Newcastle-Online

Archives => Hall Of Fame => Topic started by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:16:59 PM

Title: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:16:59 PM
On Channel 4 now.  Some powerful images.  I still get goosebumps watching those planes fly in.  Say what you like about it, but nothing will ever match the visual impact that day created. 

Worth a watch, different perspective from the hero view.  Apparently news agencies refused to show people jumping, due to them being 'negative images'. 

Anyway, turn it on. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:22:39 PM

Apparently news agencies refused to show people jumping, due to them being 'negative images'. 


I found that odd.  Surely a more important reason to cut away would be that bairns might be watching that early.  Not nice for them without a warning.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:24:16 PM

Apparently news agencies refused to show people jumping, due to them being 'negative images'. 


I found that odd.  Surely a more important reason to cut away would be that bairns might be watching that early.  Not nice for them without a warning.

Fair enough, was what it said though.  But it also meant from there on in.  There was photos of those jumping the day after, but then they were never seen again after that. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Alan Shearer 9 on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:26:49 PM
If I'm being honest watching that footage of the planes doesn't really affect me. I agree with not showing the images early when kids might be watching, some people never shut up about violence on telly and then on the news at noon or in the morning you have pictures of people being abused etc etc.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Tooj on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:27:54 PM
Ah forgot about this, really wanna watch it but im nicely settled and me remote is not to be found, me tele is not tuned in and me aerial is unplugged, and Father Ted is on
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:29:56 PM
If I'm being honest watching that footage of the planes doesn't really affect me. I agree with not showing the images early when kids might be watching, some people never shut up about violence on telly and then on the news at noon or in the morning you have pictures of people being abused etc etc.

But that wasn't why.  They wanted to show images of 'heroic' firemen and the likes.  As it put it, "positive images".  Was nothing to do with the time of day or children.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:42:35 PM
If I'm being honest watching that footage of the planes doesn't really affect me. I agree with not showing the images early when kids might be watching, some people never shut up about violence on telly and then on the news at noon or in the morning you have pictures of people being abused etc etc.

How old are you like?  Do you think you've been desensitised to really shocking events by violence in the media?

I thought I had been, I can stomach a lot of what's on the news that my parents find repellent, but those images give me butterflies in my stomach, a sickly feeling.  They're horrible.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:47:13 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Wullie on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:48:28 PM
I find them impossible to watch without a shiver going down my spine.

I can't imagine what it was like watching live. Seeing the towers burning then the footage after I came in from school was one thing, but live must have been much more horrific. My mam and my grandma had been out during it and my grandad was in on his own. When they got back, they said he couldn't speak for an hour, he was so shaken up.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:50:17 PM
I remember it well.  Was sitting skiving off school in me pit with the news on.  Was remarkable to see, triggered something off inside me that's made me obsessed with goings on around the world.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Wullie on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:51:05 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.

Footage featured here:

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,16650.0.html

Poor Rebellious never got any replies to this but I watched them and it's interesting stuff. I am the type of person who likes a so-called "conspiracy theory" and although much of the speculation involving the American government seems too far fetched in places even for me, there are questions that need answering and things that just don't add up.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Sgrey on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:51:45 PM
I remember the day too like, came in from school to see these two towers i had'nt hear dof destroyed. I had no idea at what disaster had happend at first like :(
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:54:40 PM
I think its beautiful identifieing the falling man myself. I think his family should look at it differently as well. (if it was nolberto mind, they seem to be suggesting it wasn't now)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:56:10 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.

Jenga towers are constructed from horizontal blocks, the towers were constructed from vertical pillars i believe.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:56:42 PM
i also think it was an extremley brave and noble way to go.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 09:56:53 PM
I was 11 at the time. I had no idea what was going on but the way that my brother was acting told me that it was very serious. He was saying this is the biggest terrorist attack to happen to anywhere and I just watched the towers and footage and the aftermath not knowing its significance.

I now understand though and if it happened today, I would have acted differently. It would have really got to me, I was young and didn't understand back then. It sends a shiver down my spine seeing it today. Would be terrible if anything like that ever happened again.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:00:52 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.

Footage featured here:

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,16650.0.html

Poor Rebellious never got any replies to this but I watched them and it's interesting stuff. I am the type of person who likes a so-called "conspiracy theory" and although much of the speculation involving the American government seems too far fetched in places even for me, there are questions that need answering and things that just don't add up.

Cheers mate, I am in to it too.

I wont cancel out the possibility of anything. I believe the government klnow something with all this talk of bombs and setting up and the fact that FBI agents apparently found the black boxes from the planes and then told everyone that they hadn't.

The way George Bush reacted as well. He was in a school reading with kids at the time I think. I am sure that any decent man who was in his position would have done something. Someone whispers in your ear that one of the biggest towers in the world has had a plane crash into it killing hundreds, I think if he was not involved, he would have done something. But he just sat there and carried on reading. He either was in on it or he has no heart.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:03:12 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.

Footage featured here:

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,16650.0.html

Poor Rebellious never got any replies to this but I watched them and it's interesting stuff. I am the type of person who likes a so-called "conspiracy theory" and although much of the speculation involving the American government seems too far fetched in places even for me, there are questions that need answering and things that just don't add up.

Cheers mate, I am in to it too.

I wont cancel out the possibility of anything. I believe the government klnow something with all this talk of bombs and setting up and the fact that FBI agents apparently found the black boxes from the planes and then told everyone that they hadn't.

The way George Bush reacted as well. He was in a school reading with kids at the time I think. I am sure that any decent man who was in his position would have done something. Someone whispers in your ear that one of the biggest towers in the world has had a plane crash into it killing hundreds, I think if he was not involved, he would have done something. But he just sat there and carried on reading. He either was in on it or he has no heart.


not really.

i think i may well have reacted the same. he would have been in shock (if he wasn't in on it), and he would not have known what to do. carrying on reading was just his way of reacting too it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:03:15 PM
Jonny, just got this from a mate.  You might like it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xs51xKHUnNs

This is worth a watch too - http://www.iwilltryit.com/griffin1.htm
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:07:09 PM
Jonny, just got this from a mate.  You might like it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xs51xKHUnNs

This is worth a watch too - http://www.iwilltryit.com/griffin1.htm


Cheers mate, I will watch 'em
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:09:58 PM
This is interesting as well:

http://www.freepressinternational.com/collapse_121904_wtc911_928g10044691.html

its broadcast on American News. It is a NY official telling everyone that the tower was going to collapse. Could just have thought it might have but interesting.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:17:00 PM
The Wisconsin speech thing is very interesting Bluff. Looking at it now.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:18:15 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:19:34 PM
The Wisconsin speech thing is very interesting Bluff. Looking at it now.

Aye.  It takes quite a while though, so be prepared.  I put it up a while ago, RobW denounced it all as rubbish though.  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:22:05 PM
I'll get me coffee. coffee.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:27:27 PM
No one ever talks about the Mossad boys arrested by NYPD, who were sitting in a van nearby. Thye were let go a few hours later.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:28:20 PM
Too close to the truth, Parky.  Can't have that now. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:37:17 PM
Where do you stand on it mate? Forewarned but deliberately ignored....Lot of the FBI stuff points to that.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:42:08 PM
Too close to the truth, Parky.  Can't have that now. 

truth eh ? you've already decided what you want to believe now you will only accept evidence that supports your belief...as in you'll believe those stories about explosions under the tower and mossad agents when you have as much,if not less "proof" of these actions as you have the official line.

anyway i watched the harold wilson near coup thing on the other side,now there was a conspiracy that was borne out.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:42:55 PM
I don't pretend to know anything as fact, even though you do get others acting like the official story is fact, but I do think they knew it was going to happen and then allowed it.  Use it as a great opportunity to start the great "War on Terror". 

Not sure where I stand on pre-placed explosives, but still something doesn't sit right with me with the way the towers crumbled.  There are plenty of accounts of people claiming to hear explosions, but it's astonishing how many people then just pass them off as quacks because it just 'can't be true' in their little heads. 

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened.  But I certainly don't buy the official piffle.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:44:17 PM
I've read widely on it Madras. And like an old mafia Don I simply don't beleive in that amount of conicidence. bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:45:15 PM
Too close to the truth, Parky.  Can't have that now. 

truth eh ? you've already decided what you want to believe now you will only accept evidence that supports your belief...as in you'll believe those stories about explosions under the tower and mossad agents when you have as much,if not less "proof" of these actions as you have the official line.

anyway i watched the harold wilson near coup thing on the other side,now there was a conspiracy that was borne out.

I've decided what I believe on things I've read up on.  I've not just decided it based on nothing, or going on a complete anti-official story. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:50:58 PM
and what you have read,did it perhaps have a cospiracy supporting slant to it....tell me how do you know that they knew that was going to happen ?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:55:42 PM
Watch the 2nd link on Bluff's 10.03 post. Most of it is in there.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 10:56:59 PM
and what you have read,did it perhaps have a cospiracy supporting slant to it....tell me how do you know that they knew that was going to happen ?

Because news reports have suggested they received credible intelligence, and that's from your mainstream media.  Like Parky said, far too many coincidences.  I've read from both ends of the spectrum, and that's why I believe what I believe.  You seem to be suggesting that I'm taking every conspiracy as gospel, but that's just plain daft.  Otherwise I'd believe the planes were flown in by remote, with nobody on board the f***ing things.

For one, I believe Islamic terrorists flew the planes in, but the main thing I believe is they were allowed to do so.  Like I said, I don't have any facts on that.  It's just all too convenient. 

Then there's The Project For A New American Century which talks about another "Pearl Harbour" situation.  It was made about 5 years before the event.  Another coincidence eh.

Also, why exactly was the Pentagon plane allowed to fly so long without Jets being scrambled?  Infact, scrap that.  Why were the jets never f***ing scrambled? 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: johnnypd on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:04:14 PM
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

"THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA."
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:05:41 PM
They were part of the van crew I mentioned earlier Jonny.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:09:43 PM
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

"THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA."

This bit is telling too.

Quote
And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”

But I guess I'm just believing in conspiracy theories.  Forget the truth like.  If it goes against the grain, it's a conspiracy, truth or not.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:25:12 PM
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

"THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA."

how do we know they celebrated and danced...who saw them and how professional of them to blow their cover so easily ?

if it was all a plan so the US  could go into iraq you'd think they would somehow implicate iraq in it.....if it was to go into afghanistan why don't they want much to with it now they have control over some of it ?

the problem with the conspiracy is it doesn't fit together,the main problem with the official story is it means buffoons control the defence of that country.people would rather behind the scenes machinations than incompetence.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:29:26 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:30:02 PM
Bush didn't just implicate Iraq in it....He implicated Saddam himself...Madras you should look into this if you are interested.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:33:23 PM
Bush didn't just implicate Iraq in it....He implicated Saddam himself...Madras you should look into this if you are interested.


good grief parky you should stop posting while meditating bluelaugh.gif....surely you understand that i meant evidence to implicate rather than dubyas groundless accusations.


anyway something to peruse........http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: johnnypd on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:39:26 PM
there WAS a conspiracy, that of a bunch of arab men conspired for years to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. yet no on calls it conspiracy because it is the officil explanation, as if the word "conspiracy" was somehow  a synonym for "myth" and exclusive of the truth. but not even the official explanation makes sense - if these guys want a caliphate run on sharia law in the middle east, why fly planes into office buildings in the usa? how come the identities released by the FBI were wrong? that doesn't make sense yet it undeniably happened. something else that undeniably happened was that mossad agents found themselves on a rooftop in new jersey with a great view of the WTC, and happened to be filming the towers burning. there's no official explanation for that, and nor am i proposing any explanation, yet it is still called a "conspiracy" if you merely post the info. what i would like are explanations. i'm not telling you why they were there cos i don't know, rather, i'm asking the question of what they were doing.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:39:35 PM
From the anomalous betting on the stockmarket to the collapsing of the towers to the hushing up of certain FBI departments who did try to prior warn, there is just too much going on here. The fact that the jets weren't scrambled for over an hour and they normally are in 10 min....These are just the basics...There are dozens of problems with the official story. Read 'House of Bush - House of Saud as well. Fantastic background.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:43:39 PM
Always hated seeing that the moment. The thought of all those people and those families is terrible.

There is always something not right about the thing whenever I watch it. The planes went into the top of the towers so how come they kinda imploded and collapsed? I still think there was a bomb set off from within both towers to cause them to fall.

It's like a Jenga tower. If you take out one of the top blocks, only the things above collapse, the stuff below is not affected and this is very strong steel structured buildings we are talking about.

Footage featured here:

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,16650.0.html

Poor Rebellious never got any replies to this but I watched them and it's interesting stuff. I am the type of person who likes a so-called "conspiracy theory" and although much of the speculation involving the American government seems too far fetched in places even for me, there are questions that need answering and things that just don't add up.

Very simple.  The sheer heat of the flames melted the central steel core of the building.  After that, collapse was inevitable.  As an NYC resident, those images still bother me.  The funny thing - whenever I see them I remember the way the city smelled for the next 48 hours, like burning plastic.  It was terrible.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:44:10 PM
From the anomalous betting on the stockmarket to the collapsing of the towers to the hushing up of certain FBI departments who did try to prior warn, there is just too much going on here. The fact that the jets weren't scrambled for over an hour and they normally are in 10 min....These are just the basics...There are dozens of problems with the official story. Read 'House of Bush - House of Saud as well. Fantastic background.


re house of bush/saud and bush family connections with bin laden when it happened and i was telling everyone then.


that site tells you why the jets werent scrambled and what normally happens(page 3 i think)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:45:01 PM
They're not interested in evidence....this is 'wonderland' stuff. It's about what can be made believeable, its about plausabillity, its about suspending disbelief. Its about using visual code and not language. It is war by other means.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:46:28 PM
they.............or you ?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:48:19 PM
That stuff about the 'donut' and the transponders etc it cobblers.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:51:08 PM
if only the internet had been around for pearl harbour or dunkirk,i'm sure the seem family of stories would have been trotted out.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:53:55 PM
"They.......or you"...


Like it. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

There is a book somewhere, "300 America Govt lies in the last 10 years". What if only 10% of that book is true?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 16 March 2006, 11:57:46 PM
Baron you are wrong, most of the 'unmelted' steel core was taken away the next day and transported in boats to iirc Hong Kong.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:02:33 AM
"They.......or you"...


Like it. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

There is a book somewhere, "300 America Govt lies in the last 10 years". What if only 10% of that book is true?

bloody hell even if its 100% true a government that only tells only 300 lies in ten years would get my vote
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:03:25 AM
Thats the spirit. But maybe the people of Fallujah might not agree with you.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:05:12 AM
Thats the spirit. But maybe the people of Fallujah might not agree with you.

you aint been round these parts long boy,have you... no-one agrees with me!!!!!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:06:53 AM
 :P
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:10:12 AM
Baron you are wrong, most of the 'unmelted' steel core was taken away the next day and transported in boats to iirc Hong Kong.

That sounds like bollocks to me - absolutely nothing was taken away the next day.  They were still pulling bodies from the wreckage.  It was weeks before real progress was made in clearing even small debris, not to mention these "unmelted" steel cores of skyscrapers they supposedly snuck out under cover of night.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: 80 on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:59:07 AM
The way George Bush reacted as well. He was in a school reading with kids at the time I think. I am sure that any decent man who was in his position would have done something. Someone whispers in your ear that one of the biggest towers in the world has had a plane crash into it killing hundreds, I think if he was not involved, he would have done something. But he just sat there and carried on reading. He either was in on it or he has no heart.

I always think that's the harshest and most unfair reading of his actions that day. If people felt positive towards him, they'd come out with some such about him keeping his nerve and his cool, contemplating an appropriate response whilst not wanting to disturb the children he was surrounded by.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: sicsfingeredmong on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:01:43 AM
I remember seeing a documentary showing footage taken from inside one of the foyers, before the 1st tower went down. There was no need to see the jumpers, the impact when hearing them hitting the ground, the foyer roof or any surrounding cars was more powerful than the published visuals.

Although it wasn't planned - by the US government that is - 9/11 was the best thing that happened for G.Dubbuya who was under fire as a result of domestic policies & budgetary mismanagement. The approval ratings at the time pointed to him being ousted at the next election. 9/11 and the ensuing "war on terror" brought him an extra term in office at least.

Getting back to the "it wasn't planned by the US government" statement. I'm not into the conspiracy theory take but they're not entirely blameless. A number of years ago the CIA was offered intel, by a Nth African country where he was living in exile at the time,  on a silver platter - the CIA knocked the offer back. The CIA/US government's policy, regarding intel & the cooperative passing over of information, was that it wouldn't deal with states with fractured or volatile/tenious relationship with them ie. most Muslim states.

I also read an newspaper article - detailed by a former Bush adviser - where the growing & imminent threat posed by Bin Laden/Al Queda was raised at an internal meeting. George Dubbaya said with words to the effect of "i'm not interested in Osama Who...... Hussain is the one i'm after."

 I guess the Bush's business interests with the Bin Laden family allowed Osama to fly under the radar. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:10:37 AM
Getting back to the "it wasn't planned by the US government" statement. I'm not into the conspiracy theory take but they're not entirely blameless. A number of years ago Bin Laden was offered, by a Nth African country where he was living in exile at the time, to the US government on a silver platter - the US government knocked the offer back.

I also read an article - actually it was an interview with a former Bush adviser - where the gowing & imminent threat posed by Bin Laden/Al Queda was raised at an intel meeting. George Dubbaya said with words to the effect of "i'm not interested in Osama who...... Hussain is the one i'm after."

 I guess the Bush's business interests with the Bin Laden family allowed Osama to fly under the radar. 

Exactly, what an amazing stroke of luck.  But I just don't buy it as coincidence.  These things don't happen accidently, if you ask me.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:13:50 AM
For those not in the UK, this is the picture the programme was centred around.

(http://www.cabalofdoom.com/archives/mt-static/images/falling.jpg)

Powerful image.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: sicsfingeredmong on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:38:08 AM
Getting back to the "it wasn't planned by the US government" statement. I'm not into the conspiracy theory take but they're not entirely blameless. A number of years ago Bin Laden was offered, by a Nth African country where he was living in exile at the time, to the US government on a silver platter - the US government knocked the offer back.


I also read an article - actually it was an interview with a former Bush adviser - where the gowing & imminent threat posed by Bin Laden/Al Queda was raised at an intel meeting. George Dubbaya said with words to the effect of "i'm not interested in Osama who...... Hussain is the one i'm after."

 I guess the Bush's business interests with the Bin Laden family allowed Osama to fly under the radar. 

Exactly, what an amazing stroke of luck.  But I just don't buy it as coincidence.  These things don't happen accidently, if you ask me.

I see you caught me out while editing my earlier post/that particular paragraph ie. the CIA/US government being offered intel re-Osama and their associated policy when dealing with Muslim states.  bluewink.gif

Seriously though the Bush's handling post 9/11, or immediately after - within days of the attack to be more specific where as a personal favour to their former business associates, the Bin Ladens residing in the US were flown out of the country via government chartered planes to escape scrutiny & questioning from the appropriate investigators - was nothing short of scandalous.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 07:26:18 AM
Can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread about "the towers going down too easily".  What a load of s****.  I'm amazed they stayed up as long as they did with f***ing planes flying into them.  As Baron says the steel core of the building wasn't designed to withstand the temperatures caused by having a jet full of fuel explode next to it.  Simple as that.  No additional explosions required.  This has long been in the public domain so I'm surprised some of the crazies haven't picked up on it - too busy looking for evidence of additional explosions and dancing, jigging Mossad agents probably.

Loving the way Blufpurdi keeps talking about "the truth" when referring to his version of events and "the official line" as if it's total bollocks.  Spoken like a true mental conspiracy theorist.  bluebigrazz.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:09:35 AM
Nice to know you buy it.

So what do you make of the Mossad agents?  Was that just made up then?  Talk of explosions have been mentioned by various people there on the day, but don't let that get in the way like. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:22:30 AM
Nice to know you buy it.

So what do you make of the Mossad agents?  Was that just made up then?  Talk of explosions have been mentioned by various people there on the day, but don't let that get in the way like. 

Presumably these people have witnessed events like this on a fairly regular basis and are therefore well qualified to discern additional explosions caused by bombs from electrical fires, windows being blown out by the heat and the subsequent rush of oxygen causing flame bursts etc. etc.

As for the Mossad agents and whether it was made up - who knows?  Certainly not me or you, yet you pose it as "the truth".  Where's your evidence if you're so willing to accept it as fact?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:34:20 AM
Nice to know you buy it.

So what do you make of the Mossad agents?  Was that just made up then?  Talk of explosions have been mentioned by various people there on the day, but don't let that get in the way like. 

Presumably these people have witnessed events like this on a fairly regular basis and are therefore well qualified to discern additional explosions caused by bombs from electrical fires, windows being blown out by the heat and the subsequent rush of oxygen causing flame bursts etc. etc.

As for the Mossad agents and whether it was made up - who knows?  Certainly not me or you, yet you pose it as "the truth".  Where's your evidence if you're so willing to accept it as fact?

I never actually said it was the truth, but that it was getting closer to the truth.  I find it strange that they were sitting recording it, regardless of them dancing around or not.   

I'm also not saying, and haven't said, those that heard the explosions are spot on, but they heard what they heard, yet there's no account of their statements in the 9/11 report.  It should be investigated and explained, as should the Mossad lot.  The fact that they're not, leaves everything open to interpretation.  It shouldn't just be swept under the carpet.

If 9/11 was as coincidental as made out, then they have nothing to fear.  Yet there's never been an independent inquiry into the attacks.  Just one led by the Government.  Again, what a surprise. 

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rebellious on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:34:25 AM
http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,16650.0.html


I pointed this out the other day. Quite a nasty day that i`m sure our generation will never forget, i havn`t met many people who didn`t witness it live on tv.

www.loosechange911.com
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:37:03 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:40:53 AM
Excellent, hadn't seen that video.  It quotes the Project for a New American Century directly, which I was having a read of last night.  I suppose that's fake too though.  :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:41:32 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.

:lol:

"Let those blind fools accept what they think whilst we trawl the net for websites set up by fellow mentalists espousing crazy theories, and instead accept THAT as fact."
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:43:18 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.

:lol:

"Let those blind fools accept what they think whilst we trawl the net for websites set up by fellow mentalists espousing crazy theories, and instead accept THAT as fact."

Gemmil, search for Project For A New American Century.  Have a look around that, and I mean read it, don't just look at the site.  You might learn something.

Or try watching that link.  Bet you don't though, where as I will take into account what you say, you just blind yourself from the other side of the story.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:45:25 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.

:lol:

"Let those blind fools accept what they think whilst we trawl the net for websites set up by fellow mentalists espousing crazy theories, and instead accept THAT as fact."

Gemmil, search for Project For A New American Century.  Have a look around that, and I mean read it, don't just look at the site.  You might learn something.

I will have a look mate, although I'm pretty sure I've looked at it before - is it the "New World Order" thingy?  Anyway, I don't have time at the mo cos they're actually making me work at work which is a crime in itself.  blueupset.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:48:04 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.

:lol:

"Let those blind fools accept what they think whilst we trawl the net for websites set up by fellow mentalists espousing crazy theories, and instead accept THAT as fact."

Gemmil, search for Project For A New American Century.  Have a look around that, and I mean read it, don't just look at the site.  You might learn something.

I will have a look mate, although I'm pretty sure I've looked at it before - is it the "New World Order" thingy?  Anyway, I don't have time at the mo cos they're actually making me work at work which is a crime in itself.  blueupset.gif

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Fair enough like.  My passion runs high, especially when I'm passed off as some Conspiracy theorist.  Sad really, can't have an opinion these days.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:50:04 AM
Those that don't want to dig, Rebellious, won't watch that.  They're happy with the 'facts' like.

:lol:

"Let those blind fools accept what they think whilst we trawl the net for websites set up by fellow mentalists espousing crazy theories, and instead accept THAT as fact."

Gemmil, search for Project For A New American Century.  Have a look around that, and I mean read it, don't just look at the site.  You might learn something.

I will have a look mate, although I'm pretty sure I've looked at it before - is it the "New World Order" thingy?  Anyway, I don't have time at the mo cos they're actually making me work at work which is a crime in itself.  blueupset.gif

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Fair enough like.  My passion runs high, especially when I'm passed off as some Conspiracy theorist.  Sad really, can't have an opinion these days.

You're more than welcome to your opinion.  In actual fact it was you that started with the "Let them believe what they think, we know the truth" stuff.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:56:46 AM
You're more than welcome to your opinion.  In actual fact it was you that started with the "Let them believe what they think, we know the truth" stuff.

Bit rash actually the "fact" bit was, but I stated those that don't want to dig, will not watch that.  Am I wrong?

But I was passed off as theorist prior to that.  By yourself.  bluerazz.gif

I agree there are some nutjobs out there that buy every theory going.  That's the problem though, if you believe one thing that they also believe, you're grouped in with the nutters.  I went two years believing the official story, and it took me a lot of reading before I got a more balanced view. 

The real question you need to ask, who really benefitted out of all this?  Whilst what I can say can sometimes come across as me pretending it's fact, I don't mean to, but it doesn't negate from the other side of the story.  There are still a lot of questions left un-answered.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 09:02:56 AM
You're more than welcome to your opinion.  In actual fact it was you that started with the "Let them believe what they think, we know the truth" stuff.

Bit rash actually the "fact" bit was, but I stated those that don't want to dig, will not watch that.  Am I wrong?

But I was passed off as theorist prior to that.  By yourself.  bluerazz.gif

I agree there are some nutjobs out there that buy every theory going.  That's the problem though, if you believe one thing that they also believe, you're grouped in with the nutters.  I went two years believing the official story, and it took me a lot of reading before I got a more balanced view. 

The real question you need to ask, who really benefitted out of all this?  Whilst what I can say can sometimes come across as me pretending it's fact, I don't mean to, but it doesn't negate from the other side of the story.  There are still a lot of questions left un-answered.

Nah, I do know where you're coming from.  I've read a canny few books on the whole JFK thing and have serious doubts about the "official line" there.  Even though this is something which is probably more widely accepted than any conspiracies surrounding 9/11, you can still be left feeling like a bit of a nutcase sometimes for thinking it. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:03:45 AM
well we'll not ask you then bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:16:07 AM
 bluebigrazz.gif bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:54:06 AM
Baron,

Apologies they obviously weren't taken away the next day. My mistake. They were shipped to Hong Kong though to be melted down.
They were not already melted. These steel frame building - like the one in Phillidalphia that burnt at much higher temperatures still didn't come down. They are built not to come down, unless they are demolished with carefully placed charges. Airliners might look big and heavy, but in all reality they are as light and shell like as can be made to save aviation fuel. There is no way one of these hitting so high up would bring one of these steel frame buildings down.

A lot of the debris was taken away very quickly and there was no independent examination. Often in these tragedies, fire services and building experts from around the world come together to see if they can learn from each other and take preventative ideas back to their own countries. This was completely out of the question from day one as the Govt didn't want any prying eyes.

I think elements of the US govt were aware that the attacks were going to happen and made sure they went ahead, but I don't think they planned it, but saw that the unfolding events would be a welcome oppurtunity for their greater plans.
It is well documeted that factions within the FBI who sensed the greater conspiracy contacted senators and this is on record with information about probable attacks using civilian airliners. They also complained that their bosses were ignoring them and also supressing information. Sounds like they were under orders from higher up.

One of the most insidous events was the put betting on the stock market, huge tranches of money betting the market would go down and specifically airline stocks especially American Airlines. These were never fully investigated. Infact nothing about this tragedy has been independently investigated. If the US government really wanted to dispell all the theories, then why not encourage independent analysis?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:24:50 AM
11,900 put options were placed against AA, Boeing and United Airlines on Sept 10th...More than 10 times the daily average.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:44:17 AM
I don't pretend to know anything as fact, even though you do get others acting like the official story is fact, but I do think they knew it was going to happen and then allowed it. Use it as a great opportunity to start the great "War on Terror".

Not sure where I stand on pre-placed explosives, but still something doesn't sit right with me with the way the towers crumbled. There are plenty of accounts of people claiming to hear explosions, but it's astonishing how many people then just pass them off as quacks because it just 'can't be true' in their little heads.

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened. But I certainly don't buy the official piffle.


how many of the witnesses had ever heard a bomb go off before?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:48:22 AM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists', what they were. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:50:48 AM
Separate explosions may well not have been happening.  I'm sure there are a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds to be heard when two great big jet liners fly into 100-storey skyscrapers causing them to crumble to the ground.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:51:55 AM
The Pentagon wasn't hit by 'flight 77'. The Pentagon was hit by a Tomahawk missle. Perhaps a warning shot by certain elements within the govt to the broader 'uninitiated' Govt community to keep their heads down and tow the unspoken line.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:56:23 AM
Separate explosions may well not have been happening.  I'm sure there are a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds to be heard when two great big jet liners fly into 100-storey skyscrapers causing them to crumble to the ground.

That's a fair point, but listen to those that are making the statements first.  Especially the firemen IN the building, who then died when they collapsed, they seem pretty convinced in what they're saying. 

Listen to what people have to say about it, don't just hear the word explosion and then pass it off as "a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds".  Although, that's certainly more than the inquiry did, they just ignored it all.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:56:51 AM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists', what they were. 


i think that something fishy was going on mesel, however parts of the conspiracy theories like "seperate explosions" and "what was bush doing" give the theory no credence when they are so easily put down. like gemmill said i'm sure that there are lots of strange and unpleasant sounds when something like that happens.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:57:27 AM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists' what they were. 
Seems perfectly feasible to me that other explosions could have happened with all that burning fuel. In any case if there was a conspiracy, why didn't they just plant bombs and blame that on terrorists? Why bother with the planes too?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:59:48 AM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists' what they were. 
Seems perfectly feasible to me that other explosions could have happened with all that burning fuel. In any case if there was a conspiracy, why didn't they just plant bombs and blame that on terrorists? Why bother with the planes too?

Because if they just detonated bombs they couldn't say "but the fuel melted all the steel and made the buildings collapse" line.  Personally, I can't see how the explosions were easily put down.  Gemmil gave a possibility, it doesn't mean he's right, just like me saying a bomb went off doesn't mean I'm right. 

Neither of us know, because the authorities refuse to look into these things.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:05:16 PM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists' what they were. 
Seems perfectly feasible to me that other explosions could have happened with all that burning fuel. In any case if there was a conspiracy, why didn't they just plant bombs and blame that on terrorists? Why bother with the planes too?

Because if they just detonated bombs they couldn't say "but the fuel melted all the steel and made the buildings collapse" line.  Personally, I can't see how the explosions were easily put down.  Gemmil gave a possibility, it doesn't mean he's right, just like me saying a bomb went off doesn't mean I'm right. 

Neither of us know, because the authorities refuse to look into these things.
I don't follow your argument, in either scenario, if a conspiracy was in place, they'd be attributing what happened to terrorists. Only by placing bombs without the planes in would have been a lot less hassle.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:08:43 PM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists' what they were. 
Seems perfectly feasible to me that other explosions could have happened with all that burning fuel. In any case if there was a conspiracy, why didn't they just plant bombs and blame that on terrorists? Why bother with the planes too?

Because if they just detonated bombs they couldn't say "but the fuel melted all the steel and made the buildings collapse" line.  Personally, I can't see how the explosions were easily put down.  Gemmil gave a possibility, it doesn't mean he's right, just like me saying a bomb went off doesn't mean I'm right. 

Neither of us know, because the authorities refuse to look into these things.
I don't follow your argument, in either scenario, if a conspiracy was in place, they'd be attributing what happened to terrorists. Only by placing bombs without the planes in would have been a lot less hassle.

Well, many experts say the planes alone wouldn't have brought the towers down, then of course there are other experts that say the exact opposite.  That's where pre-placed detonations would come in, to help the building free-fall, like they did. 

As one of the films said, these are the first 2 buildings ever to come down due to a fire.  Steel needs to heated incredibly hot to melt.  Do you believe the steal melted?  What's also interesting is that the tower that was hit second, came down first.  Meaning it somehow managed to melt the steel quicker.  Amazing, that.

If they just placed bombs, then brought the f***ers down, they could say it was terrorists, but you wouldn't have the visual impact of the planes and the clear 'evidence' of it being terrorists.  Quite simple really.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:10:52 PM
Alex,

The main reason is that the amount of explosive and the care and time it would take to wire up the infrastructure to bring that kind of building with high grade reinforced steel box design DOWN, would make it laughable that terrorists would  NOT have the time and knowledge to bring such a building down. It takes a team of experts with full access to building often a day to wire them up for demolition. No one would beleive that terrorists would have that kind of unhampered access. Simple really if you think about it for more than even a minute.

BTW all this rubbish about jet fuel is nonsense. Those buildings were specifically designed to withstand a hit by a 747 fully laden with fuel. The High grade steel was desinged to withstand tempereatures of 3000f for 3 hours.
Neither building burnt for more than one hour and at most at a temp of 2000f. Jet fuel (kerosene) would have burnt off very quickly and evaporated so the 2000f could not have lasted for more than 5 min.
Those buildings were demolished using shaped charges carefully laid internally.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:17:53 PM
what i dont understand about this part of the theory is why bring the towers down? you already have the biggest terror attack in american modern history, why go the extra mile?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:20:52 PM
I can't answer that one mate.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:21:48 PM
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

Who knows, but that isn't the issue.  It's the fact there are so many accounts of seperate explosions, from a wide variety of people.  From random passers-by, to firemen, to news reporters. 

If everything was so fine, then why were all their accounts not included in the 9/11 report?  Why were tapes of transcripts made by firemen withheld for a year, before being released? 

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists' what they were. 
Seems perfectly feasible to me that other explosions could have happened with all that burning fuel. In any case if there was a conspiracy, why didn't they just plant bombs and blame that on terrorists? Why bother with the planes too?

Because if they just detonated bombs they couldn't say "but the fuel melted all the steel and made the buildings collapse" line.  Personally, I can't see how the explosions were easily put down.  Gemmil gave a possibility, it doesn't mean he's right, just like me saying a bomb went off doesn't mean I'm right. 

Neither of us know, because the authorities refuse to look into these things.
I don't follow your argument, in either scenario, if a conspiracy was in place, they'd be attributing what happened to terrorists. Only by placing bombs without the planes in would have been a lot less hassle.

Well, many experts say the planes alone wouldn't have brought the towers down, then of course there are other experts that say the exact opposite.  That's where pre-placed detonations would come in, to help the building free-fall, like they did. 

As one of the films said, these are the first 2 buildings ever to come down due to a fire.  Steel needs to heated incredibly hot to melt.  Do you believe the steal melted?  What's also interesting is that the tower that was hit second, came down first.  Meaning it somehow managed to melt the steel quicker.  Amazing, that.

If they just placed bombs, then brought the f***ers down, they could say it was terrorists, but you wouldn't have the visual impact of the planes and the clear 'evidence' of it being terrorists.  Quite simple really.

Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing.  Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process.  It's hardly a controlled experiment is it?

I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down.  I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:24:40 PM
Alex,

The main reason is that the amount of explosive and the care and time it would take to wire up the infrastructure to bring that kind of building with high grade reinforced steel box design DOWN, would make it laughable that terrorists would  NOT have the time and knowledge to bring such a building down. It takes a team of experts with full access to building often a day to wire them up for demolition. No one would beleive that terrorists would have that kind of unhampered access. Simple really if you think about it for more than even a minute.

BTW all this rubbish about jet fuel is nonsense. Those buildings were specifically designed to withstand a hit by a 747 fully laden with fuel. The High grade steel was desinged to withstand tempereatures of 3000f for 3 hours.
Neither building burnt for more than one hour and at most at a temp of 2000f. Jet fuel (kerosene) would have burnt off very quickly and evaporated so the 2000f could not have lasted for more than 5 min.
Those buildings were demolished using shaped charges carefully laid internally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most demolition crews don't have the luxury of flying a plane into a building to get the demolition process underway.  bluebigrazz.gif

Your last sentence, and the way you sound so certain about it, makes you sound more than a bit of a mentalist btw. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:26:07 PM
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing.  Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process.  It's hardly a controlled experiment is it?

I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down.  I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell.

The Power Of Nightmares.  Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though. 

Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:28:36 PM
Gemill,

They were designed to take a hit from a 747 fully laden with fuel and stay up. And before you say anything a similar box steel design building in LA burnt for nearly 24 hrs and didn't come down. Neither of the towers burnt for more than one hour.
All this steel melting lark is nonsense and experts have repeately cast doubt on it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:28:40 PM
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing.  Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process.  It's hardly a controlled experiment is it?

I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down.  I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell.

The Power Of Nightmares.  Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though. 

Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.

But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc.  Swings and roundabouts.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:29:55 PM
Gemill,

They were designed to take a hit from a 747 fully laden with fuel and stay up. And before you say anything a similar box steel design building in LA burnt for nearly 24 hrs and didn't come down. Neither of the towers burnt for more than one hour.
All this steel melting lark is nonsense and experts have repeately cast doubt on it.


The Titanic was designed not to sink tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:30:05 PM
The Pentagon wasn't hit by 'flight 77'. The Pentagon was hit by a Tomahawk missle. Perhaps a warning shot by certain elements within the govt to the broader 'uninitiated' Govt community to keep their heads down and tow the unspoken line.

evidence?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:30:35 PM
No the resulting war will make billions in profits for the armaments and oil industries.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:32:14 PM
But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc.  Swings and roundabouts.

I remember incorrectly, only $250Bn

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Still, more than the insurance.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:32:18 PM
Your all crazy

Constructing mad-arsed conspiracy theories rather than accept the simple facts that 13 nutters hijacked 4 planes and crashed them -

If you wanted a "conspircay" why hi-jack 4 planes?  One would have been enough.................................
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:32:24 PM
"Mentalist"...You have no idea. :rofl:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:33:13 PM
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing.  Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process.  It's hardly a controlled experiment is it?

I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down.  I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell.

The Power Of Nightmares.  Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though. 

Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.

But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc.  Swings and roundabouts.

Yes, but it wasn't the Government that took these insurances policies out, but the people that 'owned' the buildings.  People that had shares in United airlines etc. 

Many people profitted, whilst the Government got their reason to invade Afghanistan.  And subsequently Iraq, who Bush did try to implicate in the whole thing.  It created the war on terror.  What America has been craving since the end of the Cold War.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:33:54 PM
There are two buildings for a start Rob. :)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:34:18 PM
Your all crazy

Constructing mad-arsed conspiracy theories rather than accept the simple facts that 13 nutters hijacked 4 planes and crashed them -

If you wanted a "conspircay" why hi-jack 4 planes?  One would have been enough.................................

One would be enough to bring down 2 towers?  I don't follow.  The whole point was they were coming down, both had to be hit.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:35:11 PM
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood! I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing. Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process. It's hardly a controlled experiment is it?

I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down. I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell.

The Power Of Nightmares. Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though.

Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened. All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc. Why bring the towers down? Because they made millions, if not billions off it.


but if the towers stayed up they wouldn't have got a dime?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:39:01 PM
What is this pendantic up/down stuff anyway. Next you'll be saying: What if it was raining? :icon_joker:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:39:01 PM
There are two buildings for a start Rob. :)

Take out the Empire State Building - its more iconic TBH - tho it does occasionaly have a large simian on top swatting aeroplanes
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:40:02 PM
Parky, where did you get your info on the temperatures etc. as well?  Have someone in there with a thermometer, did you?  bluebigrazz.gif It's impossible for anyone to know what temperatures would have been reached with that level of explosion in that confined a space - I'm sure if you tip jet fuel on the floor and light it, it's fairly easy to predict what temperature and for how long it might burn - again, flying it into a building is hardly a controlled experiment.  It's also impossible to design a building that can categorically, no doubts whatsoever withstand having a 747 fully-laden with fuel flying into it - where did they test their design exactly?

You keep believing your experts though.  :tongue3:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:41:07 PM
Mate I fully understand where you're coming from....It is totally unbeleivable on many levels. But that's the beauty of the big 'lie' as people are more inclined to belive it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:44:21 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth

The towers needed dismantling.

It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build.

The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel.

The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:45:04 PM
Alex,

The main reason is that the amount of explosive and the care and time it would take to wire up the infrastructure to bring that kind of building with high grade reinforced steel box design DOWN, would make it laughable that terrorists would  NOT have the time and knowledge to bring such a building down. It takes a team of experts with full access to building often a day to wire them up for demolition. No one would beleive that terrorists would have that kind of unhampered access. Simple really if you think about it for more than even a minute.

Yes, that's what you would need for a controlled demoltion with the building falling down exactly the way you want it to without damaging the surrounding area. In this case, whoever was involved would only have been concerned with bringing those buildings down. I'm pretty confident that is a much simpler undertaking. I've read the car bomb on the WTC in 1993 could well have brought a tower down were in not for the fact that it wasn't detonated on the bottom lower ground floor, thus allowing for the explosion to be absorbed in part by the floor below. Not that I actually believe bombs were planted on 9/11.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:49:06 PM
Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.

But the attack itself was enough to start the war.  You're saying they hammered in policies to make money out of it?  Do you think the building wasn't previously insured? And that that insurance didn't get renewed regularly?  So what if renewels were made a day, week, month or months earlier.  It was always covered or H&S wouldn't let the place be rented out.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:51:12 PM
One conspiracy theory I do see as being possible is that 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike by the Taliban. I.e. the Americans had plans to invade Afghanistan as the cheapest way to get oil from the old Soviet states like Tajikistan (sp?) and the like would be via a pipeline through Afghanistan. It might sound a bit outlandish but Dubya had members of the Taliban visit his ranch in Texas before he was President with this in mind. They weren't willing to play ball so moves may have been afoot to replace them as the Afghan Government.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:52:23 PM
Gemill,

The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:53:30 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth

The towers needed dismantling.

It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build.

The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel.

The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason.
Can you confirm any of this is true? I've never heard that before.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:54:32 PM
Correct Alex..................

Also a 767 travelling at  450 mph and with a load of fuel onboard packs a hell of a lot of energy - they weigh between 200,000 and 300,000 lb on takeoff and the kinetic energy alone is = mass x vel squared = 108.9 billion ft lbs = 147.7 million Kw - all disapated in a second or so - its about equivalent to a 70,000 ton wrecking ball

then the fuel went off as well............................................. .........
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:56:44 PM
What would that king of pre-emptive strike acheive on the part of the Taliban, but just hasten their demise?
Don't follow.
They did visit Bush that is right, but soon after they started to lose their grip on Afghanistan. But that is another thread.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:57:46 PM
Gemill,

The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.

According to the program I saw about it on the Discovery Channel (not suggesting this is the only/definitive explanation btw), they coatings on the steel structure that were supposed to insulate the steel superstructure against fire were blown off by the explosion on impact. Not necessarily true but feasible in my book.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:58:47 PM
Gemill,

The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.


The Channel 4 dispatches programme reported that the building was designed to withstand the impact, and that the structure was strong enough to withstand the heat of a fire, but not both.  The superstrong lattice structure required to keep a building that tall up was knackered by the impact, the flames just finished a job.

Set fire to a tree, it'll burn for ages without falling, take an axe halfway through it and set a fire at that point and it'll go over a lot quicker.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:59:38 PM
What would that king of pre-emptive strike acheive on the part of the Taliban, but just hasten their demise?
Don't follow.
They did visit Bush that is right, but soon after they started to lose their grip on Afghanistan. But that is another thread.
It's just a theory, but if the war was coming anyway, why not get in first? Anyway, it's a lot less crazy than some of the conspiracy theories I've heard ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 12:59:56 PM
Those buildings could have been hit by planes all day and not collapse in that 'pattern'. The primary giveaway is the style of the collapse and many structuralists in NY and experts have commented on that. Some lost their jobs soon after.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:01:10 PM
Gemill,

The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.


Jet fuel doesn't even singe???  As I've said to you before, no one has ever conducted an experiment on this scale, with these exact circumstances so no independent report really matters in this instance.  Nobody really knew what would happen if a plane was flown into the WTC.  We do now.

As for the company that built the place saying that it shouldn't have fell down, no vested interest there then, eh?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:01:25 PM
Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.

But the attack itself was enough to start the war.  You're saying they hammered in policies to make money out of it?  Do you think the building wasn't previously insured? And that that insurance didn't get renewed regularly?  So what if renewels were made a day, week, month or months earlier.  It was always covered or H&S would be able to be rented out.

He (Silverstein) insured it against a terrorist attack, and took a 99-year lease out on them weeks before the attack.  If you're fine to pass that off as coincidence again, then fair play.  He stood to gain $3.5b for their destruction, and did gain.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:03:09 PM
Gemill,

The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.


The Channel 4 dispatches programme reported that the building was designed to withstand the impact, and that the structure was strong enough to withstand the heat of a fire, but not both.  The superstrong lattice structure required to keep a building that tall up was knackered by the impact, the flames just finished a job.

Set fire to a tree, it'll burn for ages without falling, take an axe halfway through it and set a fire at that point and it'll go over a lot quicker.

Apparently not.  Parky tells us that the towers could have been hit by planes all day and not fallen down. :shock:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:04:20 PM
Alex for gods sake it is nothing to do with 'Taliban', Al Kidder, that bloke in the local mosque who shouts a lot or Lex Luther. :tongue3:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:05:03 PM
Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.

But the attack itself was enough to start the war.  You're saying they hammered in policies to make money out of it?  Do you think the building wasn't previously insured? And that that insurance didn't get renewed regularly?  So what if renewels were made a day, week, month or months earlier.  It was always covered or H&S would be able to be rented out.

He (Silverstein) insured it against a terrorist attack, and took a 99-year lease out on them days before the attack.  If you're fine to pass that off as coincidence again, then fair play.  He stood to gain $3.5b for their destruction, and did gain.

And it wasn't just a renewel of an existing insurance plan?  I can't believe after the '93 attacks on the same building(s), they didn't have cover that had to be renewed once a year.  Not coincidence, just common sense cover.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:05:55 PM
I didn't say it doesn't singe you nutter. Read my post properly. :)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:07:06 PM
I didn't say it doesn't singe you nutter. Read my post properly. :)

In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt.

 bluebigrazz.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:08:21 PM
Gemill you are misquoting me on prupose please desist or I shall have to take you to task my dear. bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:08:41 PM
Those buildings could have been hit by planes all day and not collapse in that 'pattern'. The primary giveaway is the style of the collapse and many structuralists in NY and experts have commented on that. Some lost their jobs soon after.
Other experts argue differently though.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:09:48 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth

The towers needed dismantling.

It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build.

The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel.

The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason.
Can you confirm any of this is true? I've never heard that before.

I wish i could.

I saw it on a programme on discovery about the WTC BEFORE 9/11.

So for me, was something that isn't conspiracy made AFTER to suit.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:09:51 PM
Incidentally, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and we have sent men to the moon.
;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:11:49 PM
Alex,

The lighting was all wrong though. :tongue3:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:13:46 PM
Gemill you are misquoting me on prupose please desist or I shall have to take you to task my dear. bluecool.gif

That's exactly what you said!  What you on about?  bluebigrazz.gif  You said some stuff before it, none of which takes away from what you said in that sentence!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:15:02 PM
Incidentally, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and we have sent men to the moon.
;)

Don't be crazy, if we can't land on the moon now there's no way we could 50 years ago.  And it was Frank Sinatra got Kennedy, he was peeved that he and Peter Lawford were still mates after Sinatra got dumped when Kennedy won.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:17:44 PM
Anyway, I got bored and missed the last half hour. Did they find out who the bloke was who fell? I'm pleased for that Norberto bloke it wasn't him mind. Because if it had been he would have been condemned to Purgatory, being a left-footer.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:17:58 PM
I love it!  Believe one thing, so get grouped in with the rest of the nutters.  Just as I said earlier. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:18:34 PM
Anyway, I got bored and missed the last half hour. Did they find out who the bloke was who fell? I'm pleased for that Norberto bloke it wasn't him mind. Because if it had been he would have been condemned to Purgatory, being a left-footer.

They found out, aye.  Was some PR guy who worked there.  Family accepted it was him, too.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:18:49 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth

The towers needed dismantling.

It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build.

The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel.

The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason.
Can you confirm any of this is true? I've never heard that before.

I wish i could.

I saw it on a programme on discovery about the WTC BEFORE 9/11.

So for me, was something that isn't conspiracy made AFTER to suit.
That's interesting, like I said, it's a new one on me.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:20:25 PM
Anyway, I got bored and missed the last half hour. Did they find out who the bloke was who fell? I'm pleased for that Norberto bloke it wasn't him mind. Because if it had been he would have been condemned to Purgatory, being a left-footer.

They found out, aye.  Was some PR guy who worked there.  Family accepted it was him, too.
I hope they got some comfort out of it. I think I'd rather know a relative of mine had died like that than been burned alive or choked on poisonous fumes or whatever.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:21:24 PM
The firemans radio communications were held back for a year before they were released. The reason being that over the radio many are heard talking about 'more explosions' . Floor 7-8 and 13-14 are repeatedly pinpointed by the fireman as locations for further explosions. Fireman are professionals and know the difference between an explosion and things collapsing.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:21:54 PM
Anyway, I got bored and missed the last half hour. Did they find out who the bloke was who fell? I'm pleased for that Norberto bloke it wasn't him mind. Because if it had been he would have been condemned to Purgatory, being a left-footer.

They found out, aye.  Was some PR guy who worked there.  Family accepted it was him, too.

It was implied more than stated though.  The family insisted it was better not to name him.  Like the unknown soldier, he means more as a symbol of all the jumpers, rather than as one man.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:22:51 PM
Anyway, I got bored and missed the last half hour. Did they find out who the bloke was who fell? I'm pleased for that Norberto bloke it wasn't him mind. Because if it had been he would have been condemned to Purgatory, being a left-footer.

They found out, aye.  Was some PR guy who worked there.  Family accepted it was him, too.

It was implied more than stated though.  The family insisted it was better not to name him.  Like the unknown soldier, he means more as a symbol of all the jumpers, rather than as one man.

Ah, cheers.  I just saw her (mother I assume) get emotional, then say what you just said. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: optimistic nit on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:24:29 PM
I didn't say it doesn't singe you nutter. Read my post properly. :)

we have a power crazy mod with 2 bannings posting in this thread just you remember ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:25:59 PM
The firemans radio communications were held back for a year before they were released. The reason being that over the radio many are heard talking about 'more explosions' . Floor 7-8 and 13-14 are repeatedly pinpointed by the fireman as locations for further explosions. Fireman are professionals and know the difference between an explosion and things collapsing.

I've not heard that, but anyway a lot of gas pipes would have been broken and breaking.   Gas can cause explosions as well as TNT.

I've not heard a solid theory other than terrorism tbh
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:26:48 PM
I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth

The towers needed dismantling.

It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build.

The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel.

The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason.
Can you confirm any of this is true? I've never heard that before.

I wish i could.

I saw it on a programme on discovery about the WTC BEFORE 9/11.

So for me, was something that isn't conspiracy made AFTER to suit.
That's interesting, like I said, it's a new one on me.

The figures could be off, this was 5-6 years ago, about 1-2 before 9/11, so details are a bit hazey, but the context is still there.

The buildings needed to come down within x-amount of years, and would cost X-amount of money (which was made out to be a hell of a lot) and that the designer could have been held accountable, (but i think he had died, some Japanese bloke), so they were looking at insurance, and i think the insurance may not have even covered it, and was only for one tower, as the WTC is classed as one building, not two.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:28:35 PM
The figures could be off, this was 5-6 years ago, about 1-2 before 9/11, so details are a bit hazey, but the context is still there.

The buildings needed to come down within x-amount of years, and would cost X-amount of money (which was made out to be a hell of a lot) and that the designer could have been held accountable, (but i think he had died, some Japanese bloke), so they were looking at insurance, and i think the insurance may not have even covered it, and was only for one tower, as the WTC is classed as one building, not two.

I believe the date was about 2020 for them to be brought down.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:28:42 PM
I've heard reports of a scruffy brown dog-like creature that walked on its hind legs making off in a van marked ACME Bomb Company.  Read it somewhere on the net.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:33:26 PM
The figures could be off, this was 5-6 years ago, about 1-2 before 9/11, so details are a bit hazey, but the context is still there.

The buildings needed to come down within x-amount of years, and would cost X-amount of money (which was made out to be a hell of a lot) and that the designer could have been held accountable, (but i think he had died, some Japanese bloke), so they were looking at insurance, and i think the insurance may not have even covered it, and was only for one tower, as the WTC is classed as one building, not two.

I believe the date was about 2020 for them to be brought down.

Aye well there you go, at least some confirmation am not going mad or making it up.

Basically, the towers needed to come down, and they did.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:34:04 PM
Best Theory is that an 11 year old boy did them all....

Quote
1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.

2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.

3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11

4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6 + 5 = 11

5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11

6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.

Now this is where things get totally eerie:

The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."

That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS

What do you think now?!!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:39:50 PM
The figures could be off, this was 5-6 years ago, about 1-2 before 9/11, so details are a bit hazey, but the context is still there.

The buildings needed to come down within x-amount of years, and would cost X-amount of money (which was made out to be a hell of a lot) and that the designer could have been held accountable, (but i think he had died, some Japanese bloke), so they were looking at insurance, and i think the insurance may not have even covered it, and was only for one tower, as the WTC is classed as one building, not two.

I believe the date was about 2020 for them to be brought down.

Aye well there you go, at least some confirmation am not going mad or making it up.

Basically, the towers needed to come down, and they did.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I thought you were making it up, just thought the original source may have been a bit dodgy.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:40:37 PM
The figures could be off, this was 5-6 years ago, about 1-2 before 9/11, so details are a bit hazey, but the context is still there.

The buildings needed to come down within x-amount of years, and would cost X-amount of money (which was made out to be a hell of a lot) and that the designer could have been held accountable, (but i think he had died, some Japanese bloke), so they were looking at insurance, and i think the insurance may not have even covered it, and was only for one tower, as the WTC is classed as one building, not two.

I believe the date was about 2020 for them to be brought down.

Aye well there you go, at least some confirmation am not going mad or making it up.

Basically, the towers needed to come down, and they did.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I thought you were making it up, just thought the original source may have been a bit dodgy.

No, i didn't think you did, just glad someone could remember summit about it to back me a little :)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:41:25 PM
. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS

What do you think now?!!

-----------------------------

Thats just crazy
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:44:40 PM
. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS

What do you think now?!!

-----------------------------

Thats just crazy

Not as Crazy as CIA/FBI/US army/whatever agents bombing their own building and convincing terrorists to fly into it at the same time so that America could attack the terrorist nations.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:45:51 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:51:26 PM
No such thing as flight Q33 NY. Apart from that though, it's very convincing ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:53:27 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.

It's not a question of sacrificing their own people,  If you have intelligence that a couple of planes are going to hammer Manhattan next week do you:

a) Come up with preventative measures to avoid casualties and catch the terrorists who can give information on who organised it.
b) Think "Champion, Let em do it, we'll bomb the s*** out of their countries like we always wanted to".
c) Plant extra bombs in case they don't do a good enough job and you need to kill more people and leak the information so people can get insured up to the ying yang before the event and make some money out of it.

a & b are feasible, if it's c then.....I don't know how to finish this sentence.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:55:42 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.

Have they got a track record of sacrificing civilians that I don't know about?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:55:58 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:57:05 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.

It's not a question of sacrificing their own people,  If you have intelligence that a couple of planes are going to hammer Manhattan next week do you:

a) Come up with preventative measures to avoid casualties and catch the terrorists who can give information on who organised it.
b) Think "Champion, Let em do it, we'll bomb the s*** out of their countries like we always wanted to".
c) Plant extra bombs in case they don't do a good enough job and you need to kill more people and leak the information so people can get insured up to the ying yang before the event and make some money out of it.

a & b are feasible, if it's c then.....I don't know how to finish this sentence.

Whilst I'm prepared to admit the explosions could be passed off as something else, I do find it astonishing how easy you pass off the insurance claims as nothing but common sense. 

A is hardly feasible.  They decided it was bin Laden hours after it happened.  Surely you accept that? 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 01:58:16 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Won't be watched like.  Only quacks watch these things.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:02:58 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Won't be watched like.  Only quacks watch these things.

...he typed, adjusting the foil cone atop his head.   bluebigrazz.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:03:18 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.

It's not a question of sacrificing their own people,  If you have intelligence that a couple of planes are going to hammer Manhattan next week do you:

a) Come up with preventative measures to avoid casualties and catch the terrorists who can give information on who organised it.
b) Think "Champion, Let em do it, we'll bomb the s*** out of their countries like we always wanted to".
c) Plant extra bombs in case they don't do a good enough job and you need to kill more people and leak the information so people can get insured up to the ying yang before the event and make some money out of it.

a & b are feasible, if it's c then.....I don't know how to finish this sentence.

Whilst I'm prepared to admit the explosions could be passed off as something else, I do find it astonishing how easy you pass off the insurance claims as nothing but common sense. 

A is hardly feasible.  They decided it was bin Laden hours after it happened.  Surely you accept that? 

 blueeek.gif

If a plane crashed into my home, I'd claim on the insurance.  Any time in May and it would be 'just days' after I renewed.  Is that astonishing or are you being funny?  In 1993 a 100m hole was blown into the basement in an attempt to get one tower to fall into the other.  After something like that you keep your insurance papers in order, surely?

Hadn't Bin Laden been top of Americas most wanted lists for ages?  Can't imagine there were hundreds of suspects for expensive suicide bombings against America.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:03:30 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Won't be watched like.  Only quacks watch these things.

Its convinced me.

From the helicopters flying in, letting off flashes of lights followed shortly by explosions to the dust clouds forming like a demolition and finally to debris being thrown up in the air, not by its side, and the bottom of the building weighing 100's of tonnes being thrown 600ft across the streets.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:09:14 PM
I know your all watching it now  :tongue3:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:11:14 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Won't be watched like.  Only quacks watch these things.

Its convinced me.

From the helicopters flying in, letting off flashes of lights followed shortly by explosions to the dust clouds forming like a demolition and finally to debris being thrown up in the air, not by its side, and the bottom of the building weighing 100's of tonnes being thrown 600ft across the streets.

I haven't watched this thing yet, but what's the helicopter thing about?  Are they firing missiles at the towers?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:12:39 PM
I know your all watching it now  :tongue3:

Might watch it when I get home.  Can't at work.  From what's been written, sounds like all it shows is explosions before the collapse.  Is there no way that those explosions could be the buckling of massive pillars with tonnes of pressure on them?  I've not seen the pictures, but I'd guess that kind of snapage would look explosion like.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:13:24 PM
It's very good. A lot of info in it and gently imparted. :tongue3:


By the way guess who's company ran the security company for the buildings?

Marvin Bush......Yup....Dubya 'other' brother.

Beveldering still he was also on the board of the insurance company that signed the deal with Silverstien. :icon_joker:

The Bush sure get around....and wherever they go there is mayhem. :rofl:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:13:40 PM
Aye, because the US government would never sacrifice its own people.

It's not a question of sacrificing their own people,  If you have intelligence that a couple of planes are going to hammer Manhattan next week do you:

a) Come up with preventative measures to avoid casualties and catch the terrorists who can give information on who organised it.
b) Think "Champion, Let em do it, we'll bomb the s*** out of their countries like we always wanted to".
c) Plant extra bombs in case they don't do a good enough job and you need to kill more people and leak the information so people can get insured up to the ying yang before the event and make some money out of it.

a & b are feasible, if it's c then.....I don't know how to finish this sentence.

Whilst I'm prepared to admit the explosions could be passed off as something else, I do find it astonishing how easy you pass off the insurance claims as nothing but common sense. 

A is hardly feasible.  They decided it was bin Laden hours after it happened.  Surely you accept that? 

 blueeek.gif

If a plane crashed into my home, I'd claim on the insurance.  Any time in May and it would be 'just days' after I renewed.  Is that astonishing or are you being funny?  In 1993 a 100m hole was blown into the basement in an attempt to get one tower to fall into the other.  After something like that you keep your insurance papers in order, surely?

Hadn't Bin Laden been top of Americas most wanted lists for ages?  Can't imagine there were hundreds of suspects for expensive suicide bombings against America.

Aye, in 93 perhaps you do something, not 7 years later, conveniently 6 weeks before this.  Take into account Silversteins connections with Republican National Congress and the Bush administration, it starts getting fishy.  But that'll be fine no doubt.

He was so wanted, the US passed up opportunities from allies in Africa to take him in. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:15:58 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.

Won't be watched like.  Only quacks watch these things.

Its convinced me.

From the helicopters flying in, letting off flashes of lights followed shortly by explosions to the dust clouds forming like a demolition and finally to debris being thrown up in the air, not by its side, and the bottom of the building weighing 100's of tonnes being thrown 600ft across the streets.

I haven't watched this thing yet, but what's the helicopter thing about?  Are they firing missiles at the towers?

I don't think its missiles, its hard to describe.

1st one happens at about 19mins in, that's where it gets interesting, but doesn't actually go through it all until later in the vid, but something is happening.

9 seperate visits by helicoptors not rescuing anyone, flying within metres of the building, seconds later, 9 seperate explosions leading to the collapse of the tower.

Its pretty damning i think.

Could quite possibly be missiles, but i think it could be some kind of flash detonator, or something we public know very little about.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:17:45 PM
I know your all watching it now  :tongue3:

Might watch it when I get home.  Can't at work.  From what's been written, sounds like all it shows is explosions before the collapse.  Is there no way that those explosions could be the buckling of massive pillars with tonnes of pressure on them?  I've not seen the pictures, but I'd guess that kind of snapage would look explosion like.

No, its helicopters flying within metres of the building, letting a large flash go, buggering off, and then the building falls.

Its weird, and deffo dodgy.

These towers were taking down not by terrorists, but by the USA gov, its simple to see.

You really need to watch the whole thing and it leaves very little doubt in your mind.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:17:57 PM
Any sign of Bruce Willis in a vest, with lacerated feet?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:19:03 PM
Any sign of Bruce Willis in a vest, with lacerated feet?

No coz if there was, the building would still be standing now.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:21:07 PM
Any sign of Bruce Willis in a vest, with lacerated feet?

No coz if there was, the building would still be standing now.

Yippee-ki-ay melonfarmer!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:21:58 PM
Any sign of Bruce Willis in a vest, with lacerated feet?

No coz if there was, the building would still be standing now.

Yippee-ki-ay melonfarmer!

Oh, you've watched the 8pm ITV2 version haven't you?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:22:25 PM
I know your all watching it now  :tongue3:

Might watch it when I get home.  Can't at work.  From what's been written, sounds like all it shows is explosions before the collapse.  Is there no way that those explosions could be the buckling of massive pillars with tonnes of pressure on them?  I've not seen the pictures, but I'd guess that kind of snapage would look explosion like.

No, its helicopters flying within metres of the building, letting a large flash go, buggering off, and then the building falls.

Its weird, and deffo dodgy.

These towers were taking down not by terrorists, but by the USA gov, its simple to see.

You really need to watch the whole thing and it leaves very little doubt in your mind.
Any chance of some screen shots by anyone, I'm genuinely intrigued.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:24:20 PM
Alex,

Trust me, you don't want to get mixed up in this. bluebiggrin.gif


It's only a matter of time before the site 'goes down' again. blueeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:25:20 PM
Seriously though, of all the footage from 9/11, I can't remember seeing any helicopters in the sky.  Is this just me forgetting or can anyone else remember them?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:25:48 PM
I know your all watching it now  :tongue3:

Might watch it when I get home.  Can't at work.  From what's been written, sounds like all it shows is explosions before the collapse.  Is there no way that those explosions could be the buckling of massive pillars with tonnes of pressure on them?  I've not seen the pictures, but I'd guess that kind of snapage would look explosion like.

No, its helicopters flying within metres of the building, letting a large flash go, buggering off, and then the building falls.

Its weird, and deffo dodgy.

These towers were taking down not by terrorists, but by the USA gov, its simple to see.

You really need to watch the whole thing and it leaves very little doubt in your mind.
Any chance of some screen shots by anyone, I'm genuinely intrigued.

Not from this end sorry.

Really though, you NEED to watch this, if your interested in the WTC then its worth the 1hour +

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:25:49 PM
Seriously though, of all the footage from 9/11, I can't remember seeing any helicopters in the sky.  Is this just me forgetting or can anyone else remember them?

In fairness, neither can I.  This is all new to me.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:26:47 PM
Aye, in 93 perhaps you do something, not 7 years later, conveniently 6 weeks before this.  Take into account Silversteins connections with Republican National Congress and the Bush administration, it starts getting fishy.  But that'll be fine no doubt.

He was so wanted, the US passed up opportunities from allies in Africa to take him in. 

Was it not renewed every year for each of those 7 years?

The fact that Silverstein has connections makes the conspiracy LESS likely.  If you want a plan to go through undetected, you don't tell your mates to get airtight insurance so they can clean up on these peoples deaths.  That kind of thing would lead to this kind of debate.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:27:07 PM
Don't remember much about helicopters. They weren't black were they? :)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:27:10 PM
Seriously though, of all the footage from 9/11, I can't remember seeing any helicopters in the sky.  Is this just me forgetting or can anyone else remember them?

In fairness, neither can I.  This is all new to me.

Yep, as all the footage that has been shown is from the front view, in the streets, with the people.

These angles are from across the river, on the other side, behind the buildings so to speak, showing the helicopters flying in and out.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:27:45 PM
From the way Toon's Taylor is going on (you HAVE to watch it!) I get the impression that this helicopter thing is a wind-up.  Or a meringue?  bluebigrazz.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:29:19 PM
From the way Toon's Taylor is going on (you HAVE to watch it!) I get the impression that this helicopter thing is a wind-up.  Or a meringue?  bluebigrazz.gif

Unless the whole DOCU is fake, then this isnt a wind up from my part, and these helicopters brought down the WTC.

I'm taking the word of this being genuine footage from an angle not seen as much as the front view.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:29:33 PM
Aye, in 93 perhaps you do something, not 7 years later, conveniently 6 weeks before this.  Take into account Silversteins connections with Republican National Congress and the Bush administration, it starts getting fishy.  But that'll be fine no doubt.

He was so wanted, the US passed up opportunities from allies in Africa to take him in. 

Was it not renewed every year for each of those 7 years?

The fact that Silverstein has connections makes the conspiracy LESS likely.  If you want a plan to go through undetected, you don't tell your mates to get airtight insurance so they can clean up on these peoples deaths.  That kind of thing would lead to this kind of debate.

This kind of debate clearly doesn't scare them.  The majority of people believe them, which is all that matters.  They can just pass of those that don't as conspiracy mentalists. 

"Why would we do this to our own country, these people mad" bullshit.  Like we're just believing it and trying to tell others for the sheer kick of it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:30:22 PM
Don't remember much about helicopters. They weren't black were they? :)
I see we've looked at some of the same conspiracy sites in the past. I'll bet the men piloting them were dressed in black too ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:30:48 PM
 blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:31:38 PM
From the way Toon's Taylor is going on (you HAVE to watch it!) I get the impression that this helicopter thing is a wind-up.  Or a meringue?  bluebigrazz.gif

Unless the whole DOCU is fake, then this isnt a wind up from my part, and these helicopters brought down the WTC.

I'm taking the word of this being genuine footage from an angle not seen as much as the front view.

MASSIVE gamble on the part of the government though, to rely on all the cameras being on one side of the building so they could surreptitiously bomb away on the other side.  It has to be doctored footage by the sounds of things but I'll run my eagle eyes over it later.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:32:27 PM
Amazing eh?

All these conspiracies and NO-ONE has leaked them to the press....................................... 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:33:04 PM
Aye, in 93 perhaps you do something, not 7 years later, conveniently 6 weeks before this.  Take into account Silversteins connections with Republican National Congress and the Bush administration, it starts getting fishy.  But that'll be fine no doubt.

He was so wanted, the US passed up opportunities from allies in Africa to take him in. 

Was it not renewed every year for each of those 7 years?

The fact that Silverstein has connections makes the conspiracy LESS likely.  If you want a plan to go through undetected, you don't tell your mates to get airtight insurance so they can clean up on these peoples deaths.  That kind of thing would lead to this kind of debate.

This kind of debate clearly doesn't scare them.  The majority of people believe them, which is all that matters.  They can just pass of those that don't as conspiracy mentalists. 

"Why would we do this to our own country, these people mad" bullshit.  Like we're just believing it and trying to tell others for the sheer kick of it.

I don't think you're doing it for the kick of it mate.  I think you're a genuine mental case. :yes

 :tongue3:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:33:39 PM
As a humourous aside:
"Black Helicopters (BH) are not just helicopters with a black paint-job as you may have been told. They are, in fact, autonomous agents -- lifeforms -- created by New World Order (NWO) agencies via nanobiotechnology. Their primary purpose is to spy on the activities of average citizens in order to gather tactical information and discover "subversives" who are not bowing to the will of the Liberati's UN-backed Federal Government. Furthermore, when the NWO Invasion takes place in the not-too-distant future, they will round up citizens for internment in concentration camps or carry out the elimination of the more vocally anti-Liberati."
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:34:05 PM

Yep, as all the footage that has been shown is from the front view, in the streets, with the people.

These angles are from across the river, on the other side, behind the buildings so to speak, showing the helicopters flying in and out.

I'd have thought the helicopters had gone up to see who they could rescue, how naive I am.   Now I know the truth, under huge media scrutiny as they were, they hid on the other side of the tower and did what?  Missiled the building? While thousands on the street and millions at home watched live?

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: STM on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:35:29 PM
I'm one of these people who like the idea of conspiracy theories but rarely believes in them

Personally, i think it was just the planes that brought down the buildings. What i want to know is why didn't the terrorists just blow up the buildings with bombs. Surely that would have been a much simpler solution.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:36:24 PM
....Will you get killed for that and your family.....Quite a deterrant. Or shot while out hunting. :tongue3:


But to be grown up about it, taking stuff to the public often happens, in England there is a strong tradition of whistleblowers.

This kind of operation would have full deniablility anyway.

Even Fema weren't allowed to investigate ground zero, what chance does the normal person have?
You'd be certifyied a nutter with a drink problem who stole paperclips or summat. :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:37:19 PM
Helicopters my f***ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:40:48 PM
The helicopters thing is not credible, but sounds fascinating.


One thing to remember is that people who have been under extreme stress are very auto-suggestable.
You can make them beleive they saw anything you like more or less.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:41:09 PM
To be fair, I think if I was a NYC native and lived through it all, I'd be canny annoyed at some of the crazy theories being posited in this thread.

PS Baron, you should have said ass not arse.  I read all your posts in an American accent and that ruined it. :oops:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:41:57 PM
Helicopters my f***ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:42:41 PM
I have to say, from what I've watched so far, it just seems like they're flying around it.  Surely they could've been media helicopters or whatever?  I'm sure I remember seeing aerial views on the day.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:44:12 PM
I don't recall any aerial views on the footage I saw, although it was 4 and a bit year ago like.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:44:44 PM
also when they are watching TV late at night after 15 lagers and a curry
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:45:03 PM
They showed helicopters on last nights show.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:45:14 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:47:11 PM
If we spent all our time watching ridiculous documentaries about JFK, Princess Di, 911, Humpty Dumpty and other well knwon tradgeies we'd have to give up living

Of course there are documentaries like this - TV people have to make a living y'knaa
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:47:45 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: STM on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:48:34 PM
There were aerial views.

I remember watching them. However, this theory seems impossible to impliment without a whistle blower.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:50:06 PM
Fair do's if there were aerial views.  Just couldn't remember them.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:52:41 PM

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

Authentic video footage exists of missiles being fired into the world trade centre and the only place I've heard about it is on this forum?

Plenty of people believed the Roswell tape as well.  Did you believe it having seen it?  I didn't have to see it to form an opinion.

I will watch it when I get a chance though
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:53:15 PM
Baron - you shouldn't have mentioned Occam's razor - in a page or two they'll be claiming that Occam was a Yemeni who snuck into the  building and slit the throats of 2000 people and then blew the place up to cover his tracks
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:55:45 PM
 bluesleep.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:56:21 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.


Did this really win an Oscar btw? Or is that just what it says on the site where you can download it? Adds more credence to the theory it's a fake if you ask me. I'm sure a film with this type of subject matter that won an Oscar would have received a hell of a lot of publicity, yet even the conspiracy theory buffs on here seem largely unaware of it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:56:38 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.

I never said missiles, i actually said i didnt think they were, check back if you like, however, these towers were brought down and those helicopters had something to do with it, or is a massive co-incidence, but the result is, the planes didn't take down those buildings by themselves.

And what about WTC 7?

Who the fuk took that down, no plane hit that, yet that building fell?

Explain please.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:57:16 PM
Baron - you shouldn't have mentioned Occam's razor - in a page or two they'll be claiming that Occam was a Yemeni who snuck into the  building and slit the throats of 2000 people and then blew the place up to cover his tracks
Was he from Shields? ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 02:59:59 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.


Did this really win an Oscar btw? Or is that just what it says on the site where you can download it? Adds more credence to the theory it's a fake if you ask me. I'm sure a film with this type of subject matter that won an Oscar would have received a hell of a lot of publicity, yet even the conspiracy theory buffs on here seem largely unaware of it.

Well it's not listed on IMDB like ALL other oscar winners, and they are trying to sell 2 hour versions of the DVD.

I'd rather buy a bible off an evangelist tbh
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:00:34 PM
I forgot about the other building....

But as I said earlier Marvin Bush's security company was responsible for all three buildings. You don't hear much about Marvin these days.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:00:49 PM

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

Authentic video footage exists of missiles being fired into the world trade centre and the only place I've heard about it is on this forum?

Plenty of people believed the Roswell tape as well.  Did you believe it having seen it?  I didn't have to see it to form an opinion.

I will watch it when I get a chance though

Aliens is a bit different.

Now if it had been UFO's that came to the tower, and then it fell, then i'd have my reservations without seeing it.

Basically, why is it so unreal to think the US did this?

They knew of an attack, leaked documents proved that.

They did nowt to stop it.

They didn't even protect the site after it happened, as if they knew it was over.

The buildings needed to come down.

USA need oil, Iraq had it, Bush wanted a war, wanted to avenge his daddy.

There are so many reasons why this could of happened, im not even going to get into the tiny little slit that a 747 made in the pentagon, yet a whole fuking side of it crumbled inside out.

Oh and flying a 747 2 meters of the ground at 400mph (or whatever speed)...impossible.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:02:25 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness - Not watched it yet, but me mate says it clearly shows explosions before the collapse.  It's taken from the other side of the river.  It's 1 hour 45 minutes though.  A proper analysis.

Apparently won an Oscar.

This is a very good watch.

Anybody thinking about of have put their two penneth into this thread should really watch it.

It starts getting into it at about 19mins, after that, the rest is worth watching.

But loading the vid takes a while so you might as well watch the lot.


Did this really win an Oscar btw? Or is that just what it says on the site where you can download it? Adds more credence to the theory it's a fake if you ask me. I'm sure a film with this type of subject matter that won an Oscar would have received a hell of a lot of publicity, yet even the conspiracy theory buffs on here seem largely unaware of it.

I agree, hence apparently.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:02:58 PM
The penatagon attack was a missile.
The plane smokescreen is barely credible if hilarious.
They didn't even find one engine never mind two....and these titanium engines always survive crashes.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: STM on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:04:10 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.

I never said missiles, i actually said i didnt think they were, check back if you like, however, these towers were brought down and those helicopters had something to do with it, or is a massive co-incidence, but the result is, the planes didn't take down those buildings by themselves.

And what about WTC 7?

Who the fuk took that down, no plane hit that, yet that building fell?

Explain please.

What building is that?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:04:11 PM
Certifiable tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:04:27 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.

I never said missiles, i actually said i didnt think they were, check back if you like, however, these towers were brought down and those helicopters had something to do with it, or is a massive co-incidence, but the result is, the planes didn't take down those buildings by themselves.

And what about WTC 7?

Who the fuk took that down, no plane hit that, yet that building fell?

Explain please.
I would imagine the 1000's of tonnes of falling concrete and steel would have had something to do with that tbh. And didn't it fall down about a day later or something? Are you suggesting helicopters took that down too?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:06:55 PM
The penatagon attack was a missile.
The plane smokescreen is barely credible if hilarious.
They didn't even find one engine never mind two....and these titanium engines always survive crashes.
The French bloke who wrote the book about that never even visited the US, let alone the site of the attack during the whole time he was writing his book.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:07:36 PM
End of the day.

If you think two planes caused these two huge towers to fall, then really, you should live in America and believe the s*** their government spout daily.

The buildings fell as if being demolised, the clouds of ash rising suggest explosives, in fact , those kind of clouds can only come from intense explosions.

The buildings fell down, within its footprint, all of them, the chance of that? More chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

So much so, the two towers falling like that defy the laws of gravity, as the should have fallen outwards, taking streets of buildings out with them, this caused be the studry lift shafts at one end of the building, meaning these would fall last, meaning the buildng would topple, not go down perfectly. Footage even shows the building change direction of fall as if being helped, and fuking of course it was.

I don't know what the helicoptor had to do with it, this maybe insignificant, maybe they were checking something out, and the flash was to detonate, or signal something, i doubt it was a missile, but you dont know.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:09:09 PM
End of the day you've bought into this video which I'm willing to be bet is an elaborate hoax.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:09:43 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.

I never said missiles, i actually said i didnt think they were, check back if you like, however, these towers were brought down and those helicopters had something to do with it, or is a massive co-incidence, but the result is, the planes didn't take down those buildings by themselves.

And what about WTC 7?

Who the fuk took that down, no plane hit that, yet that building fell?

Explain please.
I would imagine the 1000's of tonnes of falling concrete and steel would have had something to do with that tbh. And didn't it fall down about a day later or something? Are you suggesting helicopters took that down too?

Nothing anywhere near it.

Controlled explosions, the building fell as fast as gravity would allow it without resistance, this can only be achieved through a explosion.

If fell within time of the other two, maybe an hour later of something.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:11:26 PM
End of the day you've bought into this video which I'm willing to be bet is an elaborate hoax.

Maybe, maybe not.

I could say you've bought into the USA's lies, you believe in Bush's admin not to do something liek this; i dont trust him in the slightest, and think he's capable of anything to suit his own needs.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:11:47 PM
End of the day.

If you think two planes caused these two huge towers to fall, then really, you should live in America and believe the s*** their government spout daily.

The buildings fell as if being demolised, the clouds of ash rising suggest explosives, in fact , those kind of clouds can only come from intense explosions.

The buildings fell down, within its footprint, all of them, the chance of that? More chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

So much so, the two towers falling like that defy the laws of gravity, as the should have fallen outwards, taking streets of buildings out with them, this caused be the studry lift shafts at one end of the building, meaning these would fall last, meaning the buildng would topple, not go down perfectly. Footage even shows the building change direction of fall as if being helped, and fuking of course it was.

I don't know what the helicoptor had to do with it, this maybe insignificant, maybe they were checking something out, and the flash was to detonate, or signal something, i doubt it was a missile, but you dont know.



I'm loving the way it's us who are mental off the back of some video footage you've seen from a dubious source on the internet. 

"If you think two planes caused these two huge towers to fall, then really, you should live in America and believe the s*** their government spout daily."

Aye, cos all the sane, well-adjusted people can see that it was helicopters setting off charges that did it.  Jesus wept.

By the way, if you don't think they were firing missiles, I'm pretty sure a charge can be detonated at fairly decent distances.  They wouldn't need to fly helicopters right up close to the building to do what you're suggesting they did.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:12:30 PM
End of the day.

If you think two planes caused these two huge towers to fall, then really, you should live in America and believe the s*** their government spout daily.

The buildings fell as if being demolised, the clouds of ash rising suggest explosives, in fact , those kind of clouds can only come from intense explosions.

The buildings fell down, within its footprint, all of them, the chance of that? More chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

So much so, the two towers falling like that defy the laws of gravity, as the should have fallen outwards, taking streets of buildings out with them, this caused be the studry lift shafts at one end of the building, meaning these would fall last, meaning the buildng would topple, not go down perfectly. Footage even shows the building change direction of fall as if being helped, and fuking of course it was.

I don't know what the helicoptor had to do with it, this maybe insignificant, maybe they were checking something out, and the flash was to detonate, or signal something, i doubt it was a missile, but you dont know.



That's one bad ass cold hearted group of soldiers who carried out the order to kill innocent citizens of their own country without incentive.  Or did the Bush family all do it in their spare time?

I suppose they got well paid.  How much would it take for you to demolish Canary wharf when it was full?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:15:34 PM
Fine you can think am mad for not buying the official press release from the USA of what happened on that day, and i think your even crazier not to ask questions of the US gov who have lied continously through history.

Why would they stop now.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: STM on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:16:28 PM
BTW. Those who think that there is any credibility in the way the towers fell conspiracy, you should know that the bulidings were made to fall the way they did.

The whole point in the directions the buildings fell was so that in case of a massive fire, explosion or terrorist attack the buildings would fall vertically.

They would never build it in any other way in the middle of one of the biggets cities in the world. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:16:33 PM
I htink this thread should be locked - we're never going to agree
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:17:34 PM
End of the day you've bought into this video which I'm willing to be bet is an elaborate hoax.

Maybe, maybe not.

I could say you've bought into the USA's lies, you believe in Bush's admin not to do something liek this; i dont trust him in the slightest, and think he's capable of anything to suit his own needs.

Bush does enough to dig his own grave without trying to blame him for your dog having the runs too.  The silly stuff actually dilutes the facts so people can be called crazy conspiracists for pointing out his real shortcomings.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:18:39 PM
Since when has it been about agreeing?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:20:32 PM
End of the day you've bought into this video which I'm willing to be bet is an elaborate hoax.

Maybe, maybe not.

I could say you've bought into the USA's lies, you believe in Bush's admin not to do something liek this; i dont trust him in the slightest, and think he's capable of anything to suit his own needs.


Bush does enough to dig his own grave without trying to blame him for your dog having the runs too.  The silly stuff actually dilutes the facts so people can be called crazy conspiracists for pointing out his real shortcomings.

That's my problem with this sort of thing too, it diverts attention from the real s*** he's up to in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa etc.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:20:53 PM
the building fell as fast as gravity would allow it without resistance, this can only be achieved through a explosion.

You could just be making this up.  Or if not, you are quoting someone who could have just made it up.  There has been only one true scientific post in this thread with actual numbers - one detailing the force with which a plane would hit a building when flying full speed.  The rest is just raw conjuecture stated as science.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:22:42 PM
Helicopters my ****ing arse.

I challenge you.  Find one person who was there that day and saw what happened first hand.  Talk to that person for an hour (or more, because they usually have a lot to say).  Then come talk to us about "facts" vs "the party line."

Also, remember Occam's Razor?

This thread is making me unreasonably angry, and I can't figure out why.

There were Helicopters there.

They just weren't slamming missiles into the side of the building.  Even if it was a plan set in motion by the government, if you as a pilot were asked to do it, would you?

Utter s****.

Watch it before mouthing off like an idiot please, same goes to the rest of you.

Form your opinions AFTER you've seen it, not before, because you look retarted by doing so.

Thanks.

You believe that helicopters fired missiles into the WTC, but I'm the one looking retarded.  Okayyyyyy.

I never said missiles, i actually said i didnt think they were, check back if you like, however, these towers were brought down and those helicopters had something to do with it, or is a massive co-incidence, but the result is, the planes didn't take down those buildings by themselves.

And what about WTC 7?

Who the fuk took that down, no plane hit that, yet that building fell?

Explain please.

What building is that?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:22:56 PM
End of the day you've bought into this video which I'm willing to be bet is an elaborate hoax.

Maybe, maybe not.

I could say you've bought into the USA's lies, you believe in Bush's admin not to do something liek this; i dont trust him in the slightest, and think he's capable of anything to suit his own needs.


Bush does enough to dig his own grave without trying to blame him for your dog having the runs too.  The silly stuff actually dilutes the facts so people can be called crazy conspiracists for pointing out his real shortcomings.

That's my problem with this sort of thing too, it diverts attention from the real s*** he's up to in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa etc.

There's a train of thought that says Michael Moore won him the last election.  I can see where they're coming from.

Edit:  More a school than a train, but you know what I mean.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:23:19 PM
the building fell as fast as gravity would allow it without resistance, this can only be achieved through a explosion.

You could just be making this up.  Or if not, you are quoting someone who could have just made it up.  There has been only one true scientific post in this thread with actual numbers - one detailing the force with which a plane would hit a building when flying full speed.  The rest is just raw conjuecture stated as science.

I wouldn't give Rob too much credit tbh.  He's the king of making s*** up! ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:29:41 PM
Having watched the initial 20 mins of that video, I felt like locking myself in a dark room forever.  But after that it picks up and is worth a view, whatever your stance.  It isn't just some guy talking crap, passing off connections with Bush or what not.  And if your all so sure of yourselves, I'm sure you'll be able to tear it apart.

In saying that, I'm still shattered, and in need of a much deserved kip.  Back whenever.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:30:24 PM


Ok, so i get people arn't liking the conspiracy, but am fasinated, and if you like, sucked in, and for those who arn't buying the s*** were told.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:32:17 PM
Having watched the initial 20 mins of that video, I felt like locking myself in a dark room forever.  But after that it picks up and is worth a view, whatever your stance.  It isn't just some guy talking crap, passing off connections with Bush or what not.  And if your all so sure of yourselves, I'm sure you'll be able to tear it apart.

In saying that, I'm still shattered, and in need of a much deserved kip.  Back whenever.

That;s what i said, 1st 20mins nowt happens, about 19mins in, it gets interesting.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:38:15 PM

That;s what i said, 1st 20mins nowt happens, about 19mins in, it gets interesting.


(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9218/images5ck.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
That's what I said "Booby Traps"
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:39:28 PM

That;s what i said, 1st 20mins nowt happens, about 19mins in, it gets interesting.


(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9218/images5ck.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
That's what I said "Booby Traps"

Your about as funny as cancer.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:42:00 PM
Thought it was canny funny meself.  Love the Goonies. :lol:

Toon's Taylor's getting riled though - he'll be getting himself banned if he doesn't chill a bit. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:43:30 PM

That;s what i said, 1st 20mins nowt happens, about 19mins in, it gets interesting.


(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9218/images5ck.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
That's what I said "Booby Traps"

Your about as funny as cancer.

 bluebiggrin.gif

It amused me more than doing some work.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:43:56 PM
Thought it was canny funny meself.  Love the Goonies. :lol:

Toon's Taylor's getting riled though - he'll be getting himself banned if he doesn't chill a bit. ;)

Banned, what for?

PS: Heard they were going to make a sequal, anyone hear of that and is it happening?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:44:41 PM

That;s what i said, 1st 20mins nowt happens, about 19mins in, it gets interesting.


(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9218/images5ck.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
That's what I said "Booby Traps"

Your about as funny as cancer.

 bluebiggrin.gif

It amused me more than doing some work.

Well as long as you got a 5min skive out of it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:46:00 PM
For abuse!  The mods on here are more trigger happy than a mystery helicopter pilot!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:49:18 PM
For abuse!  The mods on here are more trigger happy than a mystery helicopter pilot!

Am not abusing anyone.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:50:59 PM
For abuse!  The mods on here are more trigger happy than a mystery helicopter pilot!

Am not abusing anyone.

Are you calling me a liar? ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: alex on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:51:40 PM
Toon's Taylor is seething ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:51:48 PM
Thought it was canny funny meself.  Love the Goonies. :lol:

Toon's Taylor's getting riled though - he'll be getting himself banned if he doesn't chill a bit. ;)

Banned, what for?

PS: Heard they were going to make a sequal, anyone hear of that and is it happening?

Have to say like, Cancer is rife in my family and that comment caused me a great deal of distress bluecry.gif.  I would appreciate it if people could refrain from mentioning diseases.  Can that go in the rules?  I'll be sending a PM to request Mr Taylor be given some quiet time to consider his hurtful attack.












I'll not complain if you do the truffle shuffle






 :tongue3: bluewink.gif bluebiggrin.gif bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 03:53:01 PM
Truffle Shuffles out of thread


Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:05:51 PM
the building fell as fast as gravity would allow it without resistance, this can only be achieved through a explosion.

You could just be making this up. Or if not, you are quoting someone who could have just made it up. There has been only one true scientific post in this thread with actual numbers - one detailing the force with which a plane would hit a building when flying full speed. The rest is just raw conjuecture stated as science.

I thank you!

Surprised me about the equivalent size of a wrecking ball - its the velocity squared that really puts the power in........
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:06:51 PM
"I wouldn't give Rob too much credit tbh.  He's the king of making s*** up! Wink"

hell - I showed my workings teacher!!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Gemmill on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:15:33 PM
"I wouldn't give Rob too much credit tbh.  He's the king of making s*** up! Wink"

hell - I showed my workings teacher!!


:lol:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 17 March 2006, 04:41:13 PM
very old fashioned I know
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 06:46:44 PM
Don't you have any doubts about it Rob?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 17 March 2006, 06:54:07 PM
Spike Lee was on Mark Kermode this week and was going on about it.  He was also espousing the theory that during Katrina, bombs were used to break the levee at the point of the poorest area of town rather than by the well off area.

He's making a documentary about it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Friday 17 March 2006, 07:51:09 PM
9/11 and the whole war on terror is a global conspiracy and not the act of some bearded lunatics as the media/west would have us believe, in my opinion. I don't buy the official line whatsoever.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 07:52:37 PM
Good to see a man not sitting on the fence. bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Friday 17 March 2006, 08:49:50 PM
If history has taught us one thing, it is that man will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of what he believes to be right, whether immoral, illegal, evil, good, bad, ugly, sinful, inhumane, wise, stupid or wrong.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:11:09 PM
The most scientific compliance to the controlled detonantion theory is the falling speed. It is freefall speed, which can only occur in a vacum. There is no resistance or inertial change of direction. All three buildings come straight down. That kind of vaccum can only occur where multiple detonations on the passage of travel (downward) is clearing the way.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:15:30 PM
I wonder if the sane lads have bothered to watch the video.  Probably not.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:17:51 PM
They will only start paying attention when thye are taken to room 100010010010. bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: JH on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:33:20 PM
I wonder if the sane lads have bothered to watch the video.  Probably not.

I watched parts of the three links that were posted yesterday on page 2 or something. Interesting. The Loose Change or whatever it is called that Wullie posted looked the best and the most professional. Didn't have the time to finish any of them but they all looked well researched.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Friday 17 March 2006, 10:34:46 PM


Ok, so i get people arn't liking the conspiracy, but am fasinated, and if you like, sucked in, and for those who arn't buying the s*** were told.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:07:54 PM
I don't think the collapse of the Towers was a result of some kind of detonation device or 'alien' force. I believe they collapsed due to the impact and the ensuing carnage that created, or rather the pressure placed on the trusses and support beams.

I'm no expert but I was trained to be a joiner and we looked at trusses in depth and when they go (for whatever reason), a building can topple around them in a vertical position. Timber, steal or other materials, they are all designed to hold floors and support outer walls/frames/columns, to bind a building if you like.

Anyway...

I'm going off memory here like but if the pressure of the floor, or the trusses holding the floor is so great, that they give way, in tall structures, they drop like lead balloons on top of one another creating a domino effect.

Anyway that rush or surge of downward force can create a suction which can cause outerwalls to fall inward on or into the floors or in the Towers' case, the vacum where the floors once were, adding more downward force that can see the structure fall in on itself, imploding all the way to the bottom.

Think of a lift going down and the vroom noise, or the noise of air being sucked or pushed.

That I believe, is what caused the Towers to fall in on itself, imploding as it were.

It's also a myth that detonations collapses structures vertically or are designed to implode structures. Demolition squads plant explosives to do that aye, but not just to make sure the structure topples vertically, but to make sure the 'ground zero' area isn't full of sizeable chuncks of rubble, the theory being that its easier to clear a site if the rubble is in smaller packages.

Plus, if big beams for example are shattered into pieces, they have less chance of of causing damage to things like close by buildings, people, animals, street lighting, pipes and so on and so on.

If the collapse of the Towers were a result of planned detonations, I don't think 100-foot steal beems or columns would have been protruding from the rubble. Plus the logistics of carrying such a thing out without being detected would have not been feasable IMO. There are only general maintenence records leading up to the collapse, nothing major or anything like that.

Again I'm no expert but there was a series on demolition on the Discovery a few months back and they covered many areas of demolation, showing different example methods on different structures. IMO the collapse was natural once the planes did their damage.

Nah, I Have have no real issues regarding the two Towers, the planes brought them down for me.

Like Gemmill said, I was suprised, sat there watching live, that they lasted so long.

I also read somewhere that the authorities knew the Towers could collapse but still they sent servicemen up there. Perhaps hope played a part in those decisions or the power of being seen to be doing something to help, for those many millions watching on TV. Maybe servicemen themselves ignored calls to get out, to not go in, who knows.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:14:39 PM
The thing is, they didn't go undetected.  There are plenty of accounts of big explosions, they just were never investigated by the official inquiry. 

If you watch footage of it again, you hear them, and you hear people talking about them.  Far too dense a sound for it to be gas mains exploding or whatever too.  The whole point is that it's amateur footage that's recorded these things, so people like RobW pass them off as "dodgy sources".

You can't win, because when you present evidence, it's clearly fake to these people.  The possibilities aren't even entertained.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:15:57 PM
first off i'm not going to take as gospel any "video" i view on the net,that would mean ghosts are real,i've heard hell and i've seen numerous film stars totally naked.

secandly ...as for those helicopters,you'd think if they were going to use helicopters to finish the job off they'd create a diversion to make people look away,NOT crash airliners into the buildings making everybody look at them and every camera in the city point that way...funny how no-one mentioned it at the time...i guess all new yorkers are in on it.

thirdly....you'd think if this was a pretext for going to war in iraq the US would provide evidence of the tiniest link to iraq,maybe one of the hijackers,but no,the hijackers were from "friendly" nations.

parky.....your "tommahawk missile hit the pentagon" is the worst attempt to get a bite i've heard for a while.


yes i've heard all about the project for a new american century,but to be fair an attack was going to happen(i personally thought a co-ordinated attack on lots of US embassies and intrests),this attack just gave them an excuse to further it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:17:37 PM
first off i'm not going to take as gospel any "video" i view on the net,that would mean ghosts are real,i've heard hell and i've seen numerous film stars totally naked.

secandly ...as for those helicopters,you'd think if they were going to use helicopters to finish the job off they'd create a diversion to make people look away,NOT crash airliners into the buildings making everybody look at them and every camera in the city point that way...funny how no-one mentioned it at the time...i guess all new yorkers are in on it.

thirdly....you'd think if this was a pretext for going to war in iraq the US would provide evidence of the tiniest link to iraq,maybe one of the hijackers,but no,the hijackers were from "friendly" nations.

parky.....your "tommahawk missile hit the pentagon" is the worst attempt to get a bite i've heard for a while.


yes i've heard all about the project for a new american century,but to be fair an attack was going to happen(i personally thought a co-ordinated attack on lots of US embassies and intrests),this attack just gave them an excuse to further it.

You should watch the video before assuming the helicopters did anything.  No one has said thet brought them down.  But there were plenty of them hovering around, essentially doing nothing.

Again this is the problem.  You won't even watch the video, and assume it's all dodgy. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:21:15 PM
first off i'm not going to take as gospel any "video" i view on the net,that would mean ghosts are real,i've heard hell and i've seen numerous film stars totally naked.

secandly ...as for those helicopters,you'd think if they were going to use helicopters to finish the job off they'd create a diversion to make people look away,NOT crash airliners into the buildings making everybody look at them and every camera in the city point that way...funny how no-one mentioned it at the time...i guess all new yorkers are in on it.

thirdly....you'd think if this was a pretext for going to war in iraq the US would provide evidence of the tiniest link to iraq,maybe one of the hijackers,but no,the hijackers were from "friendly" nations.

parky.....your "tommahawk missile hit the pentagon" is the worst attempt to get a bite i've heard for a while.


yes i've heard all about the project for a new american century,but to be fair an attack was going to happen(i personally thought a co-ordinated attack on lots of US embassies and intrests),this attack just gave them an excuse to further it.

You should watch the video before assuming the helicopters did anything.  No one has said thet brought them down.  But there were plenty of them hovering around, essentially doing nothing.

Again this is the problem.  You won't even watch the video, and assume it's all dodgy. 

it's only natural helicopters would be around...and what would you expect them to do...i'd expect them to relay info to the emergency services about what is happening there.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:23:47 PM
first off i'm not going to take as gospel any "video" i view on the net,that would mean ghosts are real,i've heard hell and i've seen numerous film stars totally naked.

secandly ...as for those helicopters,you'd think if they were going to use helicopters to finish the job off they'd create a diversion to make people look away,NOT crash airliners into the buildings making everybody look at them and every camera in the city point that way...funny how no-one mentioned it at the time...i guess all new yorkers are in on it.

thirdly....you'd think if this was a pretext for going to war in iraq the US would provide evidence of the tiniest link to iraq,maybe one of the hijackers,but no,the hijackers were from "friendly" nations.

parky.....your "tommahawk missile hit the pentagon" is the worst attempt to get a bite i've heard for a while.


yes i've heard all about the project for a new american century,but to be fair an attack was going to happen(i personally thought a co-ordinated attack on lots of US embassies and intrests),this attack just gave them an excuse to further it.

You should watch the video before assuming the helicopters did anything.  No one has said thet brought them down.  But there were plenty of them hovering around, essentially doing nothing.

Again this is the problem.  You won't even watch the video, and assume it's all dodgy. 

it's only natural helicopters would be around...and what would you expect them to do...i'd expect them to relay info to the emergency services about what is happening there.

I'm not arguing that.  I've nerver said they actually did anything, that's what I'm meaning.  You're bangning on about the helicopters when you should be watching the video and wondering about the explosions.  The helicopters just added more mystery, but really have little to do with it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:26:30 PM
first off i'm not going to take as gospel any "video" i view on the net,that would mean ghosts are real,i've heard hell and i've seen numerous film stars totally naked.

secandly ...as for those helicopters,you'd think if they were going to use helicopters to finish the job off they'd create a diversion to make people look away,NOT crash airliners into the buildings making everybody look at them and every camera in the city point that way...funny how no-one mentioned it at the time...i guess all new yorkers are in on it.

thirdly....you'd think if this was a pretext for going to war in iraq the US would provide evidence of the tiniest link to iraq,maybe one of the hijackers,but no,the hijackers were from "friendly" nations.

parky.....your "tommahawk missile hit the pentagon" is the worst attempt to get a bite i've heard for a while.


yes i've heard all about the project for a new american century,but to be fair an attack was going to happen(i personally thought a co-ordinated attack on lots of US embassies and intrests),this attack just gave them an excuse to further it.

In a big fuking nutshell matey,

Watch the video.

As for the tommohawk, not as unbelieveable as you think, well it certainly wansn't a plane...in fact, show me the video of where a plane flew into the pentagon, really, i'd love to see it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:27:17 PM
Far too dense a sound for it to be gas mains exploding or whatever too.

This is why I can't take these points seriously.  How dense a sound does an exploding gas main make?  How many people have heard gas mains explode?  How many people were quoted as saying "Wow I heard an explosion and it sure wasn't a gas main 'cause the sound was far too dense!"  For me to entertain a possibility, there needs to be more substantive backup.  Irrefutable proof is rare, so I even accept hypotheses that are strengthened by some kind of empirical data.  The above quote offers basically nothing.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:30:21 PM
Put it this way, it doesn't make earthquake size sounds.  Like these were.

What's proof if it isn't a video and countless people saying they heard explosions way before the towers even started falling?

If these things were so innocent then why were they never explained by the 9/11 commission?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:30:30 PM
Far too dense a sound for it to be gas mains exploding or whatever too.

This is why I can't take these points seriously.  How dense a sound does an exploding gas main make?  How many people have heard gas mains explode?  How many people were quoted as saying "Wow I heard an explosion and it sure wasn't a gas main 'cause the sound was far too dense!"  For me to entertain a possibility, there needs to be more substantive backup.  Irrefutable proof is rare, so I even accept hypotheses that are strengthened by some kind of empirical data.  The above quote offers basically nothing.

He's two miles away, yet his camera picks it up; a series of explosions which just happened to go in time with the fall of a building.

Yep, deffo a gas problem.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:31:10 PM
it was a 24hr office block yet people got in and planted stuff,enough to bring it down with no-one seeing anything and no whistle blower concerned enough to stop the killing of thousands of innocents.

incompetence i'll go with,the norad bloke saying budget measures since the republicans came to power(only spending proper cash on the headline stuff..star wars etc instead of mundane security)i'll go with,opportunism by dubya and his cronies i'll go with,but the rest doesn't meet the criteria.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Tom_NUFC on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:31:14 PM
I missed it. I'm not sure whether I'm glad or disappointed about that.

I wanted to watch it, but then again, I saw the images of people falling out of the World Trade Centre when it was being shown live. I watched the second plane hit the tower live and they were horrendous. There was no one I knew in New York at the time - thank God, but even so, I found it very disturbing, and yet compulsive to watch.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:32:31 PM
it was a 24hr office block yet people got in and planted stuff,enough to bring it down with no-one seeing anything and no whistle blower concerned enough to stop the killing of thousands of innocents.

incompetence i'll go with,the norad bloke saying budget measures since the republicans came to power(only spending proper cash on the headline stuff..star wars etc instead of mundane security)i'll go with,opportunism by dubya and his cronies i'll go with,but the rest doesn't meet the criteria.

An office block who's security was farmed out to Mr Bush's ugly brother, hmmm, nowt fishly could at all go on there.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:36:16 PM
All I ask is those that easily discredit all this to watch the f***ing thing.  Surely you should at least view the evidence before overwhelmingly trying to discredit it, no?  I mean, surely that's only fair. 

The attitude of "I don't need to watch dodgy videos" is astounding.  No one knows if they're dodgy or not, just use the line like it's some fact.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:40:48 PM
All I ask is those that easily discredit all this to watch the ****ing thing.  Surely you should at least view the evidence before overwhelmingly trying to discredit it, no?  I mean, surely that's only fair. 

Oh no, couldn't possibly, opinions 1st, fuk what information is on offer.

But its that attitude that allows the likes of Bush & Co to get away with things, because the general public are given an official story, and from thereon in, nothing else could possibly be the truth.

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:43:59 PM
All I ask is those that easily discredit all this to watch the ****ing thing.  Surely you should at least view the evidence before overwhelmingly trying to discredit it, no?  I mean, surely that's only fair. 

Oh no, couldn't possibly, opinions 1st, fuk what information is on offer.

But its that attitude that allows the likes of Bush & Co to get away with things, because the general public are given an official story, and from thereon in, nothing else could possibly be the truth.

Ironically, they'd say, and did say, it's our attitude that's doing the same thing.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:46:05 PM
tell you what bluf....did you read the link i posted much earlier in this thread ?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:47:01 PM


Ok, so i get people arn't liking the conspiracy, but am fasinated, and if you like, sucked in, and for those who arn't buying the s*** were told.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm

You still didn't reply to that, Taylor.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:48:27 PM
tell you what bluf....did you read the link i posted much earlier in this thread ?

I didn't realise you did.  Infact, I thought you just joined the discussion.  What page?  Again, it's something I'm willing to do, and always.  Contrary to popular belief, I'm not 'into conspiracies', and try my best to get a balanced view.  Something most on here seem unwilling to do. 

I wonder how a video can be dodgy, but a worded article on a website can't.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:49:53 PM


Ok, so i get people arn't liking the conspiracy, but am fasinated, and if you like, sucked in, and for those who arn't buying the s*** were told.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm

You still didn't reply to that, Taylor.

What a NY times article, give me a break.

They want to portrait the classic Team America culture and wouldn't contemplate causing further waves for those effected, come on, one sided?

Use your loaf, something a bit more independant would be nice, not s*** shoveled straight from the horses ASS.

like it, ASS, not arse.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:53:01 PM
i posted it about page 3(ish) mainly for parky,but you may find it interesting.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y


that film you speak of ,was it the one on youtube ? if so i've seen it and wasn't impressed,if it's not,send a link and i'll look at it when i have a chance.


Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:55:15 PM
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Or it that still not outlandish enough?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Friday 17 March 2006, 11:57:36 PM
I haven't seen this video as I can't open media files of any type on my machine, since I knacked my media drive thingy but I've watched a few docs on 9/11 (telly) and based on what I know or learned about joists and from watching that demolition series, as well as the events live on TV, I honestly don't think the collapse was controlled or unatural following the initial impact.

I don't know what these explosions could be, maybe gas pipes, maybe not but even if I could allow the thought that these Towers were brought down by detonation devices etc., I struggle to imagine how, without being detected or raising suspicion, such an intensive preparation job could be carried out in order to bring them down.

To bring them down using traditional techniques would require open and strategic planning, labour work of course and at least, given the scale of the buildings, a dummy run.

I'm not saying there were no explosions nor will I rubbish anyone who thinks they were somethinge else, but logically I can't see sense in manually bringing them down if you like because they would topple in time anyway, there is enough evidence that supports the given reason for the topple and because there is nothing that even hints that experts prepped the place which they would have had to do, obviously.

I'd pass off stuff like that as coincidences or impossible to explain.

Just my thoughts anyway.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:00:43 AM
I haven't seen this video as I can't open media files of any type on my machine, since I knacked my media drive thingy but I've watched a few docs on 9/11 (telly) and based on what I know or learned about joists and from watching that demolition series, as well as the events live on TV, I honestly don't think the collapse was controlled or unatural following the initial impact.

I don't know what these explosions could be, maybe gas pipes, maybe not but even if I could allow the thought that these Towers were brought down by detonation devices etc., I struggle to imagine how, without being detected or raising suspicion, such an intensive preparation job could be carried out in order to bring them down.

To bring them down using traditional techniques would require open and strategic planning, labour work of course and at least, given the scale of the buildings, a dummy run.

I'm not saying there were no explosions nor will I rubbish anyone who thinks they were somethinge else, but logically I can't see sense in manually bringing them down if you like because they would topple in time anyway, there is enough evidence that supports the given reason for the topple and because there is nothing that even hints that experts prepped the place which they would have had to do, obviously.

I'd pass off stuff like that as coincidences or impossible to explain.

Just my thoughts anyway.

read my linkhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:01:16 AM
i posted it about page 3(ish) mainly for parky,but you may find it interesting.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y


that film you speak of ,was it the one on youtube ? if so i've seen it and wasn't impressed,if it's not,send a link and i'll look at it when i have a chance.

This isn't the youtube one.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

No Nut, not outlandish enough.  I only believe in wild theories. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:07:01 AM
Read my linkhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

I will read that, but I noticed it is debunking certain theories.  There are even ones I don't agree with.  Like the missile, or remote controlled planes, all I ASK is why there were these explosions, and that I believe it was allowed to happen. 

Yet, somehow, I'm still grouped in with people that think bin Laden didn't do it, and that missiles were fired at buildings.  I think that's unfair to be honest.  What is so outlandish about wanting answers on explosions heard many many minutes, to just before the towers fell?  Is that really a conspiracy?  I thought it was a question.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:10:13 AM
Madras,

You might as well move to Westphalia, become a Catholic and tell people in local towns that the world is about to end. That is about as open minded as you are on this matter.
Pentagon was hit by a great big fekin plane which completely dissapeared after it hit the building. :rofl:

The nose cone made of reinforced carbon that holds navigation equipment went through three lots of reinforced military grade walls. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:12:16 AM
Bluf, what do you think the explosions were? Or down to? Genuinly interested. Sadly I'm a bit ignorant here because I haven't seen or heard this footage, I may be swayed yet ;)

PS As a rule of thumb, I never fully rule out anything unless 100% convinced and I always try to keep an open mind on things.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:12:20 AM
Read my linkhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

I will read that, but I noticed it is debunking certain theories.  There are even ones I don't agree with.  Like the missile, or remote controlled planes, all I ASK is why there were these explosions, and that I believe it was allowed to happen. 


If you throw a petrol bomb into a sitting room, I'd imagine it'd make a bit of a bang.

Now times that by a million, and it might explain the loud explosions.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:14:35 AM
Nut,

Your the kind of expert Bush is looking for. "There is money in them there hills"... headphonedance.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:15:51 AM
Watched the video.  So there.

I wish I could watch it with some of you sitting right next to me so I could point out in real time just how dodgy it is, and how it puts circumstantial evidence (like the arc of smoke as compared to a random animated .gif) forward as hard science.

To be fair, it's an interesting point of view, but they'll have to try a lot harder if they're going to prove anything to any with any kind of discriminating eye.  The best it did was make me want to find some REAL science about the collapse.  Their science-lite nonsense just started to bug me after awhile, even though it was very authoritative in it's telling.

To think "auto-suggestion" was used earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:16:05 AM
Read my linkhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

I will read that, but I noticed it is debunking certain theories.  There are even ones I don't agree with.  Like the missile, or remote controlled planes, all I ASK is why there were these explosions, and that I believe it was allowed to happen. 


If you throw a petrol bomb into a sitting room, I'd imagine it'd make a bit of a bang.

Now times that by a million, and it might explain the loud explosions.

AGAIN, watch the video, and you'll get a better perspective.  But of course you won't.  You're hearing 'explosion' then jumping to conclusions.  Whatever happened to looking at the facts, and what better way to look at it all than video footage?

HTT, I REALLY don't know, but I find them highly suspicious.  I find it suspicious that statements talking about explosions were not even entertained in the 9/11 inquiry.  If they just addressed the issues people are wondering about, they could put it all to bed.  It makes you wonder why they don't.  Take into account the amount of lies we've been told SINCE 9/11 (even forget 9/11 for a second) and you realise their word is not to be taken at face value.

WMD anyone?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:16:31 AM
Nut,

Your the kind of expert Bush is looking for. "There is money in them there hills"... headphonedance.gif

And you're the kind of expert Channel 5 is looking for. "There's a bit an egghead, let's interview him and let him tell us how Bush is a mass murderer of 1000s of his own people".
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:16:47 AM
Tons of reinforced concrete as if by some quirk or miracle of nature turned into clouds of dust.
Really who beleives this shiiit. :rofl:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:19:01 AM
Did you watch all of it Baron, given it's one hour forty?

If I'm a conspiracist for asking what the explosions were, then we're living in sad, sad times.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:19:53 AM
Tons of reinforced concrete as if by some quirk or miracle of nature turned into clouds of dust.
Really who beleives this shiiit. :rofl:

Quote
]Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT), the towers remained upright. "The buildings displayed a tremendous capacity to stand there despite the damage to a major portion of the gravity system, and for an hour or so they did stand there," McNamara said. "The lateral truss systems redistributed the load when other critical members were lost. It's a testament to the system that they lasted so long."

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:22:38 AM
Where did I say Bush was responsible? ha ha....Find it for me.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:25:31 AM
'The Kerosene fuel fire'........Surely there is nothing more contradictory or more hilarious than this.
Try the 'office furniture fire'.......Really stop or I'm ganna have to get me plastic pants oot.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:30:05 AM
Baron,

You have a [point a about that film, it is cobbled together rather conveniently. Although you must agree it throws  up some interesting points for debate.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:30:13 AM
well i watched from 18mins to 27 mins and i hope it gets better(off to kip soon so wont watch the lot till monday),but that few mins was funny....perfect pics about people trying to get out the top of the tower but the pics of the helicopters were clouded and so vague and dare i say it ,the flashes seemed fake if not photoshopped...i'll watch the rest but if it carries on in that vein i'll charge you for 1 1/2 hrs of my life......plus more thanks to this thread.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:31:55 AM
'The Kerosene fuel fire'........Surely there is nothing more contradictory or more hilarious than this.
Try the 'office furniture fire'.......Really stop or I'm ganna have to get me plastic pants oot.

I believe that theory more than I do a few eye witnesses who I bet wouldn't have a clue what they're talking about saying, "it's explosives".
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:39:39 AM
ON,

The jet that hit the second tower nearly missed and only hit the edge. So the fireball of the fuel can be clearly seen exploding out the side of that tower, with very little going inside. Jet fuel has a very short burn life and vapourises very quickly although with a very intense heat, that much is true. So most of the fuel has very little affect on the integrity of the second tower to be hit.
Most of the stuff that starts to burn (the secondary fires) is just office stuff, that is why the smoke is black. Black smoke as any expert will tell you is a low tempreature fire sign. It is a fire that burns inneficently and slowly covers areas.
The max time the jet fuel would have had an affect on the second tower is tops 5 min, the rest is slow burn with not much oxygen.
I'm afraid the facts are this kind of fire will never reach the temp required to melt grade A reinforced steel. Nowhere near infact.
Just to clarify I don't beleive Bush had anything to do with it.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:40:30 AM
Madras,

You might as well move to Westphalia, become a Catholic and tell people in local towns that the world is about to end. That is about as open minded as you are on this matter.
Pentagon was hit by a great big fekin plane which completely dissapeared after it hit the building. :rofl:

The nose cone made of reinforced carbon that holds navigation equipment went through three lots of reinforced military grade walls. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif



did you read the link?????maybe if you looked in equal measure at 9-11 debunked as 9-11 conspiracies you may develop a balnced view.


also if the people who were on this incarnation of the board back were still here(HTT,HTL,SPARKS,CALI MAG, will all agree i toe the party line)then you may not hold the view you do.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:42:48 AM
So why don't they realease the footage from the petrol station and hotel secutriy cameras that would show the Jet hitting the Pentagon?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:49:03 AM
parky i think most of your points have been answered in the link I posted.....you haven't even looked at it have you ?
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:50:48 AM
Madras,

You might as well move to Westphalia, become a Catholic and tell people in local towns that the world is about to end. That is about as open minded as you are on this matter.
Pentagon was hit by a great big fekin plane which completely dissapeared after it hit the building. :rofl:

The nose cone made of reinforced carbon that holds navigation equipment went through three lots of reinforced military grade walls. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif



did you read the link?????maybe if you looked in equal measure at 9-11 debunked as 9-11 conspiracies you may develop a balnced view.


also if the people who were on this incarnation of the board back were still here(HTT,HTL,SPARKS,CALI MAG, will all agree i toe the party line)then you may not hold the view you do.

Liar, card carrying conformist and slayer of conspiracy theorists you ;)

Bluf, those explosions do sound dodgey like, especially the lack of coverage in the official post 9/11 report.

I don't know why theye weren't documented.

I'm still 95% certain those Towers came down because of the impact and damage cause there after though.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:55:42 AM
Madras,

You might as well move to Westphalia, become a Catholic and tell people in local towns that the world is about to end. That is about as open minded as you are on this matter.
Pentagon was hit by a great big fekin plane which completely dissapeared after it hit the building. :rofl:

The nose cone made of reinforced carbon that holds navigation equipment went through three lots of reinforced military grade walls. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif



did you read the link?????maybe if you looked in equal measure at 9-11 debunked as 9-11 conspiracies you may develop a balnced view.


also if the people who were on this incarnation of the board back were still here(HTT,HTL,SPARKS,CALI MAG, will all agree i toe the party line)then you may not hold the view you do.

Liar, card carrying conformist and slayer of conspiracy theorists you ;)

Bluf, those explosions do sound dodgey like, especially the lack of coverage in the official post 9/11 report.

I don't know why theye weren't documented.

I'm still 95% certain those Towers came down because of the impact and damage cause there after though.
gan on tell him how much of a toe-the-liner i am(remember the original "war in iraq" thread......FFS man i found a position where i could disagree with everyone)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:56:33 AM
I don't read motorists weekly or whatever its called. :icon_king:


No one can answer my points. That's why over 60% of New Yorkers beleive there was some kind of conspiracy.


Why don't you look at Micheal Meacher ex-Govt mimisters comments on 9/11?

I suppose Enron was 'just a misunderstanding'?

Or they wiped out Fallujah cause they couldn't get a proper burger locally.

Or the full spectrum dominance document which is the new regime bible is totally made up as well.

Or stealth planes are crappy wooden bombers that can't turn properly but cost $60billion to develop...Err hold on...no that one is true. I think the Muhahadeen shot one down with an Ak47. :rofl:
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:57:43 AM
http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Saturday 18 March 2006, 12:58:25 AM
Madras,

You might as well move to Westphalia, become a Catholic and tell people in local towns that the world is about to end. That is about as open minded as you are on this matter.
Pentagon was hit by a great big fekin plane which completely dissapeared after it hit the building. :rofl:

The nose cone made of reinforced carbon that holds navigation equipment went through three lots of reinforced military grade walls. bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif



did you read the link?????maybe if you looked in equal measure at 9-11 debunked as 9-11 conspiracies you may develop a balnced view.


also if the people who were on this incarnation of the board back were still here(HTT,HTL,SPARKS,CALI MAG, will all agree i toe the party line)then you may not hold the view you do.

Liar, card carrying conformist and slayer of conspiracy theorists you ;)

Bluf, those explosions do sound dodgey like, especially the lack of coverage in the official post 9/11 report.

I don't know why theye weren't documented.

I'm still 95% certain those Towers came down because of the impact and damage cause there after though.
gan on tell him how much of a toe-the-liner i am(remember the original "war in iraq" thread......FFS man i found a position where i could disagree with everyone)

I wouldn't knaa like, you wouldn't play ball with my housing market theory. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: madras on Saturday 18 March 2006, 01:01:38 AM
if i'd have known down the line there'd have been a trade off!
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 01:14:32 AM
The truth is that no one including me really wants to beleive that really bad things happen.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: HTT on Saturday 18 March 2006, 01:17:14 AM
The truth is that no one including me really wants to beleive that really bad things happen.

Man's inate fear of the truth.

As Jack Nicolson said: "You can't handle the truth"
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Saturday 18 March 2006, 02:15:58 AM
Did you watch all of it Baron, given it's one hour forty?

If I'm a conspiracist for asking what the explosions were, then we're living in sad, sad times.

Watched the whole thing.  Stayed late at the office on St. Patrick's day to do it too, you b******s.

Asking what the explosions were is fine.  But accepting a half baked answer based on little if any actual evidence?   There are a few simple and logical answers that don't involve (a) having to accept what you call "the party line" and (b) buying into far fetched and complicated hypothesis.

One: A plane full of fuel crashes into a building filled with combustible materials and gas with pockets of oxygen everywhere.

If I believe that, does that make me a sheep who has been tricked by THE MAN?  I'm all up for investigation, but I need more than scary voice overs and dodgy numbers.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 02:22:17 AM
Did you watch all of it Baron, given it's one hour forty?

If I'm a conspiracist for asking what the explosions were, then we're living in sad, sad times.

Watched the whole thing.  Stayed late at the office on St. Patrick's day to do it too, you b******s.

Asking what the explosions were is fine.  But accepting a half baked answer based on little if any actual evidence?   There are a few simple and logical answers that don't involve (a) having to accept what you call "the party line" and (b) buying into far fetched and complicated hypothesis.

One: A plane full of fuel crashes into a building filled with combustible materials and gas with pockets of oxygen everywhere.

If I believe that, does that make me a sheep who has been tricked by THE MAN?  I'm all up for investigation, but I need more than scary voice overs and dodgy numbers.

I don't believe I ever said party line, but anyway.  And fair enough you giving reasons for it, shame the 9/11 commission didn't.  Like people say about the people on the video they're not experts, neither are we. 

Only people that can put this to bed are the authorities, but I wonder why they won't.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 18 March 2006, 02:27:29 AM
I think we have to agree to disagree, but I think we may agree on one thing.  The amount of distrust in our leaders today is what leads to this kind of thing.  They're the only ones that can change this, try becoming more transparent, and be f***ing truthful.

Regardless of bombs, gas mains or controlled detonations, I do believe it was allowed to happen.  I don't think it was orchestrated by the Bush administration, but allowing it to happen is just as bad.  And the claims of negligence don't wash with me.  Not on so many counts. 
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Baron von Fat on Saturday 18 March 2006, 02:39:29 AM
I can agree on the above.  This should not have happened, because we should have seen it coming for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 18 March 2006, 11:21:44 AM
Full spectrum dominance is something we're all going to find out a lot about in the next ten years. And not being muslims or living in central asia or the middle east or whatever isn't going to save us either. Renegade elements of the administration have full sway and no amount of 'tea with the queen' is gonna bring these boys round.
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 19 March 2006, 10:00:18 AM
"Plague of frogs?"

"Didn't you see the Black CHariots?"
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 19 March 2006, 11:24:02 AM
As much as I'd like to I don't think we can implicate the French in this. bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
Post by: Nicos Papavasiliou on Friday 24 March 2006, 10:28:40 PM
As much as I thought the doc was s***, this is a f***ing disgrace....

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/7534/Agents_Try_To_Remove_911_Eyewitness_From_Wikipedia