Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 148

Thread: North Tower Exploding

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    Norman Mineta was in the White House bunker with Cheney on the morning of 9/11. Did Mineta say that he heard Cheney order a stand down of air defenses? Many 9/11 truthers believe that he did:

    "When faced with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony — about Cheney’s stand-down order as the plane approached the Pentagon — defenders of the official story have tried to discredit Mineta by saying that he got his times mixed up."
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2007/...confirmed.html

    Mineta never mentioned a stand-down order. What did he say? Here is his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

    "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."
    https://www.9-11commission.gov/archi...2003-05-23.htm

    How do we get from that to "Cheney's stand-down order"? Like this:

    "Had Cheney given the expected order – the order to have an aircraft approaching the Pentagon shot down – we could not explain why the young man asked if the order still stood. It would have been abundantly obvious to him that it would continue to stand until the aircraft was actually shot down. His question would make sense, however, if the orders were ones that seemed unusual."
    https://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/...an-inside-job/

    So, the argument goes, orders to the USAF to shoot down a civilian airliner would have seemed quite usual and would certainly not have been queried by the aide before being passed on. Therefore, "the orders" must have been stand-down orders.

    Convinced?

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    10 reasons why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed

    1. They were designed to withstand jetliners, explosives, implosives, mamathermite, nukes, big ray guns, and the End Times. Underwriters Laboratories certified this.

    2. If they had collapsed at free fall they would have fallen through to China in 45 minutes. Instead it took several months for the steel to get there.

    3. The Empire State Building didn't collapse when an airplane hit it, and that was built when New York was still in the Empire.

    4. If two buildings that size had collapsed, the shockwaves would have started a tsunami that would have wiped out New Jersey. Somebody would have noticed.

    5. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes didn't collapse when he dropped them, so why would towers made of steel and concrete collapse?

    6. No other 110 story skyscraper hit by a jetliner at 500 mph and set on fire has ever collapsed.

    7. Each story was 12 ft high, and it takes 0.87 secs for an object to fall 12 ft. Do the math: 110 x 0.87 = 95.7. It would have taken over a minute and a half for those towers to collapse!

    8. The pyroclastic clouds would have suffocated everybody in Manhattan. See #4.

    9. The New World Order loves tall buildings, that's why they hang out at the UN. They would never have allowed it.

    10. How could two 1300 ft buildings collapse without damaging the surroundings? At least one other building would have collapsed later, say around 5 pm.

  3. The Following User Groans At Tranquillus in Exile For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (06-10-2018)

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Controlled Opposition View Post
    You do know that those buildings were designed to withstand hits by aircraft. Start from there in explaining your bizarre theory of 9-11.
    No they weren't.. The Empire State building was conventional brick and mortar hit by a small aircraft that was lost and flying at low speeds.

    NOTHING like the cantilevered, aluminum skinned WTC.

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    No they weren't.. The Empire State building was conventional brick and mortar hit by a small aircraft that was lost and flying at low speeds.

    NOTHING like the cantilevered, aluminum skinned WTC.
    The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders. The fireproofing had been damaged by the collision of the aircraft.

  6. The Following User Groans At cancel2 2022 For This Awful Post:

    Nomad (06-10-2018)

  7. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders.

    The heat caused the steel floor joists to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inwards. Some of the columns, already damaged by airplane impact, buckled and the collapse started. You can see it happening here:






    Btw, do you have anything approaching a sense of humor? Just wondering.

  8. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders. The fireproofing had been damaged by the collision of the aircraft.
    After that first bombing incident at the Towers.. I don't remember the year.. They promoted a narrative about it being built to withstand airliners.. It wasn't true..but, the Twin Towers was overbuilt to begin with and they had a hell of a time renting it up. In the early years it was a bit of a white elephant.

  9. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    10 reasons why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed

    1. They were designed to withstand jetliners, explosives, implosives, mamathermite, nukes, big ray guns, and the End Times. Underwriters Laboratories certified this.

    2. If they had collapsed at free fall they would have fallen through to China in 45 minutes. Instead it took several months for the steel to get there.

    3. The Empire State Building didn't collapse when an airplane hit it, and that was built when New York was still in the Empire.

    4. If two buildings that size had collapsed, the shockwaves would have started a tsunami that would have wiped out New Jersey. Somebody would have noticed.

    5. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes didn't collapse when he dropped them, so why would towers made of steel and concrete collapse?

    6. No other 110 story skyscraper hit by a jetliner at 500 mph and set on fire has ever collapsed.

    7. Each story was 12 ft high, and it takes 0.87 secs for an object to fall 12 ft. Do the math: 110 x 0.87 = 95.7. It would have taken over a minute and a half for those towers to collapse!

    8. The pyroclastic clouds would have suffocated everybody in Manhattan. See #4.

    9. The New World Order loves tall buildings, that's why they hang out at the UN. They would never have allowed it.

    10. How could two 1300 ft buildings collapse without damaging the surroundings? At least one other building would have collapsed later, say around 5 pm.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  10. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    Some of those '10 reasons' are a bit recherché and might only be picked up by truthers, or someone who has argued with them for years as I have.

    Truthers say the collapse was triggered by pre-planted explosives and/or thermite. Then once it started, they ask why didn't it stop - there must have been more explosives all the way down. See the OP.

    I've shown them the video of the perimeter columns buckling inwards, and they still say it was explosives. It's like arguing with Trumpsters.

    P.S. Nice pic.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Tranquillus in Exile For This Post:

    kudzu (06-10-2018)

  12. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquillus in Exile View Post
    The heat caused the steel floor joists to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inwards. Some of the columns, already damaged by airplane impact, buckled and the collapse started. You can see it happening here:


    Btw, do you have anything approaching a sense of humor? Just wondering.
    Are you avin a larf?


  13. The Following User Groans At cancel2 2022 For This Awful Post:

    Nomad (06-11-2018)

  14. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,520
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,567 Times in 17,094 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    building 7 was not hit by a plane. it did not have jet fuel burning through it. It collapsed like the others.

  15. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Um, fire will do that....

  16. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    building 7 was not hit by a plane. it did not have jet fuel burning through it. It collapsed like the others.
    That is correct - it was collapsed upon by the North Tower and set on fire. Also its design was most unusual, being cantilevered over a Con Ed power station. Structural engineers posting on other boards have said it was unique in their experience.

    One small quibble: it did not collapse like the others, it collapsed from the bottom. Several hundred first responders were around at the time, and none reported hearing any explosions.

  17. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I have a question. I don't remember which, but, there was one video in which one,one of the workers made a comment they needed to "pull" the building because it was going to go down. He was referring to one of the smaller buildings. If so, then wouldn't that indicate that some sort of device was already in place? If so, why would they already be there & who put them. I'd think with everything being unsafe they couldn't or wouldn't have time to do so after the fact.

  18. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abug'smom View Post
    I have a question. I don't remember which, but, there was one video in which one,one of the workers made a comment they needed to "pull" the building because it was going to go down. He was referring to one of the smaller buildings. If so, then wouldn't that indicate that some sort of device was already in place? If so, why would they already be there & who put them. I'd think with everything being unsafe they couldn't or wouldn't have time to do so after the fact.
    Without something to support this, it's just another CT.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  19. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    2,837
    Thanked 4,318 Times in 2,772 Posts
    Groans
    65
    Groaned 215 Times in 209 Posts

    Default

    Buildings 6 & 7 were pulled.



    In demolition slang, "pull" does not mean demolish with explosives.

Similar Threads

  1. Liberals heads exploding in 3 - 2 - 1
    By USFREEDOM911 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2016, 01:51 PM
  2. Voter fraud exploding across Virginia... act surprised
    By Celticguy in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 07:59 PM
  3. Advisory; To Teabaggers: You're Expected To GIVE-AWAY Exploding-Cigars!
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 09:09 AM
  4. Hear that? It's Runes head exploding.
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 04:42 AM
  5. Lies of Plutocracy: Exploding Five Myths that Dehumanize the Poor
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-27-2012, 08:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •