Film: JFK to 9/11, Everything is a Rich Man's Trick.

[tv_racin_fan]

If it wasn't for the fact that so many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, I'd probably agree with you. The Gulf of Tonkin incident being one lie that was used to escalate Viet Nam.
I think it takes a sharper mind to question things, than to be one of the sheeple and just accept as fact whatever they tell you. As far as the JFK assisination, they have autopsy pictures with an entry wound to his neck from the front. You can see on the Zapruder film where he grabs his neck, right before the head shot. And the fatal head shot also appears to have come from the front. World class shooters have not been able to recreate the Lone Gunman shots. I suppose Oswald just got lucky. I wonder why he was taken out by Ruby?

And jeez tv-racin-fan, you are in an elelvator, you don't see the actual steel beams, all you see is the inside of the elevator. The explosives would have been placed on the steel beam. Out of sight.
How many elevators have you been in where you see anything but the inside of the elevator.

You telling me that when you walk over to the elevator you wouldn't see these boxes placed against the wall every so often down the wall? In the room with all those elevators? You wouldn't find it interesting and wouldn't mention it after the tower collapse?

[Ikeo74]

A elevator has 4 sides you only see 1 of then in the lobby. Unless you usually enter the elevator from the top escape hatch.

[tv_racin_fan]

According to the video in order to make the time frame the explosives are in boxes you simply go to the assigned floor and set the box down next to the "column", then return down stairs for more boxes. That time frame doesn't work if you have to take explosives out of the box go into the elevator shafts and attach the explosives to the columns.

The supposition is that they used explosives only on the core columns. It would bring the buildings down, but if you don't also cut the exterior columns what prevents them from simply splaying out and breaking off in much much larger pieces?

The limitation in building height has to do with elevators needed to move the people around thruout the building. Taller building means more elevators which means less office space. Prior to this design 85 floors was about the limit, more space gained by another floor was lost with another elevator shaft. The Towers used a unique at the time system of sky lobbies and had elevators stacked in the shafts, to solve that issue.

[TheTman]

I'm sure they would have placed them inside the elevator shaft housing, on or next too the steel beams, out of site of people. They probably wend in thru access doors into the elevator shaft. Most buildings with elevators have access doors into the elevator shaft for maintenance. Few people go in then, unless they are working on the elevator. Or possibly they went up thru and escape panel in the roof of the elevator car.

[tv_racin_fan]

I dunno what happened. Not really anyway.

I know that some one that claims it was explosives posted a photo of some columns cut at an angle as proof, the claim was they couldn't have been cut by torch it had to have been thermite. Never mind that the news showed video of workers cutting those exact columns with a torch.

Someone posted some video of the towers collapsing with some poofs of debris and claimed it was proof of explosives. Trouble is it was just a couple of poofs per floor and no way you cut even half of the 47 core columns and get just a couple poofs per floor and he claimed that these poofs were explosives cutting the exterior columns.

They talk about some debris that was spread out a couple hundred feet as if that only could have been done with explosives. Only if explosives were used as they claimed some debris would have been spread at least three times that distance.

Someone claimed that building 7 fell at free fall speed. Trouble was one of the videos posted as proof shows that the building did not collapse at free fall speed unless you ignore the section of penthouse that collapsed several seconds prior to the main collapse.

They claim that evidence of thermite/thermate was found. I did some research to find out how much thermite/thermate would be needed and how you would force either one to cut a column on a horizontal plane. If it was done with either one there would be so much evidence of such that no one could deny it. 59 columns on a face 47 in the core I read it would require 100 pounds of thermite/thermate painted on a ground floor column to cut it.

I didn't know that thermite was used to weld railroad rails until someone posted a link to the University of Phoenix stadium.

[TheTman]

Here's a new article on the events of 9/11. http://personalliberty.com/look-what-911-has-wrought/
It's not very accepting of the official 9/11 report.

[Ikeo74]

If we don't see any new post by the T Man we'll know he was right on and they got him.

[tv_racin_fan]

Ok deal with building 7 only.

Start with theorists who claim it was brought down with explosives because it fell at free fall speed. Some of them posted some videos that supposedly show it falling at free fall speed. Trouble is in this particular instance, one of the videos shows a portion of the penthouse structure falling a few second prior to the "collapse". The only way they can claim that this video is proof that it fell at free fall speed is by ignoring the very evidence they posted.

Why would they ignore the very evidence they posted which shows that building 7 did not fall at free fall speed as they claim?

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html watch the first video listed. Notice that the collapse took about 12 seconds, the one part of the penthouse structure falls at about the 6 second mark and the rest of the building starts to collapse at about the 12 second mark and seems to finish at around 18 seconds. Not the 6.5 seconds they claim.

Nary a one of these theorists, that I have checked out, discusses the very unique design properties of the building, yet they claim that fire has never brought down supposedly similar steel framed buildings that in fact are not similar at all. Why do they not explain the very unique properties of the building? Do they believe that the fact that there was an Con Ed sub station basically under building 7 not have any bearing on the collapse? Sure seems to me that the fact that the caissons installed in that sub station having been designed for a building about half the size of the eventual building would be interesting to discuss, especially when due to that fact they had to design a cantilever system to carry the load that those caissons could not. Sure would seem to me that a failure of part of that cantilever system could result in the eventual collapse of the building.

[Bobshouse]

How in the heck are the rich men going to pull off the big event coming on September 25th?

[tv_racin_fan]

Tman you mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin thing? What exactly do you mean? Some claim that there never was an attack on US ships there, is that what you mean sir?