88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
you're forgetting the pm of italy is troll
9/11 survivor says there were explosions before/after planes hit
- Thread starter babylon1
- Start date
you're forgetting the pm of italy is troll
So what's the point of pulling building 7?
could they have allowed 9/11 to happen in order to open the door for the patriot act aka the stalking of you act? a convenient pre-text?
nah, that would be a conspiracy theory and we all know that those conspiracy theorists wear tin foil hats because they are crazy.
right brehs???
right???
nah, that would be a conspiracy theory and we all know that those conspiracy theorists wear tin foil hats because they are crazy.
right brehs???
right???
Abstract83
Superstar
Y do anybody who question our governent have to be labeled conspiracy theorists?
LucaBrasi
West Coast Legend
Positive Posting
Pro
well, the explosions came from the jet fuel and elevator shafts blowing the fukk up. You have to understand that the attack left a major ball of fire and jet fuel dripping all over the building causing many mass and mini explosions.
CourtesyFlush
Superstar
There were thousands of survivors who said no such thing
Most likely the explosions were rivets and metal straining. When you have a plane destroy a perfect foundation to handle a load, it forces the rest of the surviving structure to handle the weight. Eventually it begins to give way before the entire tower collapses.
Godless Socialist CEO
Superstar
If the trump administration has taught us anything it’s that a cover up of this magnitude would have zero chance of staying a secret
Something the "explosions" conspiracy theorists virtually always omit from their theory is that you would need an incredible amount of explosive material to pull that off. And it would be useless to just leave it out in the hallway, when you run a demolition you have to remove entire walls and floors in order to get to the support structures. Plus in a controlled demolition you don't just "blow it up", you have to pre-cut a lot of the supports and such.
So when the hell did all of this happen? You couldn't do it "off-hours", the towers were staffed 24/7. They were full of security staff, cleaning staff, and even people working in their offices. There were literally hundreds of people in the tower at all times. So when did they carry tens of thousands of pounds of explosives into the building, cut through walls, cut through supports, lay it all down, in three different buildings....without the slightest leak of it getting out? You couldn't even do it just at night because there's no chance you're gonna get through those walls and lay everything down and then repair the walls....and even if you could people would notice entire walls suddenly repainted or entire offices moved around. This is noisy, dirty, intensive work, and we're supposed to believe:
* every one of the masterminds
* every one of the logistical planners
* every one of the materials procurers
* every one of the actual workers who installed it
* every one of the security guards they had to pay off
* every one of the guys operating the cameras
* every one of the cleaning staff on those floors
* every one of the office staff in the vicinity
That NONE of those hundreds and hundreds of folk you'd have to involve leaked it? And none of the tens of thousands of people who worked in the buildings noticed what was going on when the office furnature was all getting moved around, floors and walls rebuilt and repainted, etc.?
No change of heart. No deathbed confession. No one got hacked, no one misplaced their paperwork, no one shared with the wrong confidant....not one leak.
Not to mention the hijackers themselves. So the 19 Arab guys and all their handlers have to be in on the plot too, because the planes crashing into the buildings has to be coordinated with the blowing up of the buildings.
And all this conspiracy....for what? Just to pass the Patriot Act? You seriously want to believe that Islamic terrorists crashing planes into mulitple buildings wouldn't be enough to pass that shyt, that it only passes if the buildings fall down? That's ridiculous. Or was it to start the Iraq War, even though nothing about the plot was ever connected to Iraq? Imagine making a huge conspiracy between hundreds of high-level people in order to start the Iraq War.....but you don't even bother connecting any part of the plot or the plotters to Iraq? You can rig some of America's most famous buildings with explosives and recruit a bunch of Saudis to help you, but you can't even get a few Iraqis involved? Can't fake any evidence that Saddam was involved even though Saddam is your target the whole time?
Nothing about that "conspiracy" makes sense. And it's unnecessary. Literally thousands of scientists and engineers have signed off on the Towers being taken down by the impact of the planes followed by the weakening of central supports due to the uncontrolled burning of jet fuel and the structure itself. Are all of those thousands of scientists and engineers on the take too? And NONE of the ones on the take have ever leaked either?
If you talk to actual scientists and engineers, the VAST majority of them don't think there was a controlled demolition. So are they all on the take or what? I had a structural engineering professor (that's not the class I took from him but that was his specialty) who had an entire massive presentation on why it wasn't a controlled demolition. Was he a secret agent lying to all of us?
Yeah, there are some dissenters who follow conspiracies. Literally every issue has contrarions who do that. Look up their credentials and 95% of the pepole who signed off on the conspiracy aren't even in the right fields, they just let anyone sign that shyt even though most of them weren't actual structural engineers at all
What do you think of the actual reports that were written? Not just the government reports, but the ones like Scientific American wrote where they commissioned 300 scientists/engineers to look into every aspect of the attack? How do you explain that?
So now you expect us to believe that the entire world knows about the conspiracy, and STILL no leak?
And to be clear, the guy who said that had left the Italian presidency in 1992. So somehow the conspiracy is so big that even former presidents know all about it? And look as his exact words:
"all democratic circles in America and of Europe, especially those of the Italian centre-left, now know that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world, to place the blame on Arab countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan".
So everyone knew about it! "All democratic circles!" lol And yet the only one to tell us is a 15-year retired Italian president famous for unloading random bullshyt who decided to share the information as an aside during an extended rant where he doesn't say anything else about 9/11 in the entire speech, never provides any evidence for the claim, and never mentions it again?
Last edited:
What's the point of pulling the firefighters out of it? Probably that they realized it had become far too dangerous, impossible to contain, and after having already lost hundreds of firefighters on the day they didn't want to lose any more.
Especially after WTC3, which was the Marriott Hotel between both towers. When the first tower fell, it cut the Hotel in half, and when the 2nd tower fell it took out most of the structure except for a small portion retrofitted after the Bombing in 93'. Firefighters were using that area as a staging area along with evacuating guests.
yeah, i dont "trust" the 9/11 story, but the bottom line is it would have required WAY too many people staying silent, to have been an inside job
i still want a better video of the plane that hit the pentagon. its the most protected building on the planet, just show us the fukkin video. there isnt a reason not to. it would even shut up the idiots talking about missiles and holograms
Is there any confirmation that better video exists? There's a simple logistic issue with trying to cover the entire Pentagon grounds with high FPS security vid in 2001 - it was just too fukking big.
How many security cameras do you need to monitor 1,100 acres of land and 150 acres of office space with 17.5 miles of corridors and 3.7 million square feet of offices? Is 10,000 security cameras enough? 20,000? Maybe more? The answer is obviously classified, but there has to be thousands and thousands of cameras there.
Problem is, where are those cameras pointing? If you want to monitor who goes in and out, then you have cameras pointed on every road in, every exterior drive-in entrance, every building entrance. You may have cameras set up all around the perimeter fence as well, all pointing out. None of those cameras are going to be pointed at the building itself, they're all directed away from the building and pointed in line with or at the ground. Then you're going to have cameras all over the corridors to track movement. And you'll have cameras inside certain secure rooms, possibly multiple cameras inside many rooms. NONE of those indoor cameras are gonna show you shyt.
With all of those cameras to worry about already, are you going to have another couple cameras every 50 feet on the wall outside, just to video the wall? You would need to set up another 200 cameras to cover the entire building perimeter that way. What purpose would that serve? No one is going to be able to get into the Pentagon by sneaking into the grounds, running across open space, and climbing up into a fukking window. They'd be caught 10x before then and I seriously doubt the lower-level windows could even be accessed. There's literally zero reason to monitor those walls.
The video of the plane that was released came from a camera that was monitoring a driveway near the building. That makes sense - those are the sorts of cameras that were situated outdoors and pointed in various directions - the ones monitoring the access roads. None of the fence perimeter cameras, none of the entry cameras, none of the corridor cameras, none of the room cameras, are going to be able to capture the plane. With 1,110 acres of land surrounding nearly a mile of building perimeter, I don't know why there would be more than 1 security camera pointed at any one particular part of the building.
Next comes the quality issue. Let's say you have 10,000 or so security cameras already, the vast majority of which are going to be on the outer fence perimeter, building entrances, or inside the building. How much storage space do you think they have to store continuous video from 10,000 cameras? Before 9/11 the last major rennovation of the Pentagon came in 1992. There's no way they're replacing 10,000 cameras and all the infrastructure around them every year, so it's quite possible that the last camera rennovation came when that 1992 rennovation started. Do you realize how unwieldy digital storage space was in the early 1990s? 72 hours of 30fps video would be 7,776,000 frames. At 1080 HD that would be nearly 600 GB for EVERY camera. Ifyou have 10,000 cameras, that 6,000,000 GB every 3 days. And since a true Pentagon security issue may take weeks or months to uncover, they're probably not rewriting that memory every 72 hours like a store would, they might be saving a month of video at a time or even longer. With a month you're talking 60,000,000 GB of camera footage. Back in the 1990s when storage space was many times more unweildy than it is today.
For that reason, the vast majority of security camera footage is not going to be HD and it's not going to be 30fps. Perhaps the key entrances and most secure rooms have the highest quality footage stored, but the random outdoor spaces are going to get the least priority. You're going to have maybe 2 FPS video at standard definition. And that's exactly what we saw.
Again, all the actual specs are going to be confidential, so there's no way to verify what they're really doing. But I don't see why you can assume high-quality security camera footage aimed every-which way on 1,100 acres of outdoor space. It doesn't make sense from a security perspective and it's just not practical logistically. They didn't have that kind of ability to manage memory like that in the 1990s.