Results 51 to 60 of 80
-
05-11-2009, 02:45 PM #51
From the article:
"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," said Jones in a media advisory. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."
Is the material something that, say, could be produced by 2 jumbo jets full of fuel flying at high speeds into large buildings made of steel?
-
-
05-13-2009, 11:17 PM #52
im bumping this thread until just one person attempts to explain Bush, Giuliani and let's say Rumsfelds comments without saying they misspoke
im not trying to prove anything, i just need an explanation because I can't think of a good one other than they knew what they shouldn't have...and if you guys care about me, you'll set me straight so I don't continue to tell people about their statements and look like an ***
the NIST itself says that these fuel lines did not contribute to the collapse because ruptured fuel lines could not have been sustained long enough to generate sufficient heat to fail interior steel columns. The NIST says thermal expansion caused the collapse. The NIST says if the sprinkler systems had been working, that WTC7 probably would not have collapsed. The NIST says the fires burned uncontrolled for 7 hours over 10 floors and no attempt to fight the fires was made. The NIST says WTC7 would have collapsed even without the structural damage caused by falling debris from tower 1.
-
05-15-2009, 03:12 PM #53
bump
-
-
05-15-2009, 03:20 PM #54
I'm not sure if someone has posted this yet as there are 6 pages of stuff and I have not read each post, but there is a documentary called loose change (I think there are a few different parts) in which it explains some of the conspiracy theories etc. Anyone else watch this?
-
05-15-2009, 06:09 PM #55
yeah, about 4 years ago....and it's probably half the reason why nobody will answer my questions....while there is some good info in it, overall it gets crapped on because they did like 4 different versions and each one they changed their theories...first there was planes with missile pods on the bottom, then there was no planes, then there was remote controlled planes with no passengers on them....loose change has basically given people a reason to ignore any and all good evidence that goes against the official story
so basically what I'm saying is, loose change sucks
-
-
05-15-2009, 06:13 PM #56
For anyone else that has watched, or plans to watch this(I'll hold my opinions), please watch the following movie as well:
Screw Loose Change - counters the "evidence" in loose change
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
-
05-15-2009, 06:17 PM #57
honestly....screw both of them....do some actual reading
what happened to "debunking" bush & giulianis quotes jesse?
-
-
05-17-2009, 02:09 PM #58
a month later, and the only person that's even tried to answer my question is Techman....and he thinks it was just an "obvious mistake on Bush's part" and that i'm crazy...haha

you guys really don't care about me do you?
-
05-17-2009, 11:28 PM #59
lmfao....lol. sorry, kinda forgot about that one. I'll see what I can find, maybe tomorrow.
-
05-17-2009, 11:40 PM #60
in a rush to get to bed, this seems on the surface to be typical bush idiocracy. the date for the interview looks like december, 2001. i can't remember, but was he already getting flac for sitting in the classroom with a "deer in the headlights" look after they told him we were under attack?
if so, this looks like bush trying to get ahead of this criticism by saying, "...guy can't fly a plane very well" or whatever he said. on first glance, that what this looks like, but I've gotta go. I'll give it more time tomorrow.
Have a good one buddy.....
-














