Political Crossfire Forums

[krims]

Every day I find more and more evidence that the government was lying about 9/11.

Just today I found this photo study discussing the unexplained anamolies of WTC Building 6:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

[Patriot911]

Thanks for the amusing site. Lets see..... nobody witnessed or noted an explosion at WTC 6 and this supposedly happened before either collapse. The streets were packed with firemen, police, EMTS, and people escaping the towers, yet nobody noticed an explosion big enough to tear out the middle eight stories of a building. Seismographs showed no sign of explosions, especially not one that would destroy an eight story building. WTC 6 was hit by large parts of the towers. It created a huge hole in the middle of the building. If that had been caused by explosives, the outer walls would have exploded outward. You want us to believe the entire blast was directed upward and made a perfect circle in the middle of the building without damaging any of the outer walls. Sorry, thats not how explosives work.

[Wizard From Oz]

[quote]Every day I find more and more evidence that the government was lying about 9/11. [quote]

Yeah just like at liar you posted yesterday huh. Me thinks that little man is going to have a lot to answer for.

Imagine impersonating a returned verteran, then claiming to wounded tut tut.

But back to building WTC 6 - If you squint really hard you can see Godzilla's footprint right in the middle of it

[krims]

Quote: WTC 6 was hit by large parts of the towers. It created a huge hole in the middle of the building.

So let me get this straight...

falling parts from the towers created a deep crater in the middle of the building...

and yet all the walls around the hole are still standing, including the walls closest to the towers...

and this falling debris also somehow created molten steel at the bottom of WTC6.

[Patriot911]

You're kidding, right?

First off, there is no record of molten steel at wtc6. If you're going to lie, at least make it a believeable one. Evidence of elevated temperatures in the center of WTC6 only proves there were fires and does not indicate, much less prove that there was molten steel.

Second, take a good hard look at the last picture you posted. Look at what is leaning up against the building. Thats right. The outer skin of one of the towers. See that on the other side of the building? MORE of the tower. Why is it so inconceivable that a 500,000 ton building wouldn't cause the damage you see there?

Now look at the inside of the building. See all that rebar? What direction is it all pointing? Thats right. Down. Ever know an explosion that will bend metal TOWARDS the explosion? What direction would the rebar be pushed if hit by massive chunks of the towers? I'll give you a hint. It isn't up.

Now look at the building at the top of the screen. See that HUGE gash in the building that looks remarkably similar to what you claim is explosion damage? Except you can still see the parts of the WTC tower laying in the gash.

Now look at the actual damage to the building. Look on the left hand side of the building and you will notice that that wall is gone. So now what you claim to be blast damage has damage to the outer wall and damage to the core, but left several stories intact. How is this possible? You can't do that with explosives. You CAN, however, do that by dropping large sections of the building on the outer wall and the core, but missing that section.

You also claim that all the outer walls are still standing. The bottom picture clearly shows this is not the case. The only outer wall that is NOT damaged is the wall visible in the bottom picture. All the other walls are clearly severely damaged.

[Constitutional Republic]

Krims: Now I'm all for more evidence pointing to the government coverup, but this website isn't very good. In fact it's probably just ammunition for the Official Theory crowd. The plume of smoke/dust/etc. is coming from the demolition of WTC 2. It's better to stick to WTC 1, 2, and 7.

[lilwolf]

Didn't building 6 and 7 have emergency back up generators in them that operated on Propane. If that is the case and one of those went off - there's you crater and the cause of metled steel. Propane burns pretty damn hot.

I looked at the photos and I have seen similar things like this when fuel depots went up in vietnam.

Sorry man no sale to me :roll:

[krims]

No, propane doesn't burn hot enough to collapse steel structures. Stop repeating lies.

[Patriot911]

krims wrote: No, propane doesn't burn hot enough to collapse steel structures. Stop repeating lies.

Mebbe you should stop showing your ignorance and read what Lilwolf wrote rather than assuming you know what you are talking about.

First off, you failed to address a single point I brought up that shows your claim of a bomb in WTC6 being nothing more than a pathetic attempt at trying to prove a conspiracy with REALLY bad evidence.

Second, Lilwolf was talking about propane exploding which would fit your claim, not propane burning hot enough to collapse a steel structure.

[The Comrade]

krims wrote: Every day I find more and more evidence that the government was lying about 9/11.

Just today I found this photo study discussing the unexplained anamolies of WTC Building 6:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm

Every day i find more and more flaws in poor misguided souls "evidence".

[The Comrade]

[quote="krims"] Quote: WTC 6 was hit by large parts of the towers. It created a huge hole in the middle of the building.

So let me get this straight...

falling parts from the towers created a deep crater in the middle of the building...

and yet all the walls around the hole are still standing, including the walls closest to the towers...

and this falling debris also somehow created molten steel at the bottom of WTC6.


okay first off the FOUNDATION WALLS happen to be thr strongest in a building.


if you can find me one picture of a collapsed building there the foundation walls aren't standing even a little bit i'll believe you. also, there were only SMALL SECTIONS of the wall sticking up, and most of it was bent.

also, what does walls standing prove anything?

also, there was a massive underground complex in the middle of the world trade center. ever think that is where the hole came from?

do you even know that the towers were to the side of the entre trade center and not in the middle?

[The Comrade]

krims wrote:


are you kidding me?



This is your evidence?


there was an underground complex first off. secondly there isn't one giant hole. there is a series of smaller holes surrounded by SUPPORTS. those supports were designed to hold up the building so it's common sense that they wouldn't collapse with the building.

secondly, there is a **** of debris in those "craters" you speak of.

[lilwolf]

krims wrote: No, propane doesn't burn hot enough to collapse steel structures. Stop repeating lies.


Did not say anything about steel now did you idiot. If you want to tackle me you better have some ammo got it.

[krims]

You guys gotta calm down... I don't understand how propane could have created that huge crater or caused WTC7 to collapse.

And how the frick can falling debris create such a crater and yet somehow leave the other structures intact.

[The Comrade]

krims wrote: You guys gotta calm down... I don't understand how propane could have created that huge crater or caused WTC7 to collapse.

And how the frick can falling debris create such a crater and yet somehow leave the other structures intact.

crater explination: there is a god damn complex below those buildings. stop omiting this fact because it debunks your misguided evidence

falling debris: how do you think the buildings next to it didn't come down? the building didn't exactly explode, nor did it fall on it's side.

[krims]

I have no idea what you said.

What "complex"? And I don't understand your explanation about debris.

[The Comrade]

krims wrote: I have no idea what you said.

What "complex"? And I don't understand your explanation about debris.


there were parking garages underneat all of the buildings that made up the world trade center.

ever think that might explain the hole in the middle?

and the buildings next to it wouldn't have collapsed since the buidling did not fall on it's side, or explode outward.

[krims]

Quote: there were parking garages underneat all of the buildings that made up the world trade center.

ever think that might explain the hole in the middle?

No... I still don't see what you mean. How does having garages underneath all the buildings cause one of the buildings to have a deep huge crater?


Quote: and the buildings next to it wouldn't have collapsed since the buidling did not fall on it's side, or explode outward.

So...? I don't understand why debris didn't destroy everything around the towers, but instead somehow concentrated itself into a crater in WTC6.

[The Comrade]

krims wrote:

No... I still don't see what you mean. How does having garages underneath all the buildings cause one of the buildings to have a deep huge crater?

you're unbelievable.

if there is a MASSIVE GAPING HOLE underneath abuilding, then the same amount of debris will be in that spot, but with the hole it will make a "crater"

krims wrote: So...? I don't understand why debris didn't destroy everything around the towers, but instead somehow concentrated itself into a crater in WTC6.

because the buildings imploded.


ready? because i'm going to say it again.

the buildings IMPLODED. that's why the buildings around them did not collapse.

[krims]

Quote: you're unbelievable.

if there is a MASSIVE GAPING HOLE underneath abuilding, then the same amount of debris will be in that spot, but with the hole it will make a "crater"

Then why don't we find this at the other buildings?



Quote: because the buildings imploded.


ready? because i'm going to say it again.

the buildings IMPLODED. that's why the buildings around them did not collapse.

What the hell... you're not making any sense... what buildings imploded? If they imploded, then why do you say they didn't collapse???