they're just saying things and going "how is that possible?"... like this. If anything, I'm gonna ignore a lot of stuff, and ask about the towers... if it was a 'masked demolition', then why didn't they just blow the place up and say "terrorists bombed the place"? I mean, it would have worked...

..cointel pro