Yeah another urban story, they carry standard firearms including automatic weapons.
General / Off-Topic You haven't thought of everything
- Thread starter [PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
- Start date
Well in case of 9/11 the building was constructed to withstand an airplane crashing into it, moreover no fire can make a build collapse like the WTC did by a fire, that is a fact. so in case of 9/11 there are more questions than answers. The building that burned in the UK didn’t collapse either and it burned pretty well I must say.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
Do you have a theory as to what happened then?
None of that is even close to being remotely factual.
EDIT :
Breakdown :
Not Boeing 767's and 757's that had fully loaded fuel tanks having just taken off.
Burning buildings frequently collapse. Burning buildings that have had jet liners smack into them doubly so.
No it isn't.
Not about what happened.
Bit of a lack of jet liner impact in Grenfell.
This rubbish insults the dead, the injured, their grieving relatives and the emergency services workers who made the ultimate sacrifice. You should stop it.
Last edited:
A few tons of aluminum (plane bodies etc., molten hot, mixed with water) makes a big bang. The buildings were built on the cheap anyway.
I think I need to point out: I said, the president's, 'close protection' do not carry (in hand) automatic rifles. Since JFK.
There is nothing particularly implausible about the official story behind any of the events mentioned in this thread and certainly not the collapse of WTC 1&2.
I've never fired a Carcano, but I have shot some other bolt action rifles, and I'm far more more skeptical of the idea that it takes 2.3+ seconds to cycle the bolt and fire a Carcano (about twice what I'd expect for someone practiced with their weapon) than the idea that a single 'magic' bullet (doesn't take magic for a bullet be deflected or tumble, nor for a hit from behind to cause one to jerk back) would have been responsible for the wounds in both men.
Can't categorically rule it out, but nothing about the event makes me think a second shooter, or any friendly fire incident, was necessary, or particularly likely.
Impact of a 707 (a smaller aircraft than a 767) was considered. However, the WTC design did not, and could not (neither appropriate models, nor computers powerful enough to run them, were around until long after it's construction) take into account the effects of an uncontrolled fire on the structure in absence of fireproofing that was destroyed on impact. They were lightly built framed tube structures with load bearing exterior walls, wide open spaces between those walls and the core supports, spray on fireproofing protecting floor trusses and drywall protecting the core support columns. The impacts greatly damaged their structural integrity, destroyed much of of the fireproofing on on the affected floors, destroyed fire suppression systems, and started a fire that had disastrous effects on the strength of what wasn't damaged by the initial impacts. It's quite possible that the impacts or fires alone would not have resulted in collapse, but together there was no way either building was going to remain standing...as is quite clear in hindsight.
There are also no remotely analogous structures that have suffered major fires, let alone aircraft impacts, and relatively few structures of analogous design and construction in any case. The building you are talking about in the UK was of entirely different and far more traditional design and wasn't hit with a plane. Regardless, there are other examples of steel high-rise structures that have collapsed solely due to fire.
Some more traditional structures (like the Empire State Building) would likely have weathered the attacks far better, because they don't use their skins to hold themselves up, and tend to have support pillars encased in thick concrete, not a couple inches of drywall, and are often much more heavily built.
I've never fired a Carcano, but I have shot some other bolt action rifles, and I'm far more more skeptical of the idea that it takes 2.3+ seconds to cycle the bolt and fire a Carcano (about twice what I'd expect for someone practiced with their weapon) than the idea that a single 'magic' bullet (doesn't take magic for a bullet be deflected or tumble, nor for a hit from behind to cause one to jerk back) would have been responsible for the wounds in both men.
Can't categorically rule it out, but nothing about the event makes me think a second shooter, or any friendly fire incident, was necessary, or particularly likely.
Impact of a 707 (a smaller aircraft than a 767) was considered. However, the WTC design did not, and could not (neither appropriate models, nor computers powerful enough to run them, were around until long after it's construction) take into account the effects of an uncontrolled fire on the structure in absence of fireproofing that was destroyed on impact. They were lightly built framed tube structures with load bearing exterior walls, wide open spaces between those walls and the core supports, spray on fireproofing protecting floor trusses and drywall protecting the core support columns. The impacts greatly damaged their structural integrity, destroyed much of of the fireproofing on on the affected floors, destroyed fire suppression systems, and started a fire that had disastrous effects on the strength of what wasn't damaged by the initial impacts. It's quite possible that the impacts or fires alone would not have resulted in collapse, but together there was no way either building was going to remain standing...as is quite clear in hindsight.
There are also no remotely analogous structures that have suffered major fires, let alone aircraft impacts, and relatively few structures of analogous design and construction in any case. The building you are talking about in the UK was of entirely different and far more traditional design and wasn't hit with a plane. Regardless, there are other examples of steel high-rise structures that have collapsed solely due to fire.
Some more traditional structures (like the Empire State Building) would likely have weathered the attacks far better, because they don't use their skins to hold themselves up, and tend to have support pillars encased in thick concrete, not a couple inches of drywall, and are often much more heavily built.
Currently there's at least one SUV with a bunch of very heavily armed guys in full black tactical gear that trails close behind with the windows down. The guys with the M16's at JFK's assassination were also in a trailing car.
So the real change is to full overt tactical rigs and a battlefield load.
Which is pretty much a move in the exact opposite direction to the "proof" of the conspiracy you pushed.
Please show me examples of other building pancake into their own footprint due to a fire.
The world trade centre didn't collapse within its own footprint, you need to start fact checking whichever conspiracies you are following.
That doesn't show the collapse it shows the start of the collapse of one building and it falling out of view, which incidentally isn't an even collapse it clearly goes from one side first. So its just another inaccurate thing you've seen/read and taken as fact without applying any critical thinking to it. There's really easily available information on all the other buildings destroyed and damaged in the collapse, which proves the collapse obviously didn't happen within the buildings own footprint.
Next ?.
As we seem to be on the subject, my pet loony theory about the Kennedy Assassination was that it ended up being a benign conspiracy. Regardless of what actually happened (and it seems like nearly every faction had an interest in getting rid of Kennedy), if the public thought there was evidence a KGB agent had assassinated the President you'd have to declare war on Russia. Which would mean the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people. So the more muddy the waters the better.
Needs an adrenochrome or furniture ordering angle to have proper conspiracy legs.
Are you really that ignorant? Sorry but if you can’t see what’s going on from that video I will question your technical competences. 3.000+ engineers and scientist (MIT, Harvard + more) question the undisputed fact that it could not fall the way it did caused by fire. Of course you will say they are all conspiracy lunatics from infowars when the matter of fact is they are highly respected in their field of science or engineering. What are your credentials in this field? You should at least ask the question, are they on to something or is it just crazy talk, I know what I’m leaning towards after I actually listen to what they had to say, and that is not the official story. Where the truth is I don’t know but it’s not what we’re being told.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.
Are you really that ignorant? Sorry but if you can’t see what’s going on from that video I will question your technical competences. 3.000+ engineers and scientist (MIT, Harvard + more) question the undisputed fact that it could not fall the way it did caused by fire. Of course you will say they are all conspiracy lunatics from infowars when the matter of fact is they are highly respected in their field of science or engineering. What are your credentials in this field? You should at least ask the question, are they on to something or is it just crazy talk, I know what I’m leaning towards after I actually listen to what they had to say, and that is not the official story. Where the truth is I don’t know but it’s not what we’re being told.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.www.ae911truth.org
That video doesn't show a controlled detonation it shows a collapse starting on one side which wouldn't result in a collapse within its own footprint. Which as we know didn't happen hence all the other damaged and destroyed buildings. The video you've posted disproves your claim.
So its obviously crazy talk since the damage was done by the impact of two jetliners. To focus only on the fire deliberately misses half the picture and probably relies on some whacko theory there were no planes involved at all.
Well, I was assuming it would have something to do with sasquatches from Area 51 putting chlorine in the water.
I hope those sasquatches are non-fluoridated.
Even if I could, it wouldn't be an analogous scenario because of the differences in construction that have to be ignored to think there was some sort of controlled demolition going on in the first place.
The exact same factors that made the WTC vulnerable assured it would collapse the way it did. If you could find a similarly constructed building, strip it of it's fire protection, and start and uncontrolled blaze, it would probably fail in the same manner.
So, I could retort by saying, "show me a building of similar construction that didn't collapse nearly vertically in a similar scenario" and it would be equally impossible, because no similar structure has ever suffered anything remotely similar.
There is nothing even vaguely suspicious about the official account of the collapse itself, if one looks at the context of the design and construction of the buildings involved.
The collapse was almost vertical and did occur in a very tight footprint, so that part of the assertion is barely an exaggeration.
The buildings were essentially hollow tubes (the structural exterior) connected to a core by the trusses supporting each floor (the whole point was to have huge expanses of office space unbroken by support columns). When the floor trusses failed due to increased load and the fires, the floors started to pancake, which left the exterior and core without mutual support. There was nothing to apply lateral forces to the collapse, especially below the impact zones, so gravity brought it almost straight down.
A more traditional construction would not have likely failed in this way, because whole floors aren't normally suspended like they are in framed tube architecture. If an impact and/or fire had caused localized damage severe enough to precipitate a collapse the rest of the structure would probably be pulled in that direction because they aren't held together by relatively flimsy floor trusses that would already have been stripped from vertical support structures.
Anyway, the argument that other buildings haven't failed the way the WTCs did is, if anything, support for the official story because the WTCs were of radically different design to most any collapse or major fire conspiracy theorists refer to. If it had looked similar to anything else, that would have been really weird.