Could Vancouver 2010 be the next 9/11? - Page 2 - RC-Monster Forums

zeropointbug · 01.29.2010, 10:21 PM

Texas, what ever hit the pentagon, it wasn't a 767, we know that. Whoever your friends are, if they saw a 767 hit the pentagon, then where did it go?? There was not a shred of evidence that a large jet liner crashed there. Look at the hole.

Now if someone can give some evidence instead of acting like immature fools, please.

zeropointbug · 01.29.2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshift

I melted an entire woodstove with a match once. So I believe the official story, absolutely.

TexasSP · 01.29.2010, 11:14 PM

Yup, you got one right. It wasn't a 767, it was a 757.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

zeropointbug · 01.30.2010, 12:05 AM

You do know that website shows nothing for definitive evidence that a 757 hit don't you?

Jet engines look very similar inside structurally inside... and btw, I bet they didn't tell you that the engine debris was WAY to small to be from a 757.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

rootar · 01:26 AM

im gonna retract my post and not even get in the middle of yalls shit fit.... which is headed no where fast.

zeropointbug · 01.30.2010, 01:00 AM

They were designed to withstand MULTIPLE airplane impacts, multiple 767 air liner crashes that is. So if they fell down (at nearly free fall speed mind you) because of the planes impact alone, then why was the wreckage in a super compact demolition like pile? Why was there nano-thermite littered concrete powder all across Manhattan because of the pyroclastic flow when they came down?

Just take a look at the video I posted.

zeropointbug · 01.30.2010, 01:00 AM

BASIC knowledge of physics says that a super strong massive steel building can fall in on it's own footprint at free fall speed? I don't think so. lol

redshift · 01.30.2010, 01:02 AM

The towers were built to withstand multiple hits from a 747, a much larger plane. They did this with the collision of a bomber into the Empire State Building from decades before in mind. WTC 1 and 2 were among the strongest, if not the strongest skyscapers ever built. Not to mention, the most fire resistant. We needed a pretext for a "hundred year war".

Every major war in history was started with false pretext. Hitler burned the Reichstag and blamed it on Poland. The CIA as gone on record admitting the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged, the list goes on.

Whatever, believe what you will. I know trying to change minds is a useless endeavor. In 50 years when we're still in the middle east, and your grandson is drafted, some of this may make more sense.

redshift · 01.30.2010, 01:05 AM

It was the 747 ZP, I'm sure on that one. The architects designed that on the largest commercal airliner at the time, the 747 had only been out a few years.

redshift · 01.30.2010, 01:09 AM

And the molten steel under the rubble, MONTHS after the collapses. What was not molten was abruptly shipped off to China. Not standard procedure when dealing with a crime scene.

zeropointbug · 01:21 AM

Thanks for the support Redshift. Right, 747, my mistake.

Redshift is right, the WTC were two of the strongest buildings ever built, and if the official story were true somehow, then they would also be, by far, the worst structural failures in the history of the USA.

I would like to hear someone explain WTC 7 though, this one has got to be good to hear.

You could always do what the "9/11 commission report" did, COMPLETELY IGNORE IT. Or what the media did, show it once on the day of 9/11 and never show it again on mainstream TV. OR, even predict it 20+ min. before it even fell, BBC slipped up and got on the WTC 6 building demolition too early and said it had collapsed, when behind the reporter it was CLEARLY still standing.

redshift · 01.30.2010, 01:23 AM

Sure ZP, 7 was hit by a plane.

Wait, no it was supposed to be hit by a plane. That one hit the dirt in PA. I guess a newspaper somewhere on the first floor in WTC 7 got warm from the fire down the street, 50 stories up.

And why is it we get to see amateur footage from the ground in NYC, but all the security cam footage was confiscated from nearby gas stations, etc, near the Pentagon? Oh that's right.... they did show a few frames after like 7 years, no plane in any of the images. Most peculiar.

rawfuls · 01.30.2010, 01:27 AM

Also, I never really researched hard into the WTC incident, but I did hear, from many sources, (can't name them, forgot..) that the WTC towers were hit before, not sure if this is true, maybe someone can chime in and research.

But I have heard they have been hit before, not as big as a 747, however, it was hit, and was still standing.

Don't flame me, just throwing it out there.

redshift · 01.30.2010, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootar

im gonna retract my post and not even get in the middle of yalls shit fit.... which is headed no where fast.

Sorry you feel that way.

This has little to do with the first post, and i have no opinion on the whole Vancouver thing, but the info on 9/11 is comprehensive.

It is a pointless debate really, none of us can change the past and the majority of us can't change the future much either...

zeropointbug · 01.30.2010, 01:43 AM

It's going nowhere because he can't argue with something that he can't argue with, it's irrefutable. But I want people to bring up issues, I want them to learn something, to think for themselves and not have everything news handed to them on a platter.

Rawfuls, I don't recall a plane hitting them before, doing a search on it just brings up 9/11... maybe you are referring to the first staged attack (under ground van bombing) on the towers in Feb. 1993?