Flight 93 - What really happened?

[TheSumOfGod]

Didn't you say you were gonna stop getting involved in this conspiracy stuff, like, four times?

Only a couple of times, out of frustration with dealing with closed-minded individuals such as you, but I've changed my mind.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

I thought that was already proven by scientist watchdogs to be a bs theory made up by the media to come up with an explanation as to why a building designed to easily withstand the impact of a jet filled with fuel collapsed anyway. That fuel didn't burn hot enough, it burned less than 2,000 degrees.

Precisely.

 

[Bullseye]

Do I really have to post pictures of one of the towers leaning over it's side of the impact area and photos of fire all around the building?

 

[Carter]

Lol.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Do I really have to post pictures of one of the towers leaning over it's side of the impact area and photos of fire all around the building?

yes

 

[Carter]

Do I really have to post pictures of one of the towers leaning over it's side of the impact area and photos of fire all around the building?

No, because it's a hologram

 

[ShadowBoxing]

No, because it's a hologram

Yeah it was "faked" by the Goblin in my bedroom.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

If he has presented its news to me as well.

You must be blind, then. I have started at least a dozen threads on the subject so far, and in each thread I posted several links to internet sites presenting such evidence.

 

[Carter]

Yeah it was "faked" by the Goblin in my bedroom.

I hear he killed JFK too

 

[Jspider13]

The flight was shot down.

 

[Carter]

You must be blind, then. I have started at least a dozen threads on the subject so far, and in each thread I posted several links to internet sites presenting such evidence.

Yeah, lol

"An insider claims...."
"Anonymous engineer states...."
"A source inside says...."

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Here's some evidence of foreknowledge...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You must be blind, then. I have started at least a dozen threads on the subject so far, and in each thread I posted several links to internet sites presenting such evidence.

Actually no you haven't you presented links to opinionated sites that follow much of the same argumentation style as you, which is to present a story which they don't back up. Kind like that Russian guy who said he "thought it was an inside job". Those sites never find real evidence, show photos or get testimonials from anyone besides those who already agree with them.

 

[FlameHead]

Yeah dont' give up Sum. Opening minds is benificial to the world. Just don't let those who refuse to believe anything other than what they've been told hold you back.

As for the WTC falling due to the planes, impossible. First of all, if it was the heat that caused the beems to melt and collapse, the towers would not have fallen strait down, in an absolute free falls. Pancaking would have involved an initial collapse, followed by several others as the buildings wait couldn't withstand it anymore. It would have happened in chunks at a time and would definitely not have fallen strait down. Plus, you have to consider the fact that another tower fell that day and a plane didn't even hit it. So, in our lifetime of high rise buildings, in all of history, only 3 towers have fallen due to fire... and they all happened that day.

Another reason why heat could not have caused the buildings to collapse is because when the plane hit, most of the heat excaped in a huge ball off fire OUTSIDE the building. Especially the second plane.

The towers had to have been brought down another way.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Here's some evidence of foreknowledge...

Thats not evidence, thats spurious correlation. The article shows stock options existed and that a very vocal Democrat put stock options on said stocks, but it has no evidence linking it to the event they claim. i.e. spurious correlation. Kind of like saying because someone did a rain dance it rained.

 

[Carter]

Here's some evidence of foreknowledge...

"There's always the danger that the stock trail stops at the water's edge if the money came from banks in countries that don't cooperate with the United States. But insider trading is always motivated by greed, and a senior Wall Street executive noted it would be ironic if the terrorists' greed ended up providing one of the most promising leads investigators have."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml

Too bad your "evidence" doesn't necessarily implicate the American government

 

[Carter]

And if that's all ya got, it means absolutely nothing

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Yeah dont' give up Sum. Opening minds is benificial to the world. Just don't let those who refuse to believe anything other than what they've been told hold you back.

As for the WTC falling due to the planes, impossible. First of all, if it was the heat that caused the beems to melt and collapse, the towers would not have fallen strait down, in an absolute free falls. Pancaking would have involved an initial collapse, followed by several others as the buildings wait couldn't withstand it anymore. It would have happened in chunks at a time and would definitely not have fallen strait down. Plus, you have to consider the fact that another tower fell that day and a plane didn't even hit it. So, in our lifetime of high rise buildings, in all of history, only 3 towers have fallen due to fire... and they all happened that day.

Another reason why heat could not have caused the buildings to collapse is because when the plane hit, most of the heat excaped in a huge ball off fire OUTSIDE the building. Especially the second plane.

The towers had to have been brought down another way.

Thanks.

 

[Bullseye]

Yeah dont' give up Sum. Opening minds is benificial to the world. Just don't let those who refuse to believe anything other than what they've been told hold you back.

As for the WTC falling due to the planes, impossible. First of all, if it was the heat that caused the beems to melt and collapse, the towers would not have fallen strait down, in an absolute free falls. Pancaking would have involved an initial collapse, followed by several others as the buildings wait couldn't withstand it anymore. It would have happened in chunks at a time and would definitely not have fallen strait down. Plus, you have to consider the fact that another tower fell that day and a plane didn't even hit it. So, in our lifetime of high rise buildings, in all of history, only 3 towers have fallen due to fire... and they all happened that day.

Another reason why heat could not have caused the buildings to collapse is because when the plane hit, most of the heat excaped in a huge ball off fire OUTSIDE the building. Especially the second plane.

The towers had to have been brought down another way.

It wasn't just a fire, a plane crashing into a building and not to mention a huge ****ing sized Boeing 767 or 757 hole in the building to cause the building to collapse. It was all of those that caused it to collapsed.

 

[Bad Superman]

Yeah dont' give up Sum. Opening minds is benificial to the world. Just don't let those who refuse to believe anything other than what they've been told hold you back.

As for the WTC falling due to the planes, impossible. First of all, if it was the heat that caused the beems to melt and collapse, the towers would not have fallen strait down, in an absolute free falls. Pancaking would have involved an initial collapse, followed by several others as the buildings wait couldn't withstand it anymore. It would have happened in chunks at a time and would definitely not have fallen strait down. Plus, you have to consider the fact that another tower fell that day and a plane didn't even hit it. So, in our lifetime of high rise buildings, in all of history, only 3 towers have fallen due to fire... and they all happened that day.

Another reason why heat could not have caused the buildings to collapse is because when the plane hit, most of the heat excaped in a huge ball off fire OUTSIDE the building. Especially the second plane.

The towers had to have been brought down another way.

Yeah WTC 7 was imploded. There were other detonations on the Twin Towers like controlled implotions, but I wouldn't rule out it was part of the attack, maybe pre-planted bombs to ensure the destruction of the towers.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

It wasn't just a fire, a plane crashing into a building and not to mention a huge ****ing sized Boeing 767 or 757 hole in the building to cause the building to collapse. It was all of those that caused it to collapsed.

Also you wouldn't have to melt the beams (all the way) just enough to destroy their structural integrity, which doesn't take a ton of heat...certain less than rocket fuel's burning temperature.

 

[Carter]

. So, in our lifetime of high rise buildings, in all of history, only 3 towers have fallen due to fire... and they all happened that day.

How many have been hit by jumbo jets?....in our lifetime of high rise buildings?

 

[Carter]

Yeah WTC 7 was imploded. There were other detonations on the Twin Towers like controlled implotions, but I wouldn't rule out it was part of the attack, maybe pre-planted bombs to ensure the destruction of the towers.

Those other detonations (and this is speculation) if they even existed might be power generators as the flames shot down the elevator shafts

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Yeah WTC 7 was imploded. There were other detonations on the Twin Towers like controlled implotions, but I wouldn't rule out it was part of the attack, maybe pre-planted bombs to ensure the destruction of the towers.

Or if you bothered to look at satilite photos and witness testimony you'd realize the twin towers collapse knocked a concave hole into that buildings face.

 

[Carter]

Or if you bothered to look at satilite photos you'd realize the twin towers collapse knocked a concave hole into that buildings face.

Yep. Firefighters have testified to this