Thread: 9/11 Affidavit By John Lear Raises Interesting Questions

Originally Posted by Hairball

What kind of metal are jets made of?

What kind of metal are fireworks made of?

What kind of point are you making? How about you just make it.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

In this case, controlled demo fits occam's razor better than freefall pancake collapse of THREE BUILDINGS on the same day, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane, and therefore had no magic jet fuel sloshing around inside.

the claims of the controlled demolition folks that give me trouble are:

*that the collapse looks like a controlled demolition. it actually doesn't. you can see debris cascade well outside the building's footprint and you can see the top of the building, in both cases mostly intact, come down on the floors below it. WTC 7 does look more like a controlled demolition, but the fact that folks make that claim about the first two towers damages their credibility.
*that no building has ever collapsed due to fire. no one's claiming that. the first two towers were also hit by planes. the third was hit on its foundation by a ton of debris.
*when people talk about WTC7 being destroyed because it contained paperwork or evidence of some kind. there has got to be an easier way to destroy evidence!

it IS odd, though, that all three of those buildings collapsed. (i suppose the skeptic would say this statement doesn't take into account all the buildings that didn't collapse, though. i've heard that several other buildings in the area had to be razed later because they'd been so damaged by the attack.) the thought occurred to me that maybe WTC 1 and 2 were wired with explosives just at the point where "They" expected the planes to hit in an unconventional controlled demolition to make sure that the buildings actually DID collapse and to control the timing of it. but that's total speculation on my part.

WTC7 was not on fire when it imploded, it fell at free fall speed.

fire doesn't seem to have much to do with whether a building is going to collapse or not. the counterclaim is that WTC7 collapsed because debris from the first two collapses weakened its foundation.

Originally Posted by highway234

*that the collapse looks like a controlled demolition. it actually doesn't. you can see debris cascade well outside the building's footprint and you can see the top of the building, in both cases mostly intact, come down on the floors below it. WTC 7 does look more like a controlled demolition, but the fact that folks make that claim about the first two towers damages their credibility.

You are correct. We're talking about MULTI TON fragments ejected into other buildings. This could be from either collapse or shaped charge ejection or both. It's neither proof for or against any theory. It simply displays that SOME of the laws of physics were still in play that day.

*that no building has ever collapsed due to fire. no one's claiming that. the first two towers were also hit by planes. the third was hit on its foundation by a ton of debris.

First I've heard of a building sustaining damage at it's base and then having the penthouse section collapse first.

*when people talk about WTC7 being destroyed because it contained paperwork or evidence of some kind. there has got to be an easier way to destroy evidence!

Well, sure. But then you just have another paper trail to get rid of. This way, you can destroy it and no one's going to question them being destroyed.

Originally Posted by highway234

fire doesn't seem to have much to do with whether a building is going to collapse or not. the counterclaim is that WTC7 collapsed because debris from the first two collapses weakened its foundation.

That claim was later dismissed by NIST. In their last report, it was brought down with...this is their words...an office fire.

Originally Posted by michaelr

That claim was later dismissed by NIST. In their last report, it was brought down with...this is their words...an office fire.

You really have to be some kind of fucking moron to believe in conspiracy theories like this.
And to believe that Bin Laden wasn't buried at sea you would have to be just about the stupidest person who ever lived.

Originally Posted by Orwell Huxley

You really have to be some kind of fucking moron to believe in conspiracy theories like this.
And to believe that Bin Laden wasn't buried at sea you would have to be just about the stupidest person who ever lived.

So... you believe that WTC 7 was brought down by an office fire and OBL was killed by Seal team 6 and dumped in the ocean?

Originally Posted by highway234

fire doesn't seem to have much to do with whether a building is going to collapse or not.

Then where did the phrase, "burn the house down" ever come from?

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

You are correct. We're talking about MULTI TON fragments ejected into other buildings. This could be from either collapse or shaped charge ejection or both. It's neither proof for or against any theory. It simply displays that SOME of the laws of physics were still in play that day.

well, okay, but then you have to have something to account for that. "multi-ton fragments"? that's not like a standard demolition. so what's the theory for why that happened?

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

First I've heard of a building sustaining damage at it's base and then having the penthouse section collapse first.

but except for the "crimp" thing the deal with WTC 7 is that it fell of a piece, standard demolition style? yes? so it didn't really "start" in the penthouse, it's just that's where the crimp wound up and it fell that way. that's the story I know -- at least the one i think is still worth paying attention to -- says WTC 1 and 2 fell with this cascade effect, but WTC fell standard demolition style.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

Well, sure. But then you just have another paper trail to get rid of. This way, you can destroy it and no one's going to question them being destroyed.

ok. i'll buy that.