Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**shakur420** · 02-12-2010, 05:38 AM

Quote:"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."

-September 11, 2001 (telegraph.co.uk)

Quote:"...architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to absorb (“Nerdcities: The Guardian” 2002). So, from an engineering perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, should have been able to withstand the collisions on September 11th..."

-Vikas Agrawal (science-writing.org)

That's all I got time for right now.

**Gezus** · 02-12-2010, 05:48 AM

^ good shit. plus i heard in that one vid about the whole conspiracy of 9/11 that if the towers were to falter from the crashes, that they should not have 'pancaked' to destruction. the structure below the destruction should not have collapsed. just the portion that got hit & the portion above that... so there should have still been part of a building standing. which is why they also mention that the only way to make the full building 'pancake' would to be to destroy the bottom structure. which i think, like a lot of other conspirators, that it was an inside job & someone (some group) destroyed the bottom structure. & that group being the us government of course...

**INSURGENCYmusic** · 02-12-2010, 07:43 AM

Yea theres no question. The towers blew up right in front of us. Floor by floor.... into dust....

We live in a crazy world....

**shakur420** · (This post was last modified: 02-12-2010 09:31 AM by shakur420.)

^a mad world

HAHAHAHA

If anyone can find more reliable sources, though, about the towers' engineering that would be cool. I could've sworn I'd seen something really 100% in the past - maybe something from that guy Yamasaki, I don't know. I just didn't have too much time. Will get at it later.

**INSURGENCYmusic** · 02-12-2010, 09:55 AM

Here is a 3 part series about NIST finally admitting that free fall speed did occur in WTC 7. It's by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. A group of over 1000 Architects and engineers who find that the towers were brought down by explosives. http://www.ae911truth.org

The significance of this video is that it proves that NIST was knowingly lying about science in order to cover up the fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed. Now, ask yourself, why would NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) Lie? Then when AE911truth exposed the lie and forced them to admit to free fall... they just brushed it off and said that free fall fits their theory. It's so ridiculous how obvious it is that the NIST report is nothing more than a white wash at best..... It's really unbelievable...

PArt 1

PArt 2

part 3

**messinjure** · (This post was last modified: 02-12-2010 09:21 PM by messinjure.)

will we ever know the truth .
or is it right in front of our eyes

**backwoodz** · 02-12-2010, 11:52 PM

the fact that building 7 wasnt a bigger story is what gets me b/c it really shows false info from the government a building just dosnt fall like a demolition no plane hit it the fires where small fires that would not cause the floors to cave in and collapse and if im right i think only one steel building ever collapse as a result to fire I MEAN COMPLETELY NOTHING LEFT OF IT JUST LIKE A DEMOLITION this really proves that you can persuade anyone into believing anything

**psy0nyd3** · 02-13-2010, 12:03 AM

If anyone argues that the planes knocked the towers down all you have to show them is this:

[Image: pic87932.jpg]

**Chino** · 02-13-2010, 12:03 AM

heres the fact: if the twins towers were to genuinely fall, they would have at fallen, floor by floor, not crumble all the way to the ground, simple physics, if a building like that were to fall, it cannot be like a free fall, there had to be some sort of resistance against the heavy weight of each floor before they gave way right?

think about it familia
Peace from the homie Chino

**Gezus** · (This post was last modified: 02-13-2010 01:36 AM by Gezus.)

(02-13-2010 12:03 AM)psy0nyd3 Wrote: If anyone argues that the planes knocked the towers down all you have to show them is this:

^ there is the proof of the beams being cut. you can easily tell. & if you disagree & say "no no they are clearly snapped from the destruction of the collapse from the planes hitting", then sorry but your dumb.

(02-13-2010 12:03 AM)Lilchinotws Wrote: heres the fact: if the twins towers were to genuinely fall, they would have at fallen, floor by floor, not crumble all the way to the ground, simple physics, if a building like that were to fall, it cannot be like a free fall, there had to be some sort of resistance against the heavy weight of each floor before they gave way right?

think about it familia
Peace from the homie Chino

exactly true.

**dizfunktional** · 02-13-2010, 08:51 AM

did u guys not see zeitgeist? lol it explains all of this stuff in full detail
theres no question in my mind it was a controlled demolition

**Malayo-Polynesian** · 02-13-2010, 09:18 AM

you guys got it all wrong. the buildings were designed and built to fall to the ground like a controlled demolition so if a plane crashes to it, it would fall like so. naw im just kidding, i know this comment will piss some people off. but i do have some questions. now for those who have seen the arrivals by noreagaaa and achernahrs, where does the masons, illuminati or elites connects with the two towers? is the arrivals proof that conspiracy theories are true? ill let yall argue over that...go easy