-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It's Been Almost 16 Years...
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Wallace Miller, Ernie Stuhl, Dennis Roddy, Rick King, Jim Parsons and Edie Magnus among others.
Those buildings were designed to withstand the impact of several airliners. No plane took the first two buildings down and certainly not Building 7. Explosives were responsible. Nano Thermite was found in the dust collected at Ground Zero.
Speaking of Ground Zero -- a man calling himself Mark Walsh was an actor. His real name --Mark Humphries.He was "interviewed" by a Fox New Reporter. It seemed like they were friends. How convenient of Mr Humphries to say he saw everything from beginning to end. Further, what a surprise! He summarized in a short, concise manner the entire official narrative. He even used the nomenclature of Ground Zero at that early point.
The reporter spoke to another man who said he didn't see a plane, but that a bomb of some sort caused the collapse.
Can any of you point to any example of buildings pancaking like these three did? No, you can't unless you have seen controlled demolitions.
I will work on the others later. Wallace Miller obviously found remains because He told CBS:
"
Wallace Miller said in an interview Tuesday that he was surprised that remains from Flight 93 might be involved in the new Pentagon report. “I wouldn’t know how there would be any possibility how any remains would get to Dover,” Miller said.
He said the only remains he knows of that would not be in Pennsylvania are those of four of the hijackers that are being held by the FBI for potential military tribunals."
Yes, it's rather incredible --not true.
these are the people I have found so far who made cell phone calls from their respective planes (and I don't think they were on planes at the time of their calls).
Cee Cee Lyless 93 --The one who whispered to her husband "It's a frame."
Thomas Burnett 93 (three calls)
Jeremy Glick 93 --His wife said the reception was so clear it was like he was in the next room. When he was supposed to be at 39,000 feet at that time.
Honor Winio 93
Linda Gronlund 93
Marion Britton 93
Brian Sweeney 175
Mr. Hanson 175
There may be a few others.
The point is : they could not possibly have made the calls from a jet thousands of feet in the air. There were no airphones. And can you imagine, if you believe that these people really were on planes --that they would use an airphone with the dangerous Muslims watching them all the while? Absurd. The calls were made from the ground. They were forced to stick to a script --by fellow Americans.
Don't be fooled any longer 911 was a scam perpetrated on the American people at the cost of thousands of lives. It was one big LIE from beginning to the end.
As Cee Cee Lyles said :"It's a frame."
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Ok, now that I am at a computer and not on my phone, I'm going to more fully weigh in on the conversation. Most of you know that I was a combat engineer in the Army. It was my job to know explosives in and out. I had to learn all about IEDs; their composition, their triggering mechanisms, their placement methods. I also had to know all about TNT, Dynamite, C4, cratering charges (ammonium nitrate) and others.
Some of what you are about read may sound like "tin-foil hat" stuff, but I feel that it's reasonable.
After watching footage of the towers collapsing, I am convinced that the towers fell because of explosives in the towers. However, I need to be quick to explain myself. I do NOT think that 9/11 was an inside job or a frame up. It is my current opinion that the buildings already had a fail-safe in them in case of catastrophic failure in order to minimize the damage of surrounding buildings.
Of course, the general public knowing this beforehand would cause outrage and public panic. And that's why I think it wasn't commonly known. And in my opinion, that's what is leading to all this conspiracy "inside job" theories.
This is not a hill I'm willing to die on, so feel free to disagree. But, that's my opinion based upon my knowledge of demolitions and watching the towers collapse.
Some of what you are about read may sound like "tin-foil hat" stuff, but I feel that it's reasonable.
After watching footage of the towers collapsing, I am convinced that the towers fell because of explosives in the towers. However, I need to be quick to explain myself. I do NOT think that 9/11 was an inside job or a frame up. It is my current opinion that the buildings already had a fail-safe in them in case of catastrophic failure in order to minimize the damage of surrounding buildings.
Of course, the general public knowing this beforehand would cause outrage and public panic. And that's why I think it wasn't commonly known. And in my opinion, that's what is leading to all this conspiracy "inside job" theories.
This is not a hill I'm willing to die on, so feel free to disagree. But, that's my opinion based upon my knowledge of demolitions and watching the towers collapse.
Whew! Now that's a landmark, if there ever was one. You mark the first time anyone has agreed with anything I have said. Mind you, I still will believe what I believe though everyone here vehemently disagrees with me to the end.
If you do enough research about all the events of that day --you'd have to conclude that there was a monster cover-up.It was most certainly an inside job, as shocking or inwardly repulsive as that may be to one's very being.
Three buildings SW? Explosives were planted in all three buildings. These were deliberate actions.
No one in their right mind can think that a jet --even a big one with tons of fuel could make two buildings collapse as they did. And it would take stretch of monumental proportions to think that 47 stories of Building 7 could go down as it did --with no jet plane alibi to persuade a gullible public.
What kind of catastrophic failure does a building have that would warrant putting explosives on it when it was built? Are you insinuating that explosives were built into the twin towers in the early 70's?
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
That was my insinuation, yes. After watching the buildings come down, I am convinced that they were brought down on purpose. What sealed the deal for me was the "pancake" motion, coupled with the puffs of smoke that descended as it collapsed. If you watch video footage of the demolition of buildings using explosives, they are identical.
Now, if the buildings were brought down on purpose, then that leaves several options open. The first being that 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy. I personally find no compelling evidence to support this. Rather, I believe that in the face of what was happening, they chose to bring the buildings down in a way that minimized structural damage to the surrounding landscape.
If the fire had continued to burn the way it was going, superheating the metal and causing a collapse, the buildings would have collapsed to one side, rather than pancaking. This would have caused much more damage than simply just pancaking the building. Also, it serves as evidence that the buildings were brought down intentionally, as they didn't collapse to one side as they should have.
As to the why, with the buildings being as tall as they were, it's possible that they thought out this exact scenario. Not terrorism, per se, but a low flying plane accidentally hitting them. Or possibly a catastrophic building fire. Or even a bomb threat.
On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint. Gravity increases the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a single collapsing floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but straight down. Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed due to fire. (Meacham, Brian. Fire and Collapse, Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology: Data Collection and Preliminary Analyses.)
The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall. And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last. According to Conspiracy Theorist Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition. (Eagar, Thomas W. and Christopher Musso. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8–11.) (NIST NCSTAR1 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. 2005. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers)
Those so-called "explosions" going down the exterior walls? Really very simple of you think about it.
During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a “hurricane wind” in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects. (Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. 2008. “What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134)
Well, that's enough. Take off the tinfoil hats and look into the issue just a bit.
The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall. And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last. According to Conspiracy Theorist Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition. (Eagar, Thomas W. and Christopher Musso. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8–11.) (NIST NCSTAR1 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. 2005. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers)
Those so-called "explosions" going down the exterior walls? Really very simple of you think about it.
During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a “hurricane wind” in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects. (Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. 2008. “What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134)
Well, that's enough. Take off the tinfoil hats and look into the issue just a bit.
I am in full agreement with the above.
Of course. And not only the events in NYC, but Pa. and the Pentagon.
Again, the buildings could have withstood the impact of several airliners.That's how strongly they were made. Planes are largely made of thin aluminium. The buildings were made of reinforced steel. There would have been no way that a plane could have made more than the nose of it penetrating buildings. Planes would have broken up and fallen to the streets below.
Fire wasn't the cause of the collapse of the three buildings. I know you don't believe that. I just want people to know.
Now can you explain why BUILDING 7 went down in the same manner as the other two? No plane touched it.
It had to be rigged with explosives just like the other two buildings. How can you account for it unless it was an inside job?
Absurd. Many buildings have been struck with planes and still stood.
Nonsense --not with all that steel.
That's more plausible, but...
Your lack of knowledge of physics is stunningly deficient. No reason to listen to ANOTHER WORD you say.
Ernie Stuhl confirms the jet crashed. He has made his rounds insisting F16 fighters shot it down.
Dennis Roddy is a writer who has described the crash as a crash. He has done stories about the victims and their families.
Jim Parsons. He claims the jet was shot down. He definitely does not deny it crashed.
William Baker :"There is no way there is a 757 scattered here."
Wallace Miller : "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
Rick King :"Where is the plane? And where are the people?...thousands of tiny pieces scattered around --bits of metal, insulation, wiring --but no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater and charred earth."
Homer Barron :"It didn't look like a plane crash, because there was nothing that looked like a plane."
Frank Monaco (Pa. State Police) :"It didn't look like a plane crash."
Scott Spangler :"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing, just the pit. I didn't think I was in the right place."
Wells Morgan (FBI agent) :"Where is the plane? I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris."
Patrick Madigan (Commander with the Pa. State Police) :"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape or form, look like a plane crash. I thought I would see recognizable plane parts. But at the pit, there was nothing that looked like a plane."
Wallace Miller : "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
Rick King :"Where is the plane? And where are the people?...thousands of tiny pieces scattered around --bits of metal, insulation, wiring --but no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater and charred earth."
Homer Barron :"It didn't look like a plane crash, because there was nothing that looked like a plane."
Frank Monaco (Pa. State Police) :"It didn't look like a plane crash."
Scott Spangler :"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing, just the pit. I didn't think I was in the right place."
Wells Morgan (FBI agent) :"Where is the plane? I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris."
Patrick Madigan (Commander with the Pa. State Police) :"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape or form, look like a plane crash. I thought I would see recognizable plane parts. But at the pit, there was nothing that looked like a plane."
A plane hits the ground at terminal velocity and it no longer looks like a plane. Well, Duh! Hitting the ground at terminal velocity will do that to a thin tube of aluminium.
Notice they did say it was not a plane crash. Just that it didn't look like what they were expecting a crash site to look like. And how many crash sites had they seen when a plane went straight down into the ground at terminal velocity?
Notice they did say it was not a plane crash. Just that it didn't look like what they were expecting a crash site to look like. And how many crash sites had they seen when a plane went straight down into the ground at terminal velocity?
Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (scientist)
"The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics..."
"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon stricture one would expect from the impact of a large airliner."
"I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact --no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing around on the lawn in front of the damaged building...."
"The scene, in short was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."
"The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics..."
"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon stricture one would expect from the impact of a large airliner."
"I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact --no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing around on the lawn in front of the damaged building...."
"The scene, in short was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."
- Status