I think the fact that they developed them right under our noses is kind of the point, we've known about it the whole time (the fact that we've done little to stop it is another issue, its something that does actually irritate me). They've been doing their best, and what they've done is pretty impressive considering the time scale, but they've always done their best to exaggerate their achievements as well, with us finding out the truth somehow everytime. By everytime, I mean taken to an obvious degree, we can't obviously know for sure that they have no secrets, but we have reasonable video intelligence (cited in my previous source) disproving their claims of missile advance. How is it reasonably possible, with this in mind, to expect them to have developed significantly more advanced and expensive weapons, weapons which are also much more difficult to produce, without being noticed? I actually agree with you on this, and I hope you aren't referring to me, as I made a specific point of not criticising you for this. Criticising a difference in political following is hardly the point here.
if you look close enough you can see the explosion comes from inside the two towers so i think it was just a set up
Ok first off i hear this alot where i live about 9/11 being a setup, i live in brooklyn. Now 9/11 was an act of terroism and not a setup, altho we did have prior warning to the attacks but they were dissmissed, both while cliton and bush were presidents. Acording to what ive learned, the US government had confirmed reports of an attack on the united states months before 9/11. The jetfuel from the planes made the fires burn so hot the fire proofing form the I beams in the tower floors were completly burned off causeing them to buckle and causing the pancake effect and the towers to fall.
world trade 7 was burning most of the day, altho it does look like a demo team took it down, maybe who knows. But it was really burning for almost 10 hours.
can anyone actually get a video of a building just collapsing but not doing so in a predictable/demo fashion, I would but cba
It was hit my the massive debris from the twin towers falling. The structual damage was enough to make the building collapse. Why do you think demo teams have to be so precise when demolishing skyscrapers?
Yeah most of the debris was covered by jet fuel from the impact so stuff went every where especialy the 3rd building thats how it colapsed.
im frankly too lazy to read all 9 pages of this, so im sorry if im just reposting what someone else may have already....but everyone, and i mean everyone...should watch this. Zeitgeist - The Movie or just search it through youtube and watch it there. moving stuff...really.
Just want to mention that this video is in the original post. I also want to argue about the third building going down. Debris wouldn't make a building fall. If it got a piece of debris the size of a plane, yes, but have you ever heard of a building getting hit by tons of little debris and it fell from that? I don't think so. Physically impossible, especially when they create buildings to support massive weight even if some pillars and support is destroyed. Also, burning wouldn't even hurt the steel pillars that support the building. I'll also add that there weren't even many fires in the building. Steel burns at a very high temperature, so a few fires wouldn't have even came close to enough heat to melt the girders. Might I add that there wasn't even a massive amount of debris that hit the 3rd building. Nothing from the first two came close to the 3rd building. Heres a video of TC7 falling and some explanations. http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=related Also, please people, turn your signatures off. This is the debate section, not off topic.
Orly? Do you have proof for that claim? I suggest you read up on architecture before arguing about building stability.
What kind of damage would cause a building to fall downwards like they did? Clearly only a professionally demolished building. The towers and building seven clearly fall straight down. We all know that in a non-controlled building collapse it would fall sideways or perhaps even upwards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCYo8Fat7so&feature=related Watch this video of a controlled demolition. Notice how the building fall downwards. Proof if ever you needed any. I know how buildings behave because when I'm not on the internet I'm a structural engineer.
The video I posted is proof enough. Debris unless it's sizable and quickly moving towards the building will not damage it. Technically, all that came out of the falling of the towers for the first block was dust and small debris that could only break a window. Also, as said by the creator, these buildings were built to be as stable as possible. Although I like how you argued my debris argument and not the fire issue.
Did you ever think of the impact of the twin towers falling could have desrupted world trade 7's frame work. Also the reason building seven fell straight down was because the higher floors pancaked and fell onto the lower floors, much like buildings 1 and 2, and there could have been more fires deep inside the building or the basement.
Aha, but this is when your argument goes bad (at least by my standards). The twin towers didn't fall at the same time, so the shock wave wasn't enough to rumble the other buildings frames. Might I add that no other skyscrapers fell either. Their frames would of been altered to if it was from building one and two's fall, and no other buildings fell that day. Everyone needs to take in consideration that the only buildings that fell that day were the three world trade centers. Also, there was little damage to the top floors which wouldn't of made them cave in from the top. The only thing that could of brought down that GIANT middle column of mass steel would of been a demolition. Also, buildings 1 and 2 didn't pancake. Many people don't know what a building looks like when it pancakes. There would be floors on top of floors on top of floors at the base of the destruction of the building. Also, once more I will add that all around the world, never has a skyscraper fell due to fire. Not even a mass fire. Floors would cave in, ceilings would come crashing down, but the building's frame would still be standing if they left it on fire for a long time. People actually believe this due to movie magic. They watch movies of buildings on fire that tumble down, but it has never happened in real life. Imagine that... Also, compared next to a demolition, the way they fall looks the exact same. If I can pull up a video of a side by side demolition compare contrast, I'll post it in here.
you put up a good debate i must say, im going to go research this more, maybe 7 world trade was under standards when built and wasnt built with code. maybe the fall of the towers at different times caused things to shift and bind. edit, sorry i forgot to turn my sig off
I used to think it was terrorism. Then I was skeptical. Now, after watching Zeitgeist, I'm almost certain that it was a set-up to get us to go to Iraq. That really is a moving/informational film. That EVERYONE should watch.
For those of you on the 'It was a setup!' side of the debate, could you please be more informative than say 'Just watch Zeitgest' or whatever source you have. I want you to explain it for us, instead of just posting the source. That's not what the debate section is for.