Pete Carroll is apparently a 9/11 truther

911 turned usa into USSR 1980 wrote:

150+ posts here 13 years later, and the government didn't even look into building 7....

The study was completed in 2008.

fzdbhfdb wrote:

trees for the forest wrote:

What is hard to believe? The pentagon had a plane-sized hole in it.

That is what I find hard to believe...

Look at this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_07.jpg

the plane hit the ground first and started disintegrating then. Planes aren't very dense - much of it just turned to dust like that phantom that hit the wall in the video.

and anyway, let's say you're right and there was no plane. Where is that plane? where are the dead people? Where are you going with this?

abandon hope wrote:

and anyway, let's say you're right and there was no plane. Where is that plane? where are the dead people? Where are you going with this?

I don't know. I don't know. And I really don't think I ever will but I am not abandoning hope ;)

cultlikemasses wrote:

the anti-truthers are like a cult. They have their minds made up. You could show them pics of people rigging the buildings with demolitions and they'd still deny reality.

no - you show me valid pictures of people rigging the buildings with explosives and I will switch teams.

How about a confession from one of the thousands of co-conspirators? How about one email?

abandon hope wrote:

cultlikemasses wrote:

the anti-truthers are like a cult. They have their minds made up. You could show them pics of people rigging the buildings with demolitions and they'd still deny reality.

no - you show me valid pictures of people rigging the buildings with explosives and I will switch teams.

How about a confession from one of the thousands of co-conspirators? How about one email?

Agreed. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

fzdbhfdb wrote:

trees for the forest wrote:

What is hard to believe? The pentagon had a plane-sized hole in it.

That is what I find hard to believe...

Look at this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_07.jpg

This is what *I* find hard to believe: That someone decided to do this and not use a plane, but they weren't worried about eyewitnesses to the fact that there was not plane. If you are an evil mastermind, wouldn't you be worried about the case of someone taking a selfie outside the Pentagon and it showing the non-plane thing crashing into the building? Sure, it's unlikely, but it would blow your whole plan. Isn't that a crazy risk to take? Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to USE A PLANE?

And, as it happens, there *were* witnesses and they *did* see a plane. There was also plane debris. There was also a plane that disappeared.

rtfgrtf wrote:

abandon hope wrote:

no - you show me valid pictures of people rigging the buildings with explosives and I will switch teams.

How about a confession from one of the thousands of co-conspirators? How about one email?

Agreed. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Here is your "extraordinary evidence". Look at a any YouTube video that shows two FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND TON (that is how much they weigh) towers collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS! If that does not tell you it was a controlled demolition than video of people installing explosives won't tell you anything either!

Super Jay Five wrote:

Here is your "extraordinary evidence". Look at a any YouTube video that shows two FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND TON (that is how much they weigh) towers collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS! If that does not tell you it was a controlled demolition than video of people installing explosives won't tell you anything either!

Oh, right - got it. Thanks.

I'm not an architect or an engineer, but I have to believe there must be some variation in how the building collapses. In other words, if you flew an airliner full of jet fuel into a building the size of the world trade center 100 times, would it collapse the same way every time? Would it even collapse every time?

Most of the jet fuel would have burned off in the initial explosion... it was the cause of such a massive fire-ball.

I have always believed in the "pancake" theory, but I also find it difficult to accept that there would be little resistance through the first portion of the pancake effect. Very little, if any, manipulation of the vertical path took place. There were stairways that remained completely intact after the planes struck the towers. This is how survivors that were above the crashed floors made their way out of the buildings. As a matter of fact, many survivors that made their way down past the wrecked floors have made testimony that the stairways were completely untouched... you literally could not tell that something to that magnitude had taken place.

Again, I believe the pancake theory is very likely... but, building 7 on the other hand, does not sit with me.

I suspect Pete Carroll is an Anti-Semite.

Taynt Chodeberg wrote:

building 7 on the other hand, does not sit with me.

this is what you are saying:

Massively damaged buildings, with one corner completely gone, struck by giant metal girders over and over, and on fire, these things don't collapse.

More likely that it was rigged with explosives.

Is that what you believe?

Yes, that is exactly what I believe.

"with one corner completely gone" does not constitute a direct vertical fall at free-fall speed. And due to fire... no, they don't collapse. That has been proven already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

Taynt Chodeberg wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I believe.

"with one corner completely gone" does not constitute a direct vertical fall at free-fall speed. And due to fire... no, they don't collapse. That has been proven already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

Ugh.

Taynt Chodeberg wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I believe.

"with one corner completely gone" does not constitute a direct vertical fall at free-fall speed. And due to fire... no, they don't collapse. That has been proven already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

building 7 is an example of 1. A 50 story building hit by massive girders projected at speed into it presumably had a severely damaged structure. Witnesses said it was missing an entire bottom corner. Then it burned for hours.

Was any other steel building on fire missing, say, an entire corner, and had giant steel beams thrown into it?

You're telling me that a unique example proves to you that a crack crew of demo experts wired the building in advance of 911.

geez, I really thought you would have backed off to saying 'I don't know, but...'

I can't say I admire your steadfastness though. Rigged with explosives. really.

rtfgrtf wrote:

Super Jay Five wrote:

Here is your "extraordinary evidence". Look at a any YouTube video that shows two FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND TON (that is how much they weigh) towers collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS! If that does not tell you it was a controlled demolition than video of people installing explosives won't tell you anything either!

Oh, right - got it. Thanks.

You are welcome. As Marshall McLulan said: "Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."

So that supports why few plane parts were found at the Pentagon right?

fzdbhfdb wrote:

abandon hope wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzFqXbfv_yg

and what is your point, anyway, troofer? a plane didn't hit the pentagon? where are those people then? what happened to the plane?

Have you seen the size of the explosions on the Towers?

Have you seen the size of the fireworks on the Pentagon, that don't even rock the plastic cones?

Unlike movies, you can't ride explosions. This is exactly how it should have looked like.

"Building 7 is an example of 1"...

compared to...

And don't give this "it got hit by girders", because so did the other surrounding structures that DIDN'T go down...

These have all been noted previously in this thread, but you have a very short memory that seems to coincide with your denial... quite ironic.

And the fact that you seem to think that a building "missing an entire corner" will lose ALL vertical support and fall at free-fall speed, is mind-numbingly stupid.