Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Banjax on 11 September 2010, 13:34:40
-
Personally I refuse to credit "Dubya" and his government and the FBI and the CIA and every maintenance worker, janitor and everyone in between with the necessary intelligence, discretion and cunning required to pull off such a dramatic "event" and have it kept a secret.
There are some intriguing aspects tho, like why were the only flights allowed out of the US later that day for the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi? Wouldn't the FBI quite liked to have spoken to them?
Also, the towers did go down surprisingly quickly, in fact I'm surprised a couple of planes hitting them actually brought them down at all as skyscrapers are generally designed to withstand plane collisions (altho the design would be for planes that aren't deliberately travelling at full pelt....but still, the factor of safety inherent in the design, I would expect the towers to remain standing) :o
-
Ive watched quite a few of the video"s shot of the towers and from different angles.
One video clearly shows one of the planes with a cylinder type object ejecting forward just before impact..im not talking about a photo-shopped ""Internet"" hype video either.
My personal belief is this....
Bush was involved..remember the look on his face when he was told,looked like he"d been told he"d lost a dime not an horrific terrorist attack.!
Second the way the building came down...imploded i believe its called,no way would a steel frame building come down nice and neat like that,just look at them huge water cooling towers they bring them down with near inch perfect...ok ok not inch perfect but i hope you understand when i say they bring them down in a very controlled manner.
Towers didn't topple over did they...steel buckles and twists..the towers come down...not over too the side but down straight.
The pentagon was hit by a plane...we all know how fragile a plane is,yet this punched a lovely clean hole through 5 walls was it ?
The trouble is as were a civilised people we think its impossible for anyone too be so evil too do this against there own people...and those who stand up and say this isnt terrorism from oversea"s its home grown is silenced with people mocking them.
Bush doesn't have a funny little tash....but i feel he and his government was and still is every bit dangerous as that Hitler fella.!
-
Ive watched quite a few of the video"s shot of the towers and from different angles.
One video clearly shows one of the planes with a cylinder type object ejecting forward just before impact..im not talking about a photo-shopped ""Internet"" hype video either.
My personal belief is this....
Bush was involved..remember the look on his face when he was told,looked like he"d been told he"d lost a dime not an horrific terrorist attack.!
Second the way the building came down...imploded i believe its called,no way would a steel frame building come down nice and neat like that,just look at them huge water cooling towers they bring them down with near inch perfect...ok ok not inch perfect but i hope you understand when i say they bring them down in a very controlled manner.
Towers didn't topple over did they...steel buckles and twists..the towers come down...not over too the side but down straight.
The pentagon was hit by a plane...we all know how fragile a plane is,yet this punched a lovely clean hole through 5 walls was it ?
The trouble is as were a civilised people we think its impossible for anyone too be so evil too do this against there own people...and those who stand up and say this isnt terrorism from oversea"s its home grown is silenced with people mocking them.
Bush doesn't have a funny little tash....but i feel he and his government was and still is every bit dangerous as that Hitler fella.!
The evidence of sagging floors and consequent imploding columns is plain.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
-
Ive watched quite a few of the video"s shot of the towers and from different angles.
One video clearly shows one of the planes with a cylinder type object ejecting forward just before impact..im not talking about a photo-shopped ""Internet"" hype video either.
My personal belief is this....
Bush was involved..remember the look on his face when he was told,looked like he"d been told he"d lost a dime not an horrific terrorist attack.!
Second the way the building came down...imploded i believe its called,no way would a steel frame building come down nice and neat like that,just look at them huge water cooling towers they bring them down with near inch perfect...ok ok not inch perfect but i hope you understand when i say they bring them down in a very controlled manner.
Towers didn't topple over did they...steel buckles and twists..the towers come down...not over too the side but down straight.
The pentagon was hit by a plane...we all know how fragile a plane is,yet this punched a lovely clean hole through 5 walls was it ?
The trouble is as were a civilised people we think its impossible for anyone too be so evil too do this against there own people...and those who stand up and say this isnt terrorism from oversea"s its home grown is licensed with people mocking them.
Bush doesn't have a funny little tash....but i feel he and his government was and still is every bit dangerous as that Hitler fella.!
This subject has previously been done to death by documentaries, debates and published material.
What is know is that the Towers were not constructed in the usual manner. Their design was revolutionary, with ALL main support columns forming the perimeter of each floor with beams linking them to the central core. When the planes hit they burnt to very high temperatures - enough to heat the beams and perimeter columns enough for them to buckle, and then 'pop' off their individual hangers. In both cases enough of these hangers were 'popped' for the floor to collapse onto the weakened floor below, this in turn couldn't take the weight and the two floors fell onto the next down, then down onto the next, and the next, and so on ever accelerating straight down through the whole building.
We all saw the very real aircraft go in, we know they contained real people, and we understand they were killed in an horrendous collision and explosion in each building.
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition. This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings. In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on, and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included, not even leaking anything to the press!!
Sorry, but any conspiracy theory on this subject cannot be realistically supported by the evidence available, and how anyone who believes that such a horrendous crime could be perpetuated and kept secret by thousands, without many voices a very strong politically damaging protest in advance, let alone it all leaking out afterwards is beyond me.
My opinion is that is pure fantasy - and very insulting, damaging and hurtful fantasy to the Democractic United States of America, it's people, and the thousands of individuals, from many nations and of so many various religions, who perished, along with their still grieving relatives.
God Bless America, and the souls of the people who perished :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Im sorry Lizzie your feel my views are insulting...however there my opinions and they are what i feel is the truth,or at least near as the truth i can put into words.
What i feel is insulting is people thinking this was the work of a handfull of terrorists...
I mean no disrespect by this but i refuse too be a sheep.
-
I love conspiracy nuts :y
-
I think this is one of those 'conspiracy' stories that will forever be one that has no 'defined answers' ever.
Unfortuantly, along with the JFK assasination, the 'Jack the Riper' murders, and countless others out there, the 9/11 event on that day will be one that will unfortunately end up as a footnote in history in time to come. :-/
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
-
I reckon when the full truth is revealed, it'll be far duller than any conspiracy theory, you're asking us to believe W had the world fooled into thinking he was an idiot....all part of his cunning plan to destroy the twin towers, fake an attack on the Pentagon (actually....where is the plane debris from that...?nevermind) and hence go into Iraq(?I know....Iraq??) that plan it's so riddled with flaws, misconceived, pie-in-the-sky, stupid, ridiculous, unbelievable that........wait a sec.....this man Bush must be an evil genius!! ;D
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Just out of curiosity, Unicorn....where do you stand on the whole "Climate Change" debate.....'cos I have a hunch I know.... ::) :y
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
It's Roswell......all over again man.... ::) ::) ;)
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
Was Hitler not originally elected by the German people in 1933 Lizzie?
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
Was Hitler not originally elected by the German people in 1933 Lizzie?
and technically Bush wasn't :o :y
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terroist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldnt do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
Was Hitler not originally elected by the German people in 1933 Lizzie?
He was Optimist, once he had destroyed the main oppostion, fooled President Hindenburg, and within the year he had dismantled the German democratic process
-
;D I was talking to Lord Lucan and Elvis the other day and they both think the C.I.A. were behind this :y
-
Its actually very unlikely that Bush was at that time the democratically elected president. Does anyone remembr the unseemly shambles in Florida - where iirc his brother was the governor ? ;)
I saw part of a documentary on 9/11 on TV last night, in which they showed an interview with the man who owned the towers (or CEO of the company which owned them ?) recoreded about a year after the event.
He said " I took a call from the fire chief, and he said the fires were out of control, they were going to have to pull the buildings".
"Pull the building" is an industry term for controlled demolition.
This could sound suspicious and add to conspiricy theories, but I would like to know how they organised and staged the controlled demolition of 2 of the worlds tallest buildings in the space of a couple of hours ? ;)
The explanation Lizzie gave is spot on imo. The floors were reinforced (prestressed ?) concrete which sat on steel girders. Once one floor fell onto the next floor there was then twice the weight to fall onto the one below that and so on......
I worked in the manufacture of concrete floors for 20 years, and have seen floors collapse (albeit on a much smaller scale) with very similar results.
Having said all that, they did appear to come down in a very neat and tidy fashion, and for that to happen twice in the same day would take a level of expertise infinitely higher than mine to conclusively explain. :-/
-
Let us look at the theory you want me to believe then.
The pankcake theory as it is known. Fire buckles the beams and the floor gives way. Above it is 22 more floors and they as a huge block will fall and form the top pankcake, the massive weight and speed of falling will crushe the following floor and so on until we end up at the ground.
Ok, first of all, you are forgetting the central core. What happened to that? because that isn't concrete, so cannot just expolode like concrete cam.
Then there is the fact that we didn't end up with a 12 story lump on top of all the crushed floors either.
The speed the buildings collapsed has been measured at 9.6 seconds from start to finish. That calculates to free fall speed. Impossible as the resistance of each floor will slow the collapse.
So, you are wondering how this was all arranged and set up in a matter of hours? it wasn't. It was set up over a number of years. There was upgrading of all floors carried out over several years. More than enough time to install everything.
The weekend before 911 all power was cut to the entire WTC, stopping all CCTV as well as everything else. There was heavy drilling and installation carried out during that weekend.
There were exposions in the basement, necessary to make room for the collapse.
Building 7 was rock solid. No steel constructed building has ever collapsed unless being demolished. This particluar 42 story building was shielded from most danmage by buildings 5 & 6, which oddly did not collapse dispite massively more damage and fire.
I do not know what did happen. I do know that the truth is very far from just a plane striking the buildings. Explosions can be clearly seen in front of the falling buildings just as in any demolition.
IF what I say has any truth in it at all, how could the people who actually knew and actually did this live with what they did? that one is beyond me.
I wasn't there so I do not know. I just go by the obvious fact that tere was demolition involved. You coul not just demolish these buildings, so hit them first and it all seems ok.
I challange anyone at all to explain how building 7 just collapsed in a beuatiful perfect way, with enough space for all the rubble. When two much more severely damaged buildings in front of it remained. Anyone?
-
If there was a conspiracy, then what were its objectives?! It hasn't really changed anything much in the world ten years on but it caused a lot of personal grief and of course the luvvies on Wall St lost a packet over a few days.
-
Wall st. lost money for a lot lot longer than a few days. But if you believe the conspiracy theory then the reason presumably, would have to be that it gave Bush the excuse to do what he did.
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terrorist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldn't do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
Lizzie people don't disappear in America...oh my you've made me giggle,difference between Hitler and Bush is Hitler was open about it and Bush (or what bush called a Government isnt).
Do honestly think that with America"s massive intelligence (much of we never hear about) network they wouldn't of have a sniff this was coming (the attack i mean) nor they had the means or the chance too scramble fighter jets too intercept..come on ::)
You believe that the pentagon had a plane hit it and punch through 5 solid walls...yet no huge explosion like the towers...how come then the pentagon had a clean hole.
Its so impossible that the Americans could do such a thing....that's how they knew they could get away with it.
I mean Diana couldn't possibly have been killed could she...?
The americans were never preparing a nuclear strike on Colonel Gardiffy back in the Libya days....no of course they wouldn't ever do that. ::)
I do admire your beliefs and in a way wish i could just except blindly what im TOLD too believe.
(Being brought up on base(s) you have certainly learn too think for yourself)
-
Conspiracy nuts...tick
Alien Nut...Tick
Believe the world isnt a nice place...Tick
Thing is people knew the world was flat...wasn't any question of that,until one day opps we were wrong its round.
The twin towers was a terrorist attack...Fact....just depends too be seen from which country.
Why do we so readily except Hitler was a mad man and killed without blinking yet that nice mr bush couldn't do such a terrible thing.
Take the blinkers off. :)
Because the very big difference is that Hitler was a dictator, in a totalitarian state. If you spoke up against what he was doing you were shot, or the very least hidden away in a concentration camp.
On the other hand Mr Bush was a democratically elected President, in a democracy where people, and the press, can freely speak up against what their leader is doing, can protest against it, even take legal action against the administration through the political opposition who can also freely do so.
Two completely different situations, and if you do not understand that then it may explain why you are so eager to support the theory that the US President, his advisers, all agency workers, the politicians of the opposition et al, were involved in mass conspiracy to murder.
Lizzie people don't disappear in America...oh my you've made me giggle,difference between Hitler and Bush is Hitler was open about it and Bush (or what bush called a Government isnt).
Do honestly think that with America"s massive intelligence (much of we never hear about) network they wouldn't of have a sniff this was coming (the attack i mean) nor they had the means or the chance too scramble fighter jets too intercept..come on ::)
You believe that the pentagon had a plane hit it and punch through 5 solid walls...yet no huge explosion like the towers...how come then the pentagon had a clean hole.
Its so impossible that the Americans could do such a thing....that's how they knew they could get away with it.
I mean Diana couldn't possibly have been killed could she...?
The americans were never preparing a nuclear strike on Colonel Gardiffy back in the Libya days....no of course they wouldn't ever do that. ::)
I do admire your beliefs and in a way wish i could just except blindly what im TOLD too believe.
(Being brought up on base(s) you have certainly learn too think for yourself)
Me, believe what I am told? How little you know me :D :D :D ;) ;)
Believe me I'm my own woman every time! 8-) 8-) :D :D :D :D ;)
-
Lizzie i dont know you but i assume your the same as any other modern woman..confident,out going and equal too any man.
I have the greatest respect for you and each forum member.
Im just a little different in the way i see things and choose too take them onboard.
That and ofcourse being a man im by defualt of superior intelligence...even if i havent i still have.... ;D (just teasing dear ;D)
-
Lizzie i dont know you but i assume your the same as any other modern woman..confident,out going and equal too any man.
I have the greatest respect for you and each forum member.
Im just a little different in the way i see things and choose too take them onboard.
That and ofcourse being a man im by defualt of superior intelligence...even if i havent i still have.... ;D (just teasing dear ;D)
Absolutely right to do so! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Don't worry as some on here know I can be of a very strong mind and voice, being as stubborn as I can, as of course I am a woman!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
I am glad Unicornrider that you have joined into a debate when being new to the forum, and long may you continue to do so! :y :y :y :y
Here's to the next debate :D :D :D :D :D ;)
-
Now that's what i call a woman...knows her faults and isnt afraid too publicly admit them. :-* :y
I just wish i could relay my messages on here as eloquently as some of you fine people,i just say what i think and feel.
You know lizzie the whole Bush twin towers could be a long the lines of The invasion of the body snatchers...the one with Daniel ""corrr blimey"" Craig.
Now THATS a conspirany theory... ;D ;D ;D
-
The weekend before 911 all power was cut to the entire WTC
This allegation is sourced to one person, Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust. He claims that "this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up". So NOT the entire WTC. Additionally, he was unable to verify that claim. Interview transcript:
How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?
SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...
No mention of heavy drilling. No entire WTC power down.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html
The speed the buildings collapsed has been measured at 9.6 seconds from start to finish. That calculates to free fall speed. Impossible as the resistance of each floor will slow the collapse.
As the floors collapse they take with them increasing energy, enough to offset resistance. Each floor collapse acted like a hammer - increasing in mass with each level. That's not going against Newton's law, it just means that the sheer weight would have made the lower floors collapse as if they weren't there at all.
Explosions can be clearly seen in front of the falling buildings just as in any demolition.
This is just idle speculation. What does an explosion look like? If it's merely ejection of material, then it must be remembered that the collapsing floors were increasing downward air pressure in a violent manner, thus the sideward ejection of loose material is likely.
For a 33-story building, it takes 12 persons 24 days to lay 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices are used.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120
I doubt you could ever find 12 American citizens who were prepared to lay charges throughout the WTC. Of course that number is in addition to all the planners and the detonation crew. Were this to be true, they would all be accessories to mass murder. The Americans are fiercely loyal to their own nationality. Any thought of mass slaughter of US citizens may be entertained by a few deranged home-grown individuals but, if you believe this hoax, the necessary covert planning and execution to make it happen would in reality have been impossible.
Finally, hoaxers believe that the plane-hijackings were a part of the grand scheme. How did they ensure airport security did not apprehend the suspects by chance before they were able to board? If you're planning such a complex operation, you don't leave things like that to possibly screw things up, so were the airport security approached by men with dark glasses before 11 September? ::)
The whole idea that this was anything other than an Al-Qaida terrorist attack is interesting when you first look at it, but barmy when you look deeper. (IMHO)
-
;D I was talking to Lord Lucan and Elvis the other day and they both think the C.I.A. were behind this :y
Funny, Diana and Michael Jackson told me it was the FBI.... the plot thckens ;D ;D ;D
Seriously though, having had first hand experience of them and what they can do, only an idiot will assume that most terrorists are not in fact very very intelligent people who can see a weaknesses and exploit them. In fact if they were generals in charge of armies they would as sucessful as Slim and Monty because they can pitch what little strength they have against the enemy's weakness; a key principle of manoeuvre warfare :y
Edit: In fact the move against the Pentagon was further proof of an intelligent attack, another principle of manoeuvre warfare is to dislocate the Command element from the Chain of command. The Japanese were excellent at this in the Burmah jungle, a tactic Slim used reciprocally and pushes them back from India and towards Singapore.
-
The pentagon was hit by a plane...we all know how fragile a plane is,yet this punched a lovely clean hole through 5 walls was it ?
Apparently all that section had been closed for renovation/decoration. No work had started abd yet there was not a single person in that party of the Pentagon.
-
"the steel core was melted by the heat of airplanes explosion and burning" .. blah blah blah ;D ;D ;D ;D
you tell this to a structural engineer and he will laugh with his ars*.. and me too ;D
most of the fuel wil be burned within few seconds after the intial impact.. and wont last so long.. and all the structures connecting to those chasis will have cooling effect..
take into account that this structure is many hundred meters long ..let alone the temperature of burning fuel will not be adequate..
thats a big lie.. probably the biggest lie in history.. >:(
watch those videos about 9/11 ... they are no joke..
and if you connect with the events after, and the dark relations , no need for absurd theories.. reality is there .. if you want to see.
-
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html?q=wtc7.html
http://www.rense.com/general65/911b.htm
and an important video, check micheal moore fahrenheit 9/11 from google .. you will find many useful links..
-
i was there, staying in battery park a few hundred yards from 'ground zero' 9 years ago today. the most surreal/life changing day i'm likely ever to experience.
-
May be someone,knew what was planned and took measures to bring the building down in a safe and controlled manner, just in case,what was going to happen could not be stopped :D
-
It truly amazes me that just about every significant human disaster (Death of Elvis anyone?) gets twisted around by some very strange people-very weird!
I suppose the CIA altered the weather and caused Hurricane Katrina-and followed that up with the Gulf oil rig fire.
I wouldn't mind betting they rigged the vote in Germany in 193whatever that got Hitler into power--they certainly did well post 1946 when it was all over.
There was a programme on Discovery that detailed events up to the collapse--I,m no expert but everything as explained certainly rang true with me.
edie
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
-
The steel didnt need to melt Cem, it just needed to deform/ buckle approx 30cm - which would be the approx. bearing of the concrete slabs onto the steel - and the slabs would lose their bearing on the steel and fall down to the next floor.
Michael Moore - I have read his books and seen his films on a range of subjects from 9/11, the British NHS, to his version of the truth about Northern Ireland. The man is a pathological liar with an extreme left wing agenda, I think if the U.S powers that be had ever taken him seriously they would have had him quietly shot for being a complete subversive. They havent because he is a national joke. ;)
BTW - about the central core of the towers - there was nothing in there but plumbing wiring and iirc the lift shafts. Nothing structural at all.
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon
The AP photo above the article clearly shows twisted metal with the colour scheme of American Airlines.
But believe what you want. ::)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
-
I find this particular thread very strange. Just as in debates over climate change, there is very little discussion about the actual events, merely supposition. Tellingly though (for me at any rate), that supposition is liberally laced with an almost maniacal hatred of Bush, the Republican Party and the US as a whole. :o
You can question Bush and his administration as much as you like on policy issues, but only an ignoramus would question his patriotism - indeed some would say it verged on zealotry.
To suggest that he or members of his party would murder over 3,000 of his own US citizens is unthinkably daft - thus making it is perfectly acceptable to left-wing hoax theorists. ;)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
-
and before criticising those theories..
before 9/11 who helped Bin laden for those guns , for what country , for what war.. what were the relations..
I know those answers which is a fact..
I'm afraid Bush era needs a very deep investigation..
but no chance for that.. :-/
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
-
just check the link there are some interesting info
in honestjoe writing..
http://digg.com/news/politics/Michael_Moore_Calls_For_New_9_11_Investigation
-
I find this particular thread very strange. Just as in debates over climate change, there is very little discussion about the actual events, merely supposition. Tellingly though (for me at any rate), that supposition is liberally laced with an almost maniacal hatred of Bush, the Republican Party and the US as a whole. :o
You can question Bush and his administration as much as you like on policy issues, but only an ignoramus would question his patriotism - indeed some would say it verged on zealotry.
To suggest that he or members of his party would murder over 3,000 of his own US citizens is unthinkably daft - thus making it is perfectly acceptable to left-wing hoax theorists. ;)
Indeed Nick, exactly my point in my earlier post. And everyone involved, totalling hundreds, if not thousands, would have to be kept quiet until they die for a story, if true, worth millions of dollars!! :o :o :o
It is just totally implausible ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. ::)
CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.
An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. ::)
CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.
An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.
I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each.. and I can watch even the war planes passing ;D
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. ::)
CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.
An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.
Once again Nick spot on, and I have seen one of those videos. It shows in a blink of an eye a blurred shape moving at high speed going into the wall. ;) ;)
-
dont forget even the oldest cctv can take 25 frames per second.. ::)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. ::)
CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.
An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.
I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each.. and I can watch even the war planes passing ;D
Maximum speed below 2,000ft over populated areas such as your home would be less than half the speed of the AA B757. Besides, your camera can only pick up such aircraft if it is pointed up towards the sky! Look at most CCTV cameras and they are mounted high looking downwards. The security is concerned with ground-based intruders, so cloud-watching is pretty pointless. ::)
-
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.
he cant .. ;D for the obvious reason..
The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. ::) ::)
Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while. ;) ;)
any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more ;D
Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. ::)
CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.
An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.
I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each.. and I can watch even the war planes passing ;D
Maximum speed below 2,000ft over populated areas such as your home would be less than half the speed of the AA B757. Besides, your camera can only pick up such aircraft if it is pointed up towards the sky! Look at most CCTV cameras and they are mounted high looking downwards. The security is concerned with ground-based intruders, so cloud-watching is pretty pointless. ::)
during special events (like air shows) they go really fast and low ::) and as I said 25 frames are adequate for very high speeds and I'm using 50 ;D
and must add most security cameras are wide angle nowadays and can catch really high altitudes.. ::)
-
just check the link there are some interesting info
in honestjoe writing..
http://digg.com/news/politics/Michael_Moore_Calls_For_New_9_11_Investigation
did someone check this link ? ::)
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm
However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0
Gosh...No 'wing' marks !! :-? ::)
-
Some of the conspirists theories are compelling, particularly around Pentagon.
But I don't buy it. Not because I believe the authorities - far from it - its just I don't believe they could pull this off.
As for the twin towers, and controlled destruction, remember they had been attacked before. Its possible they had had a warning, with from the terrorists, or from intelligence, thus rigged the buildings days/weeks/months/years before. Me own feeling is that the towers were blown.
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.
They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.
Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.
Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.
They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.
Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.
Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.
Depends who you talk to ::)
-
Some of the conspirists theories are compelling, particularly around Pentagon.
But I don't buy it. Not because I believe the authorities - far from it - its just I don't believe they could pull this off.
As for the twin towers, and controlled destruction, remember they had been attacked before. Its possible they had had a warning, with from the terrorists, or from intelligence, thus rigged the buildings days/weeks/months/years before. Me own feeling is that the towers were blown.
Me neither
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.
They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.
Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.
Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.
It's 'unbelievably' true. :y (although I'm not sure the 'moon landing' example was the best choice when dealing with a conspiracy theory. ::)
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.
They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.
Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.
Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.
Depends who you talk to ::)
Mr and mrs spoon :y :y
-
It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.
The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ? They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?
And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. ::) ;D ::)
It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.
That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.
They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.
Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.
Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.
It's 'unbelievably' true. :y (although I'm not sure the 'moon landing' example was the best choice when dealing with a conspiracy theory. ::)
The point I tried making earlier was the fact that some people are convinced that there is a conspiracy theory behind most things (Elvis, Diana etc etc,) and they may well be correct in some instances. I'm just not convinced by this one, taking everything into account
-
Anyone remember/see this piece of video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwAhkRciO7k
And I believe no discernible traces of flight 93 were found in or around the impact crater, supposedly for the same reasons as seen in the above video clip? :-X
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm
However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0
Gosh...No 'wing' marks !! :-? ::)
I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? ::)
-
Ok please explain this......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm
However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0
Gosh...No 'wing' marks !! :-? ::)
I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? ::)
:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?! It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider.
I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.
-
Ok please explain this......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related
Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....
Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm
However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0
Gosh...No 'wing' marks !! :-? ::)
I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? ::)
:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?! It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider.
I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.
The engines normally shear off on impact. The leading edge of the wings is up to, say, 10 feet above the engines and obviously much wider in profile. By scratches (the only description I could think of at the time), I mean that, on impact with a substantial wall as at the Pentagon, the wings would fold back on to the fuselage, but may leave tell-tale marks (at least that's my best guess). Essentially, a plane's nose section would create an initial hole, then as the middle section of fuselage follows the wings, being less strong would be folded back/and or torn off and thus create telltale marks (scratches/gouges) as the fuselage continues to travel forwards through the hole.
-
Ok please explain this......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related
Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....
Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.
9:43am on a weekday in September. And are tourists allowed into the grounds of the Pentagon?
There are a lot more tourists in NYC, yet there are very few videos of the first plane impact, the notable exception being the one that was shot by a professional crew who happened to be out and about.
And, of course, the cameraman only looked up when he heard the jet noise and he just happened to be filming at the time. Had he not been been actually recording, he would have missed, such was the time between first seeing the plane and impact. And yet you think lots of tourists would have recorded AA 77's impact?
And while we're on about it, don't you think ATC staff would have followed Flight 77 right to the site of the Pentagon, even if it was under the radar for the last half-mile and even if its "squawk indent" was switched off by the hijackers. I suppose the government paid them off as well. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Methinks the conspiracy theorists are clutching at straws. ::)
-
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."
Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do.
I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)
Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm
However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0
Gosh...No 'wing' marks !! :-? ::)
I used the expression "such" photographs, meaning close-up photographs of crime scenes. You won't be able to identify wing marks from that photo you claim "slipped through the net". It is likely that the wing marks the witness spoke of were something like deeply grooved impact "scratches", albeit metres in depth/length, which would be etched into the fallen debris. Were you expecting to see a nice long wing-shaped mark? ::)
:-? Deeply grooved impact scratches !?! It was supposed to have been a commercial passenger airliner, not a hang glider.
I think 'deeply grooved impact scratches' would be a bit of an understatement seeing as these wings also had a 6 tonne engine hanging underneath each one.
The engines normally shear off on impact. The leading edge of the wings is up to, say, 10 feet above the engines and obviously much wider in profile. By scratches (the only description I could think of at the time), I mean that, on impact with a substantial wall as at the Pentagon, the wings would fold back on to the fuselage, but may leave tell-tale marks (at least that's my best guess). Essentially, a plane's nose section would create an initial hole, then as the middle section of fuselage follows the wings, being less strong would be folded back/and or torn off and thus create telltale marks (scratches/gouges) as the fuselage continues to travel forwards through the hole.
...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.
-
...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.
I don't know where the engines ended up. I wasn't there. Given the strength of the Pentagon's structure, it is likely they were partly vapourised in the same manner as the F4 test crash in the video posted above. Also, I have no idea of the angle of impact, which would make a great deal of difference.
However, there's no point in contesting this anymore. I think the factual evdience suggests that a Boeing 757 of American Airlines was flown at high speed into the wall of the Pentagon. You don't. I think that it's a stalemate.
-
Ok please explain this......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related
Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....
Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.
9:43am on a weekday in September. And are tourists allowed into the grounds of the Pentagon?
There are a lot more tourists in NYC, yet there are very few videos of the first plane impact, the notable exception being the one that was shot by a professional crew who happened to be out and about.
And, of course, the cameraman only looked up when he heard the jet noise and he just happened to be filming at the time. Had he not been been actually recording, he would have missed, such was the time between first seeing the plane and impact. And yet you think lots of tourists would have recorded AA 77's impact?
And while we're on about it, don't you think ATC staff would have followed Flight 77 right to the site of the Pentagon, even if it was under the radar for the last half-mile and even if its "squawk indent" was switched off by the hijackers. I suppose the government paid them off as well. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Methinks the conspiracy theorists are clutching at straws. ::)
:-? Yep, I can just see them sitting there tracking it...all the way to the Pentagon.
Just like they watched the two WTC planes.
Think about it! We're talking about an off course jet aircraft heading straight for The Pentagon. :o
It is routine policy and practice for fighter jets to intercept planes if they go off course even by 2 miles. In the year prior to 9/11 there were 67 such intercepts.
So why were a total of four planes (well, three planes and one 'plane')allowed to stray off course without being intercepted?
-
...and vanish into thin air, with not even a shadow of a mark, let alone the kind of devastation two 6 tonne wrecking balls travelling at 500mph would normally leave.
I don't know where the engines ended up. I wasn't there. Given the strength of the Pentagon's structure, it is likely they were partly vapourised in the same manner as the F4 test crash in the video posted above. Also, I have no idea of the angle of impact, which would make a great deal of difference.
However, there's no point in contesting this anymore. I think the factual evdience suggests that a Boeing 757 of American Airlines was flown at high speed into the wall of the Pentagon. You don't. I think that it's a stalemate.
Read as: What the U.S government say. ;D
Nite :y
-
Should have gone by Bus...... :D :D :D
-
Its hard too take on board that a government could do that too there own people.
Dictators come in all shapes and sizes...not just short greasy haired moustache wearers..or Slightly over weight Iraqi moustache (hmmm there's a pattern lol) wearer.
Even them good ol boys who smile at the camera while calling you a tosser through gritted teeth can be just as merciless...people just dont except it thats all.
I reckon this sums it up rather nicely....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE
Good night Iggle piggle... :)
-
unless those towers are made of plane paper ;D
there is no way that they will collapse in that manner..
remember that those steel back bones are designed to carry hundreds of thousands of tones vertically and also designed to withstand against enormous horizontal wind forces and fire probabilities etc etc..And imo the engineering team wont sign any risky plans as it can effect their whole life..
and for the pentagon , in the real 9/11 video I have seen the parts/pieces left (interestingly cant find this video now :-?) which was incomparable with an airplane crash..no engines , no wheels .. And I dont accept the theory that all parts was cut into small pieces and go into the hole.. Pentagon walls are not that thick compared to this f4 crash..
http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DemolitionWTC.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/introduction.html
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/ * please watch the video clips..
I hope those are enough ;)
-
and one for the pentagon..
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
-
Ok please explain this......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ15hOkekeM&feature=related
Indeed, Tower 7 not struck by aircraft, maybe some debris and residual fire, still collapsed in the same manner....
Also on the pentagon. All the tourists and sight see-ers, not one had a camera or camcorder at the time to capture a low flying aircraft like many did for the WTC attacks.
9:43am on a weekday in September. And are tourists allowed into the grounds of the Pentagon?
There are a lot more tourists in NYC, yet there are very few videos of the first plane impact, the notable exception being the one that was shot by a professional crew who happened to be out and about.
And, of course, the cameraman only looked up when he heard the jet noise and he just happened to be filming at the time. Had he not been been actually recording, he would have missed, such was the time between first seeing the plane and impact. And yet you think lots of tourists would have recorded AA 77's impact?
And while we're on about it, don't you think ATC staff would have followed Flight 77 right to the site of the Pentagon, even if it was under the radar for the last half-mile and even if its "squawk indent" was switched off by the hijackers. I suppose the government paid them off as well. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Methinks the conspiracy theorists are clutching at straws. ::)
So no-one visiting/living in the area surrounding the Pentagon that day had a camera, stills or otherwise?
From what I recall there are plenty of various bits of footage of both the WTC attacks, and yet the only 'evidence' of the Pentagon attack is five or six blury stills of a 'plane' caught on one of the many CCTV cameras surrounding the place.
No-one saw or heard it comming pffff. No-one had a camera, cell phone.
I don't recall claiming to be a 'conspiracy theorist' either thanks Nick.
-
http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..
I watched bit of that and the "narrator" says "watch the ejections of material form the side of the tower keeping pace with the collapsing floors. Perhaps you can think of a natural cause, I can't".
My response to the narrator? That's because you're thick and/or suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Last night I watched an interview with a fire fighter who was trapped in the collapse. One of the most telling remarks he made was that the collapsing floors above caused hurricane like winds as the air was compressed and ejected outwards.
Like I said, natural causes.
Sorry it doesn't support the demolition theory. ;)
-
http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..
I watched bit of that and the "narrator" says "watch the ejections of material form the side of the tower keeping pace with the collapsing floors. Perhaps you can think of a natural cause, I can't".
My response to the narrator? That's because you're thick and/or suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Last night I watched an interview with a fire fighter who was trapped in the collapse. One of the most telling remarks he made was that the collapsing floors above caused hurricane like winds as the air was compressed and ejected outwards.
Like I said, natural causes.
Sorry it doesn't support the demolition theory. ;)
;D ;D
there are many proofs in those links, explanations pictures , videos etc..
and even I can see those explosions in lower floors far from collapse point..
now here are some explanations
"Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. "
In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (left) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards.Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. ""In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. "http://911lies.org/WTC_collapse_demolition_explosions.html
now you do choose which you want to believe ;)
edit : another one with seismic work
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_wtc_videos.html?q=9-11_wtc_videos.html
-
http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..
I watched bit of that and the "narrator" says "watch the ejections of material form the side of the tower keeping pace with the collapsing floors. Perhaps you can think of a natural cause, I can't".
My response to the narrator? That's because you're thick and/or suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Last night I watched an interview with a fire fighter who was trapped in the collapse. One of the most telling remarks he made was that the collapsing floors above caused hurricane like winds as the air was compressed and ejected outwards.
Like I said, natural causes.
Sorry it doesn't support the demolition theory. ;)
;D ;D
there are many proofs in those links, explanations pictures , videos etc..
and even I can see those explosions in lower floors far from collapse point..
now here are some explanations
"Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. "
In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (left) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards.Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. ""In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. "http://911lies.org/WTC_collapse_demolition_explosions.html
now you do choose which you want to believe ;)
edit : another one with seismic work
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_wtc_videos.html?q=9-11_wtc_videos.html
Cem, I'm sorry but you will never convince me that it was a conspiracy with the Towers being blown.
Now what I'm interested in is how you, and any conspiracy theorist, would answer the points I made on page 1 of this thread, and one particular paragraph:
[size=24]"[/size]
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition. This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings. In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on, and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included, not even leaking anything to the press!!
[size=24]"[/size]
How would have all those people, including all the emergency workers involved post attack, and including their relatives, to have been kept quiet for all these years, and for the years to come? Why has not one claim, to my knowledge, have been made by even one person to have been involved and released to the main stream press eager for such money spinning stories? :-/ :-/ :-/
-
good questions Lizzie..
this may give some idea..
So, on who's authority did such events take place? Good Question.
Under the authority of the presidents brother, MARVIN Bush.
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called 'Securacom'
.Securacom provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm, on whose board Marvin Bush also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down.
from
http://911lies.org/WTC_collapse_demolition_explosions.html
now as seen, not that hard as it seems if you have critical positions..
and to answer your second question , I think I'm not the one who must answer them :(
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Thanks for your attempt to answer my questions Cem, but I realise you cannot answer them no more than any 9/11 conspiracy theorist can, due to the fact that any man made demolition never happened; there are not thousands of people having to be kept quiet, including blood spitting relatives, because it was a terrorist attack involving two jet airliners smashing into two office blocks, with the result they finally collapsed due to all the stress, fire and damage.
As for your quote, it is by an unknown source, via a web site with "fairy" in its name! The professional architects who's reports I have read, and seen a documentary by a similar group, all conclude (to repeat my earlier post) that the beams popped off their hangers, with the perimeter steel supports buckling in the extreme heat of an enclosed kerosene fire, and the floors they supported all collapsing onto the next floor, then the next, and the next, at ever increasing speed, just like a pack of cards.
Really Cem that is it, and until anyone claims to have been part of the demolition team, or the cover up team of thousands, or even one of the 10's of thousands of relatives who know they lost a relative or work collegue, or someone else, due to a US government conspiracy, that in turn would have involved hundreds, going onto to thousands, I will not believe anything else ;) ;) ;).
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Thanks for your attempt to answer my questions Cem, but I realise you cannot answer them no more than any 9/11 conspiracy theorist can, due to the fact that any man made demolition never happened; there are not thousands of people having to be kept quiet, including blood spitting relatives, because it was a terrorist attack involving two jet airliners smashing into two office blocks, with the result they finally collapsed due to all the stress, fire and damage.
As for your quote, it is by an unknown source, via a web site with "fairy" in its name! The professional architects who's reports I have read, and seen a documentary by a similar group, all conclude (to repeat my earlier post) that the beams popped off their hangers, with the perimeter steel supports buckling in the extreme heat of an enclosed kerosene fire, and the floors they supported all collapsing onto the next floor, then the next, and the next, at ever increasing speed, just like a pack of cards.
Really Cem that is it, and until anyone claims to have been part of the demolition team, or the cover up team of thousands, or even one of the 10's of thousands of relatives who know they lost a relative or work collegue, or someone else, due to a US government conspiracy, that in turn would have involved hundreds, going onto to thousands, I will not believe anything else ;) ;) ;).
Lizzie , engineering calculations are facts.. not something that you can simply ignore.. Also I have given many links to videos and pictures to proove what I say.. if you want to close your eyes than no problem for me ;D :y
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Thanks for your attempt to answer my questions Cem, but I realise you cannot answer them no more than any 9/11 conspiracy theorist can, due to the fact that any man made demolition never happened; there are not thousands of people having to be kept quiet, including blood spitting relatives, because it was a terrorist attack involving two jet airliners smashing into two office blocks, with the result they finally collapsed due to all the stress, fire and damage.
As for your quote, it is by an unknown source, via a web site with "fairy" in its name! The professional architects who's reports I have read, and seen a documentary by a similar group, all conclude (to repeat my earlier post) that the beams popped off their hangers, with the perimeter steel supports buckling in the extreme heat of an enclosed kerosene fire, and the floors they supported all collapsing onto the next floor, then the next, and the next, at ever increasing speed, just like a pack of cards.
Really Cem that is it, and until anyone claims to have been part of the demolition team, or the cover up team of thousands, or even one of the 10's of thousands of relatives who know they lost a relative or work collegue, or someone else, due to a US government conspiracy, that in turn would have involved hundreds, going onto to thousands, I will not believe anything else ;) ;) ;).
Lizzie , engineering calculations are facts.. not something that you can simply ignore.. Also I have given many links to videos and pictures to proove what I say.. if you want to close your eyes than no problem for me ;D :y
But Cem, where are the hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses involved in the conspiracy??............I never close my eyes to precise evidence, but so far there is none.........so I think for once we will have to agree to disagree Cem :D :D :D :D :D ;)
Whatever we think, nothing will change anyway!! ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Thanks for your attempt to answer my questions Cem, but I realise you cannot answer them no more than any 9/11 conspiracy theorist can, due to the fact that any man made demolition never happened; there are not thousands of people having to be kept quiet, including blood spitting relatives, because it was a terrorist attack involving two jet airliners smashing into two office blocks, with the result they finally collapsed due to all the stress, fire and damage.
As for your quote, it is by an unknown source, via a web site with "fairy" in its name! The professional architects who's reports I have read, and seen a documentary by a similar group, all conclude (to repeat my earlier post) that the beams popped off their hangers, with the perimeter steel supports buckling in the extreme heat of an enclosed kerosene fire, and the floors they supported all collapsing onto the next floor, then the next, and the next, at ever increasing speed, just like a pack of cards.
Really Cem that is it, and until anyone claims to have been part of the demolition team, or the cover up team of thousands, or even one of the 10's of thousands of relatives who know they lost a relative or work collegue, or someone else, due to a US government conspiracy, that in turn would have involved hundreds, going onto to thousands, I will not believe anything else ;) ;) ;).
Lizzie , engineering calculations are facts.. not something that you can simply ignore.. Also I have given many links to videos and pictures to proove what I say.. if you want to close your eyes than no problem for me ;D :y
But Cem, where are the hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses involved in the conspiracy??............I never close my eyes to precise evidence, but so far there is none.........so I think for once we will have to agree to disagree Cem :D :D :D :D :D ;)
Whatever we think, nothing will change anyway!! ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
some eyewitnesses say :
"It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]
"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia - Firefighter [Engine 53]]
One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]
"We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions." [Rich Banaciski - Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."
Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"
A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]
"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." [Karin Deshore - Captain (E.M.S.)]
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
-
and some pictures
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/tw1.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/tw2.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/tw3.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/tw5.jpg)
-
Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives
If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.
Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
9/11- Hard Facts http://www.911hardfacts.com/
-
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11 > http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-08/seismic-signals-reveal-explosives-were-used-wtc-911-0
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
-
This has been an interesting thread about one of the most calculated attacks on a western civilian target in recent times.
There have been many arguments - some plausible many not - about this tragedy being conceived as a result of a power-crazed administration deciding to murder it's own citizens en-masse in the manic pursuit of a Machiavellian political strategy.
Is it reasonable to accept that the complex planning required for all these acts – and their implementation - could have been carried out without anyone becoming aware of what was going on through accidental discovery or leak of information?
The number of those required to have been involved, the infrastructure from the highest echelons of government downwards and the split-second timing necessary for this entire plan to come to fruition remains, in my mind, staggeringly unbelievable.
I'm with Lizzie and Nick on this one.
-
Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives
If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.
Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
9/11- Hard Facts http://www.911hardfacts.com/
:y
-
Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives
If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.
Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
9/11- Hard Facts http://www.911hardfacts.com/
We like Hard Facts:
1) Marvin Bush left the company in June 2000.
2) Wirt Walker III is not a cousin of Bush. The claims all stem from a single article written by one Margie Burns. http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/sources/#pttsource48 "Stratesec and Aviation General shared top executives, including Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family," according to a former colleague" So, the "cousin" allegation is actually based on a "distant relative" allegation from an anonymous source. Wow! Yet more tosh.
So, one has to ask, if they have to resort to plain untruths to get their message across, what can you believe? Well, very little, to be honest. Smearing Bush is a central plank of the whole 911 conspiracy theory. Demonising the administration is necessary to keep the hoax alive.
::) ::) ::)
-
http://wtcdemolition.com/ * please watch the video..
I watched bit of that and the "narrator" says "watch the ejections of material form the side of the tower keeping pace with the collapsing floors. Perhaps you can think of a natural cause, I can't".
My response to the narrator? That's because you're thick and/or suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Last night I watched an interview with a fire fighter who was trapped in the collapse. One of the most telling remarks he made was that the collapsing floors above caused hurricane like winds as the air was compressed and ejected outwards.
Like I said, natural causes.
Sorry it doesn't support the demolition theory. ;)
I do demolition for a living,when I/we pull steel framed buildings down, the gust of wind is the most dangerous part because it picks up anything that been left lying around and sends it flying like a rocket through the air ;)
-
Marvin Bush and the Planting of Explosives
If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.
Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
9/11- Hard Facts http://www.911hardfacts.com/
We like Hard Facts:
1) Marvin Bush left the company in June 2000.
2) Wirt Walker III is not a cousin of Bush. The claims all stem from a single article written by one Margie Burns. http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/sources/#pttsource48 "Stratesec and Aviation General shared top executives, including Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family," according to a former colleague" So, the "cousin" allegation is actually based on a "distant relative" allegation from an anonymous source. Wow! Yet more tosh.
So, one has to ask, if they have to resort to plain untruths to get their message across, what can you believe? Well, very little, to be honest. Smearing Bush is a central plank of the whole 911 conspiracy theory. Demonising the administration is necessary to keep the hoax alive.
::) ::) ::)
Nickbat, you are playing in the corners ;D
-
do you think a power arranging all those evil things and covering a big disaster cant change a date on paper ? ::)
-
do you think a power arranging all those evil things and covering a big disaster cant change a date on paper ? ::)
covering a big disaster
That's the thing cem - some things are just too big to conceive and successfully conceal in the way being suggested.
-
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_924.shtml
::)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
-
and some engineering concepts (which verifies my saying about the buildings structure design)
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Thanks for your attempt to answer my questions Cem, but I realise you cannot answer them no more than any 9/11 conspiracy theorist can, due to the fact that any man made demolition never happened; there are not thousands of people having to be kept quiet, including blood spitting relatives, because it was a terrorist attack involving two jet airliners smashing into two office blocks, with the result they finally collapsed due to all the stress, fire and damage.
As for your quote, it is by an unknown source, via a web site with "fairy" in its name! The professional architects who's reports I have read, and seen a documentary by a similar group, all conclude (to repeat my earlier post) that the beams popped off their hangers, with the perimeter steel supports buckling in the extreme heat of an enclosed kerosene fire, and the floors they supported all collapsing onto the next floor, then the next, and the next, at ever increasing speed, just like a pack of cards.
Really Cem that is it, and until anyone claims to have been part of the demolition team, or the cover up team of thousands, or even one of the 10's of thousands of relatives who know they lost a relative or work collegue, or someone else, due to a US government conspiracy, that in turn would have involved hundreds, going onto to thousands, I will not believe anything else ;) ;) ;).
Lizzie , engineering calculations are facts.. not something that you can simply ignore.. Also I have given many links to videos and pictures to proove what I say.. if you want to close your eyes than no problem for me ;D :y
But Cem, where are the hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses involved in the conspiracy??............I never close my eyes to precise evidence, but so far there is none.........so I think for once we will have to agree to disagree Cem :D :D :D :D :D ;)
Whatever we think, nothing will change anyway!! ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
Lizzie ignoring the Twin towers...please explain how building 7 collapsed. :y
-
do you think a power arranging all those evil things and covering a big disaster cant change a date on paper ? ::)
Oh, yes, I forgot the Securities & Exchange Commission was also in on this. Better add that to the Port Authority of NY and NJ (who were responsible for security of all persons in the WTC and were there all the time) and the US Air Traffic Control Network (who knew here AA Flt 77 went); the phantom demolition company, etc, etc. I guess there were also a few hot-dog vendors who had to look the other way while the detonators were carried in. Jeez, the pay-offs must have almost bankrupted the White House.
::)
Can we have a "head-knocking-against-a-brick-wall" smiley please, admins?
-
do you think a power arranging all those evil things and covering a big disaster cant change a date on paper ? ::)
Oh, yes, I forgot the Securities & Exchange Commission was also in on this. Better add that to the Port Authority of NY and NJ (who were responsible for security of all persons in the WTC and were there all the time) and the US Air Traffic Control Network (who knew here AA Flt 77 went); the phantom demolition company, etc, etc. I guess there were also a few hot-dog vendors who had to look the other way while the detonators were carried in. Jeez, the pay-offs must have almost bankrupted the White House.
::)
Can we have a "head-knocking-against-a-brick-wall" smiley please, admins?
Nickbat , why you think this family has these "interesting" connections.. Did you read about Enron, Chase Manhattan Bank events.. This family is a part of big game players.. And its no joke.. :-/
-
Can we have a "head-knocking-against-a-brick-wall" smiley please, admins?
Try this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17425.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
or this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17429.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
-
Lizzie ignoring the Twin towers...please explain how building 7 collapsed. :y
Excuse me, Lizzie. May I??
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
" ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Firehouse: "Was there heavy fire in there right away?"
Hayden: "No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
:y
-
Can we have a "head-knocking-against-a-brick-wall" smiley please, admins?
Try this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17425.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
or this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17429.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
Thanks Zulu I think I'll need more ;D :y
-
Can we have a "head-knocking-against-a-brick-wall" smiley please, admins?
Try this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17425.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
or this(http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17429.gif) (http://planetsmilies.net)
Excellent, Zulu. Just what's needed in this thread! ;) ;D ;D
-
Lizzie ignoring the Twin towers...please explain how building 7 collapsed. :y
Excuse me, Lizzie. May I??
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
" ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Firehouse: "Was there heavy fire in there right away?"
Hayden: "No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
:y
excuse me but did you read my eyewitness post ?
-
Its actually very unlikely that Bush was at that time the democratically elected president. Does anyone remembr the unseemly shambles in Florida - where iirc his brother was the governor ? ;)
I saw part of a documentary on 9/11 on TV last night, in which they showed an interview with the man who owned the towers (or CEO of the company which owned them ?) recoreded about a year after the event.
He said " I took a call from the fire chief, and he said the fires were out of control, they were going to have to pull the buildings".
"Pull the building" is an industry term for controlled demolition.
This could sound suspicious and add to conspiricy theories, but I would like to know how they organised and staged the controlled demolition of 2 of the worlds tallest buildings in the space of a couple of hours ? ;)
The explanation Lizzie gave is spot on imo. The floors were reinforced (prestressed ?) concrete which sat on steel girders. Once one floor fell onto the next floor there was then twice the weight to fall onto the one below that and so on......
I worked in the manufacture of concrete floors for 20 years, and have seen floors collapse (albeit on a much smaller scale) with very similar results.
Having said all that, they did appear to come down in a very neat and tidy fashion, and for that to happen twice in the same day would take a level of expertise infinitely higher than mine to conclusively explain. :-/
My post above from the fire chief explains the use of this term. Pull the buildings does not mean controlled demolition (at least, not in the NYFD), but rather pull out and leaving the buildings to their fate, as intimated in the transcript. :y
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
-
excuse me but did you read my eyewitness post ?
You've posted a few. Which one, specifically?
-
Operation Northwoods spings to mind, kind of makes the whole 9/11 conspiracy more plausable.
-
excuse me but did you read my eyewitness post ?
You've posted a few. Which one, specifically?
this one :
some eyewitnesses say :
"It [WTC 2] started exploding," said Ross Milanytch, 57, who works at nearby Chase Manhattan Bank. "It was about the 70th floor. And each second another floor exploded out for about eight floors, before the cloud obscured it all." [ASNE] "I saw small explosions on each floor." [Wing TV]
"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia - Firefighter [Engine 53]]
One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [American Free Press]
"We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions." [Rich Banaciski - Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."
Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"
A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]
"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." [Karin Deshore - Captain (E.M.S.)]
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
-
lets assume some idiots hijack the airplanes in a controlled-prepared environment , even if thats true
those planes (as proved-explained) wont be enough as the wtc is designed to withstand..
you will need many of those airplanes ;D
-
Lizzie ignoring the Twin towers...please explain how building 7 collapsed. :y
Excuse me, Lizzie. May I??
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
" ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Firehouse: "Was there heavy fire in there right away?"
Hayden: "No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
:y
Exactly what I would have said Nick thanks ;D ;D ;D ;) ;)
-
ok Nick and Lizzie.. arena is yours .. I'm off as Turkey-Usa final is nearly starting.. shoot as you please ;D :y
-
New York was uber unlucky that day. 3 steel framed towers collapse after fires and yet no other steel framed buildings have been recorded doing so either before or since that day, anywhere...
-
New York was uber unlucky that day. 3 steel framed towers collapse after fires and yet no other steel framed buildings have been recorded doing so either before or since that day, anywhere...
But as I and others have stated the Towers were designed to a new and unique concept; there was no internal steel frame as in all other sky scrappers ;) ;)
Their frame was in the perimeter walls and across in the floor beams to a central support structure, with large concrete slabs on top of each structure to form the flloors. That is what buckled and gave way in an "explosive" fashion as each hanger for each beam failed with the extreme heat, and hundreds of thousands of tons fell onto the floor below, gaining momentum as that load increased to hundreds of thousands of tons, with debris like plaster board, fixtures, fittings, bodies, were ejected in the hundreds of miles per hour compression of ech floor. :'( :'(
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Jesus H Christ mate...the bloody steel frame building must have burnt at incredible temperature too collapse if you believe the guff from the government.
The plane is seen too explode into a mass fireball (not gaurnteed but good chance its gonna burn) then thousands of tons of rumble.
Yet a paper passport doesn't catch fire...... ;D ;D ;D
Mate ive nearly wet me self laughing.... ;D
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Jesus H Christ mate...the bloody steel frame building must have burnt at incredible temperature too collapse if you believe the guff from the government.
Yet a paper passport doesn't catch fire...... ;D ;D ;D
Mate ive nearly wet me self laughing.... ;D
The hijacker was in the cockpit. Deceleration from 400-odd mph to zero in a few meters will propel items forward at huge force (see debris flying out of the WTC on the side opposite to first impact). Being in the cockpit at the front of the aircraft, it is highly plausible that the hijacker's body, of parts thereof, would have been ejected forward and through the opposite wall, with clothing and contents being ripped off during that exit.
Still wetting yourself? ::)
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Jesus H Christ mate...the bloody steel frame building must have burnt at incredible temperature too collapse if you believe the guff from the government.
The plane is seen too explode into a mass fireball (not gaurnteed but good chance its gonna burn) then thousands of tons of rumble.
Yet a paper passport doesn't catch fire...... ;D ;D ;D
Mate ive nearly wet me self laughing.... ;D
Did all the office paper burn? No. Because it was ejected by highly compressed air, that would also have ejected the passport, office fittings, plaster gypsum board, human bodies, etc. ;) ;)
-
New York was uber unlucky that day. 3 steel framed towers collapse after fires and yet no other steel framed buildings have been recorded doing so either before or since that day, anywhere...
But as I and others have stated the Towers were designed to a new and unique concept; there was no internal steel frame as in all other sky scrappers ;) ;)
Their frame was in the perimeter walls and across in the floor beams to a central support structure, with large concrete slabs on top of each structure to form the flloors. That is what buckled and gave way in an "explosive" fashion as each hanger for each beam failed with the extreme heat, and hundreds of thousands of tons fell onto the floor below, gaining momentum as that load increased to hundreds of thousands of tons, with debris like plaster board, fixtures, fittings, bodies, were ejected in the hundreds of miles per hour compression of ech floor. :'( :'(
Was WTC 7 constructed in the same way then?
-
....................and still none of the conspiracy theorists can answer my point:
"
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition. This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings. In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on, and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included, not even leaking anything to the press!!
"
How would have all those people, including all the emergency workers involved post attack, and including their relatives, to have been kept quiet for all these years, and for the years to come? Why has not one claim, to my knowledge, have been made by even one person to have been involved and released to the main stream press eager for such money spinning stories? [size=24]"[/size]
!!!!!!!! ;) ;)
-
Was WTC 7 constructed in the same way then?
Without providing a link, as I'm getting weary of this now, I read earlier today that WT7 was an unorthodox design as it had a huge atrium (a fact for which I can vouch, since I was there in the late 1980s) and the columns had a very large floor area/column ratio, certainly non-standard. It is believed that this design may have contributed to the bulging and latter collapse. :y
-
....................and still none of the conspiracy theorists can answer my point:
"
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition.
nope .. with new type of materials (if you check my links) not necessary to drill everywhere and use in every carrier column.. and their expertise can be discussed also ;D
This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings.
Lizzie, I'm sure you wont trade with Hitler during war when he was killing your soldiers but some do.. ;)
In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on,
yeah.. democracy.. remember Bush was elected by democracy ;D
and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included,
keep in mind , no one knew until some clever people work on the reports and pictures and videos..
not even leaking anything to the press!!
nope.. not all of them.. although most of the media follow the trend some were alive..but these were limited of course..
and if nothing leak how I could send all those links and evidence :y
How would have all those people, including all the emergency workers involved post attack, and including their relatives, to have been kept quiet for all these years, and for the years to come?
as I said not everyone kept quiet
Why has not one claim,
there were claims but who answer and take responsibility ?
to my knowledge, have been made by even one person to have been involved and released to the main stream press eager for such money spinning stories? [size=24]"[/size]
!!!!!!!! ;) ;)
-
....................and still none of the conspiracy theorists can answer my point:
"
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition.
nope .. with new type of materials (if you check my links) not necessary to drill everywhere and use in every carrier column.. and their expertise can be discussed also ;D
This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings.
Lizzie, I'm sure you wont trade with Hitler during war when he was killing your soldiers but some do.. ;)
In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on,
yeah.. democracy.. remember Bush was elected by democracy ;D
and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included,
keep in mind , no one knew until some clever people work on the reports and pictures and videos..
not even leaking anything to the press!!
nope.. not all of them.. although most of the media follow the trend some were alive..but these were limited of course..
and if nothing leak how I could send all those links and evidence :y
How would have all those people, including all the emergency workers involved post attack, and including their relatives, to have been kept quiet for all these years, and for the years to come?
as I said not everyone kept quiet
Why has not one claim,
there were claims but who answer and take responsibility ?
to my knowledge, have been made by even one person to have been involved and released to the main stream press eager for such money spinning stories? [size=24]"[/size]
!!!!!!!! ;) ;)
I thought you were enjoying a football match Cem? :D :D :D :D :D ;) ;)
-
There is a rather interesting program on Sky at the moment, '9/11 Conspiracy Theories'.
I'm sorry, I'm no expert, but the conspiracy theorists just seem to be clutching at straws. It's very easy to say that something didn't happen as you saw it with your own eyes, but actually coming up with plausible theories instead of hysterical finger-pointing is laughable really.
However, I have an open mind and I accept that the conspiracy theory is not an impossibility, and we may be proved wrong one day.
But I don't think that's going to happen ::)
-
....................and still none of the conspiracy theorists can answer my point:
"
We also know that senior demolition experts have stated it would have required an army of demolition men over days/weeks to drill and place demolition charges on each floor to manage any kind of deliberate demolition.
nope .. with new type of materials (if you check my links) not necessary to drill everywhere and use in every carrier column.. and their expertise can be discussed also ;D
This would have involved all the people who worked in the Towers to have ignored all the turmoil, noise, and dust whilst these demolition men KNOWINGLY sowed the seeds for the killing of thousands of fellow human beings.
Lizzie, I'm sure you wont trade with Hitler during war when he was killing your soldiers but some do.. ;)
In a democractic society it would also have involved thousands of CIA, FBI, varous other government agencies, let alone senior politicians to have ignored what was KNOWINGLY going on,
yeah.. democracy.. remember Bush was elected by democracy ;D
and play no part in stopping the MURDER of thousands of fellow human beings, possibly relations and friends included,
keep in mind , no one knew until some clever people work on the reports and pictures and videos..
not even leaking anything to the press!!
nope.. not all of them.. although most of the media follow the trend some were alive..but these were limited of course..
and if nothing leak how I could send all those links and evidence :y
How would have all those people, including all the emergency workers involved post attack, and including their relatives, to have been kept quiet for all these years, and for the years to come?
as I said not everyone kept quiet
Why has not one claim,
there were claims but who answer and take responsibility ?
to my knowledge, have been made by even one person to have been involved and released to the main stream press eager for such money spinning stories? [size=24]"[/size]
!!!!!!!! ;) ;)
I thought you were enjoying a football match Cem? :D :D :D :D :D ;) ;)
basketball.. we were ahead but we loose some players and game turned.. and as you can guess we are loosing.. ;D
not an equal war, black men vs white no chance :-/
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Not doubting it's possible, but you have to admit that's rather corny amazing. ::)
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Not doubting it's possible, but you have to admit that's rather corny amazing. ::)
I'm not amazed. Should I be? :-?
-
OK, hands up everyone who has been watching "Zeitgeist" again ;D
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Not doubting it's possible, but you have to admit that's rather corny amazing. ::)
I'm not amazed. Should I be? :-?
Your climate change posts show you're not completely gullable, yet you mean to say you don't think it amazing they found such a cruicial, damning piece of evidence at all in that much rubble, let alone so soon after the incident.
I mean...WOW !! After all, the 757 that hit The Pentagon vapourized completely !!!
(Well, apart from one small but easily identifiable piece of wreckage, in the foreground of a rather professional looking photograph. :-X) http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/UW/911-flight77-debris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon&usg=__dm189e9fTrHfXjsOWHxROwpVe9s=&h=496&w=630&sz=102&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ygngTEGORZsvUM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=171&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2Bpentagon%2Btail%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1276%26bih%3D519%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=188&ei=AU-NTOmQGY-A4QbroZWfCg&oei=AU-NTOmQGY-A4QbroZWfCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0&tx=120&ty=84
-
you know why these conspiracy theories abound? Because we never get told the truth and then movies like Zeitgeist come out and books by the likes of Michael Moore etc but who can blame them? The powers that be, the maybe not so mythical "men behind the curtain", they'll never tell us the whole truth and if anyone on here really does not believe that "black ops" exist then I think thats a bit naive. Its all about power at the end of the day and power is corrupting. Sadly its human nature. But "tthe truth is out there"-just dont expect to find it anytime soon.
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Bring back the Bus thread........... :y :y :y Bring back any thread, even global warming... ::) ::) ::)
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Following/contributing is not compulsory. :y
-
911? Sad as the losses are this is old hat & hardly worth a light now
Besides what do you all have against Porsche? :o
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Following/contributing is not compulsory. :y
I would agree. The title of the thread is clear as to content so, if you're bored of it, don't click it!
Simples! :y
(I don't click the bus thread very much, for the same reason!)
Mind you, I am getting a shade bored of it myself. I do not discount all conspiracy theories, but this one is just too outlandish.
Most conspiracies concern money and/or power.
Neither can be shown to be the case here, IMHO.
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Following/contributing is not compulsory. :y
I would agree. The title of the thread is clear as to content so, if you're bored of it, don't click it!
Simples! :y
(I don't click the bus thread very much, for the same reason!)
Mind you, I am getting a shade bored of it myself. I do not discount all conspiracy theories, but this one is just too outlandish.
Most conspiracies concern money and/or power.
Neither can be shown to be the case here, IMHO.
Unlike most conspiracy theories this one has somewhat questionable 'official lines' on almost all aspects. Not just 'quite a few'...almost all.
...and as for 'why?': http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/BushTE.html
From the outset, what we have seen has been questionable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJmY5-LbH8c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlgTE3y3MNc
-
Ok ok ive changed my mind....yes its so much more plausible that three terrorists hijacked three planes and flew them into well guarded American landmarks.
Defying all of america's intelligence services,dodging there massive air defence and then being careless and dropping a passport at ground zero...what a silly billy he was. ::)
Well that's so much more believable....... ::)
Plain fact people..this crime is such a hideous occurrence people just simply do not want too believe its possible.
Only in them there foreigner counties it happens... :-X
Yep i can feel the change....Baaaa Baaaa Baaaaa
Just a quickie, but can you tell me exactly why it is impossible to find a passport in the debris? :-?
Jesus H Christ mate...the bloody steel frame building must have burnt at incredible temperature too collapse if you believe the guff from the government.
Yet a paper passport doesn't catch fire...... ;D ;D ;D
Mate ive nearly wet me self laughing.... ;D
The hijacker was in the cockpit. Deceleration from 400-odd mph to zero in a few meters will propel items forward at huge force (see debris flying out of the WTC on the side opposite to first impact). Being in the cockpit at the front of the aircraft, it is highly plausible that the hijacker's body, of parts thereof, would have been ejected forward and through the opposite wall, with clothing and contents being ripped off during that exit.
Still wetting yourself? ::)
Yes as its just ridiculous...how many passports were found in tact,im not talking paper from offices but passports of the passengers on a plane that explodes into a fireball supposedly that's so hot and powerful too demolish a building.
Oh please...its so obvious its insulting. ;D
The sooner people wake up too the fact were not all that nice as a human race the better.
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
its not possible.. :-?
with all those pictures, videos, witnesses and explosive chemicals founds in debris I dont understand people why close their eyes to the truth..
what they expect , someone come and tell "yes we did all these" ;D .. I doubt still they will believe.. ;D :D
have a look at these ..
from http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
* Progressive collapse doesn’t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
* A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
* As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
* Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
* The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
* WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
* The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
* The towers fell at free fall speeds
* A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
* Molten steel found at the WTC couldn’t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
* DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
* Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
* And don’t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he’s kindly agreed to let us host here
* But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
-
and one more .. thinking that a hijacker passport will remain unburned in a flaming air plane is beyond any dreams.. where there are molten steel.. and is a real fraud/make up than being a piece of evidence.. thats not a sicentific way of thinking.. >:(
-
and one more .. thinking that a hijacker passport will remain unburned in a flaming air plane is beyond any dreams.. where there are molten steel.. and is a real fraud/make up than being a piece of evidence.. thats not a sicentific way of thinking.. >:(
Cem, I've already explained how that is possible! ::) ::)
-
and one more .. thinking that a hijacker passport will remain unburned in a flaming air plane is beyond any dreams.. where there are molten steel.. and is a real fraud/make up than being a piece of evidence.. thats not a sicentific way of thinking.. >:(
Cem, I've already explained how that is possible! ::) ::)
Da ;D
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Just stop looking at the thread
-
Its not possible for either side of this debate to prove the other wrong. So may I suggest we move on PLEAZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz :)
Just stop looking at the thread
But this thread is like Thrush...you know you shouldnt scratch but you casnt help it.
Same here..you know you should avoid but you cant help but look.lol.
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
-
Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
-
Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision. ::) ::)
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
That's my point.
-
Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision. ::) ::)
I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.
Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.
1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.
2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.
3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.
If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.
IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?
The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.
I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?
How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?
What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?
As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it. they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!
I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..
-
Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision. ::) ::)
I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.
Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.
1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.
2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.
3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.
If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.
IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?
The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.
YES..
I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?
Me too ;D
How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?
Lizzie and Nick now its your duty to explain ;)
What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?
I'll answer that, because it has to kill people to create sorrow and pain and prepare the community..
As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it. they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!
I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.
Mr RonaldMcBurger, thanks for those logical , definitive brief statements and questions :y :y :y :y
-
Lets not forget the wrong date stamp on the Pentagon CCTV footage.
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..
Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe! ::)
-
Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...
yes.. and full stop.. even thats enough for us to believe somethings wrong with the scenario..
The passport being found... The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...
The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.
The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...
Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...
I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..
Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe! ::)
yes..There are many patriotic Americans that I know well.. And so is here.. But there are people in every country that can do anything for money :(
and I think capturing a country full of oil reserves is more than enough reason..
-
I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one :y
Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it. ::)
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.
But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.
We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.
I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.
Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.
As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.
Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.
Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV, magazines, newspapers etc. >:(
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world. >:(
mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..
Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe! ::)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html?q=northwoods.html
Planned such attacks before....
-
and about conspiracy,
if an event happens and there are logical explanations for some parts of event scienfitically but cant fill all the blanks doesnt mean or make this theory/explanation a conspiracy even if its different than the official one..
-
Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?
Yes, I am.
The WTC building was 70% air. There were steel columns, but obviously these were spaced far enough apart to permit an aircraft fuselage feasibly to penetrate without striking one full on. The outer covering of the WTC, in between floors, was largely glass. Thus, it is entirely possible for the cockpit to enter and not be totally crushed. Equally, it can be reasonably expected that the hijacker was not strapped in as a pilot would be. There is a great deal of debris ejected from the WTC face opposite to that of impact. It is entirely conceivable that some of that debris contained body parts and equally conceivable that some of those parts belonged to a hijacker.
As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged
NY fireman say it was damaged enough to cause them to evacuate. Are they lying?
3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.
So is the claim of 6-inch walls at the Pentagon. The walls were 24" thick!! Furthermore, the portion of the structure, known as "Wedge 1" had recently undergone a structural refurbishment. "The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor."
(See: http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/today.html & http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp)
How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?
Yes, they were cut at that angle during the rescue/clean-up operation. Cuts are made at that angle to prevent the columns toppling.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?
Because it WASN'T a demolition!
-
Seems to be getting a bit silly Guys, please calm it down.
Cheers
-
Inappropriate posts removed
-
Whilst I don't fully subscribe to the conspiracy theory, there is one thing that's always troubled me from a structural engineering perspective..........
forget the twin towers collapsing, forget the pentagon being hit by something - a plane, a missile, whatever - forget all that: i'll buy it.
but a tall steel building collapsing due to fire? doesn't happen, never has, never will, with one exception: WTC 7, and this is a building designed and planned from the start to be much larger, with more floors than it eventually finished with - it was probably the most structurally sound, overdesigned building in New York! I reckon the USAF could attack that building all day long and it wouldn't come down, yet a paper fire melted the steel? :o
-
So. We are all agreed then. Good. ;D
-
So. We are all agreed then. Good. ;D
[/highlight]
I thought Marks MDT had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^ ::)
-
So. We are all agreed then. Good. ;D
[/highlight]
I thought Marks DTM had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^ ::)
-
Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?
Yes, I am.
how and why ?
The WTC building was 70% air. There were steel columns, but obviously these were spaced far enough apart to permit an aircraft fuselage feasibly to penetrate without striking one full on. The outer covering of the WTC, in between floors, was largely glass. Thus, it is entirely possible for the cockpit to enter and not be totally crushed. Equally, it can be reasonably expected that the hijacker was not strapped in as a pilot would be. There is a great deal of debris ejected from the WTC face opposite to that of impact. It is entirely conceivable that some of that debris contained body parts and equally conceivable that some of those parts belonged to a hijacker.
nope .. not acceptable.. now thats double standard..
you claim that the building collapse from the heat of fire and you say the passport paper survived because may be it jumped out ;D
this is really conspiracy theory , the building is enough wide to stop any part of the airplane for passing to the otherside .. may I remind that even the steel black box at the TAIL of airplane didnt survive..
As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged
NY fireman say it was damaged enough to cause them to evacuate. Are they lying?
a firemans evacuation standard is not a norm for a building to collapse..
3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.
So is the claim of 6-inch walls at the Pentagon. The walls were 24" thick!! Furthermore, the portion of the structure, known as "Wedge 1" had recently undergone a structural refurbishment. "The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor."
(See: http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/today.html & http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp)
;D look in the pictures I dont see any 24" thick walls
or I'm blind..
How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?
Yes, they were cut at that angle during the rescue/clean-up operation. Cuts are made at that angle to prevent the columns toppling.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
how many were cut ? all of them ? ;D
What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?
Because it WASN'T a demolition!
there is a saying in my language translated "you cant cover the sun with mud"
paralel explosions in those pictures are amazingly obvious..
you accept or not .. it was..how you explain the explosive chemical remains found in debris..?
Mr RonaldMcBurger with your permission please ::)
-
So. We are all agreed then. Good. ;D
[/highlight]
I thought Marks DTM had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^ ::)
Starting to repeat yourself, old fella? ;D
-
So. We are all agreed then. Good. ;D
[/highlight]
I thought Marks DTM had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^ ::)
Starting to repeat yourself, old fella? ;D
Yeah, aint gettin' old a bitch? :( ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
I have to totally disagree with all comments on this subject, having looked into it in great detail myself and found evidence, that everyone appears to overlook:
1. The planes were taken over and controlled by aliens.
2. Subsequently BL, AQ & CIA etc paid off by the Aliens to conspire the story against BL & AQ, even better than the Orson Welles radio show about the invasion.
;D ;D :y
-
I've been out since 3pm. Did I miss something? :-?
-
I have to totally disagree with all comments on this subject, having looked into it in great detail myself and found evidence, that everyone appears to overlook:
1. The planes were taken over and controlled by aliens.
2. Subsequently BL, AQ & CIA etc paid off by the Aliens to conspire the story against BL & AQ, even better than the Orson Welles radio show about the invasion.
;D ;D :y
Right, that ones sorted then !! :y ;D
-
I've been out since 3pm. Did I miss something? :-?
Yep, aliens did it - sorted :y
-
Would explain why the Amercian intellignce agencies are the way they are...ive met plenty of ex CIA in my last postion.
Weird bunch.
-
I am now convinced it was a conspiracy, I'm with all you doubters and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/09/24/news/national/free/id_413579.txt:y
-
there are certainly lots of views on this, i do remember one where one of the plains that failed to hit, 'crashed' yet an engine was found 7 miles from crash site? Indicates something happened in the air there.
But i agree with the first comments, if this was planned, i don't believe they could keep it secret, someone would talk, someone would have taken photos on a phone, or recorded something for future blackmail.
-
I am now convinced it was a conspiracy, I'm with all you doubters and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/09/24/news/national/free/id_413579.txt:y
ahmedinejad says the opposite :D
-
I am now convinced it was a conspiracy, I'm with all you doubters and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/09/24/news/national/free/id_413579.txt:y
ahmedinejad says the opposite :D
Huh?
Ahmadinejad also asserted that the “majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree” that “some segments within that the U.S. government orchestrated the (Sept. 11) attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East.”
-
I am now convinced it was a conspiracy, I'm with all you doubters and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/09/24/news/national/free/id_413579.txt:y
ahmedinejad says the opposite :D
Huh?
Ahmadinejad also asserted that the “majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree” that “some segments within that the U.S. government orchestrated the (Sept. 11) attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East.”
do you believe its real or its a conspiracy theory ?
-
I am not a believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I did wonder about the plane that crashed onto the Queens area of NYC about a year later. Could it have strayed a bit off course and got itself shot down in a knee jerk panic reaction ?
I was surprised at the time that imo it didnt seem to generate the level of publicity that I thought that such an event would have done. :-/
-
for those interested and have some time to read
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
-
I am now convinced it was a conspiracy, I'm with all you doubters and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/09/24/news/national/free/id_413579.txt:y
ahmedinejad says the opposite :D
Huh?
Ahmadinejad also asserted that the “majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree” that “some segments within that the U.S. government orchestrated the (Sept. 11) attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East.”
do you believe its real or its a conspiracy theory ?
Well if he believes it it must be true!
-
Yeah, hardly an 'unbiased' man ::)