| brigoul |
I am listening to Brent with that guy right now. I saw the video of the BUilding 7 that went down and they say it was controlled demolition. I was here in Seattle when the Kingdome was demolished and it is quite obvious that there is demolition going on. You could hear like 30 explosions from several miles away.
I think it would have been MUCH more obvious if it was being blown up like a normal controlled demolition.
Here is a link to the Kingdome demo.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2676019 |
|
|
| Mr.Tucson |
Quote: Originally posted by brigoul
I am listening to Brent with that guy right now. I saw the video of the BUilding 7 that went down and they say it was controlled demolition. I was here in Seattle when the Kingdome was demolished and it is quite obvious that there is demolition going on. You could hear like 30 explosions from several miles away.
I think it would have been MUCH more obvious if it was being blown up like a normal controlled demolition.
Here is a link to the Kingdome demo.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2676019 |
I'm sure if they had wired the building for demolition, they knew about how much noise would be made,,,,so during the day, the Bush Administration tainted the drinking water that was handed out during the day, that had a chemical in it that made everyone deaf for half an hour,,,,,,,,,,, |
|
|
| brigoul |
| fits with the rest of the conspiracy |
|
|
| Mr.Tucson |
Quote: Originally posted by brigoul
fits with the rest of the conspiracy |
:bigup: |
|
|
| MNSternfan |
| Sorry, not buying Brent's assumption of what happened. WTC 7 was if memory serves me right, located directly next to one of the towers. So you have hundreds of thousands of tons of debris, fire, and structural damage and 47 floors worth of collapsing features, it could go down that way. |
|
|
| brigoul |
| Yes, but the conspiracy theory is that it was taken down by a controlled explosion rather than going down on its own. |
|
|
| MNSternfan |
| Yes, which then gets turned into WTC1 and WTC2 were taken down by controlled implosion. If Brent is a physics major and has the research and physical data to prove it didn't collapse from the catastrophic damage inflicted from 2 100+story behemouth buildings filled with tons of combustible material and hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete then fine, I beleive him. Until someone presents SOLID data to prove or disprove, in my book it went down from structural damage and internal fire. |
|
|
| Hunglikeakendol |
| Parking a 757 3/4 of the way up a tower surely could have screwed with the structural integrity |
|
|
| dlynx |
WTC7 also contained a LARGE amount of diesel fuel. I believe (from the websites I could find with info), that there was a 6000 gal thank above ground, and a 36000 gal tank below ground level.
42000 gallons of diesel fuel (which has a similar flash point/autoignition point as jet fuel) would defintely cause substantial damage if ignited. |
|
|
| MNSternfan |
Quote: Originally posted by dlynx
WTC7 also contained a LARGE amount of diesel fuel. I believe (from the websites I could find with info), that there was a 6000 gal thank above ground, and a 36000 gal tank below ground level.
42000 gallons of diesel fuel (which has a similar flash point/autoignition point as jet fuel) would defintely cause substantial damage if ignited. |
The conspiracy guys will never address this, or if they do they will dispell it and say it wasn't a tangible piece of evidence. |
|
|
| clw1227 |
| I also love the whole bit on NY selling the buildings to a private owner, and then he gets insurance money, after he gets the government takes down the buildings by staging a terrorist attack. Give me a break. |
|
|
| brigoul |
Giving some of the conspiracy nutjobs airtime is worse than.... giving... dare i say Anne Coulter free reign.
Both are interesting I just don't buy either extreme. |
|
|
|
