Conspiracies, eh? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CryptikSoul · 10-10-2003, 03:08 PM

Try this one on for size.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

liquid_dreams · 10-11-2003, 01:43 AM

dude this guy is on crack, too many tabloides for him, perhaps he needs a life more then i do

hundred-peons · 10-13-2003, 01:52 AM

While a large portion of those claims are absurd. The one that I have always wondered about is how controlled the two towers collapsed.

If you actually watch the videos on that site, there are cloud plumes, that come out of the building 10 stories underneath of where the entire collapse atcually was. I saw two in the same spot of the side of the tower (center) and spaced ten floors. They are clearly seen against the pale morning sky.

It's convincing especially considering the South Tower was hit second, at the corner, yet fell first.

How does the second tower hit, fall first when the majority of the fuel exploded OUTSIDE of the building? Again how does it fall first, when the impact of the air craft itself was not a direct hit as it was with the north tower.

Furthermore one of the pictures on that site CLEARLY shows the south tower's top 30 floors, falling NOT straight down condusive to pancaking, but OVER at a 45º angle, before the rest of the building falls down almost imploding in upon itself.

While the idea that the planes were diverted and landed, then passengers were moved, sounds absurd... I am convinced there is more to the story than flight 93 crashed (as in it was actually shot down) and that both of the towers, fell in the same manner despite having been damaged in different ways, leads me to believe it was a controlled demolition.

The real question would be, were the buildings outfitted with a self destruct system in order to minimize surrounding damage in the event of an attack or structural failure... or were they set up to explode in advance as a major campaign for the Patriot Act war?

One thing though, after reading that webstie, then reading about John Titor there seems to be quite a few discomforting similarities.

MSD · 10-15-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hundred-peons
The real question would be, were the buildings outfitted with a self destruct system in order to minimize surrounding damage in the event of an attack or structural failure... or were they set up to explode in advance as a major campaign for the Patriot Act war?

I think that a system that is designed to minimize destruction in case of an inevitable building collapse is plausible. I think that it would be covered up if possible, because no matter how necessary it may be, the general population would refuse to accept that the Government killed thousands of our people, even to avoid more casualties.

grumpyolddude · 10-17-2003, 09:06 PM

This link may help to explain how th etowers were designed and why they fell in the manner that they did.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

The PBS series NOVA had a program on the subject. Extreme heat, metal stresses and the basic design of the buildings combined to suprize the engineers.

Or is PBS feeding us the govenrment cover-up?

10-10-2003, 03:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
CryptikSoul Tilted Location: Windsor, ON	Conspiracies, eh? Try this one on for size. http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

10-17-2003, 09:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
grumpyolddude Deliberately unfocused Location: Amazon.com and CDBaby	This link may help to explain how th etowers were designed and why they fell in the manner that they did. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html The PBS series NOVA had a program on the subject. Extreme heat, metal stresses and the basic design of the buildings combined to suprize the engineers. Or is PBS feeding us the govenrment cover-up? __________________ "Regret can be a harder pill to swallow than failure .With failure you at least know you gave it a chance..." David Howard

10-11-2003, 01:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
liquid_dreams Banned Location: ketchikan	dude this guy is on crack, too many tabloides for him, perhaps he needs a life more then i do

10-13-2003, 01:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
hundred-peons Upright	While a large portion of those claims are absurd. The one that I have always wondered about is how controlled the two towers collapsed. If you actually watch the videos on that site, there are cloud plumes, that come out of the building 10 stories underneath of where the entire collapse atcually was. I saw two in the same spot of the side of the tower (center) and spaced ten floors. They are clearly seen against the pale morning sky. It's convincing especially considering the South Tower was hit second, at the corner, yet fell first. How does the second tower hit, fall first when the majority of the fuel exploded OUTSIDE of the building? Again how does it fall first, when the impact of the air craft itself was not a direct hit as it was with the north tower. Furthermore one of the pictures on that site CLEARLY shows the south tower's top 30 floors, falling NOT straight down condusive to pancaking, but OVER at a 45º angle, before the rest of the building falls down almost imploding in upon itself. While the idea that the planes were diverted and landed, then passengers were moved, sounds absurd... I am convinced there is more to the story than flight 93 crashed (as in it was actually shot down) and that both of the towers, fell in the same manner despite having been damaged in different ways, leads me to believe it was a controlled demolition. The real question would be, were the buildings outfitted with a self destruct system in order to minimize surrounding damage in the event of an attack or structural failure... or were they set up to explode in advance as a major campaign for the Patriot Act war? One thing though, after reading that webstie, then reading about John Titor there seems to be quite a few discomforting similarities.