Newcastle-Online

Archives => Hall Of Fame => Topic started by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:37:11 PM

Title: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:37:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4&mode=related&search=

Some experts want to re-open a new 9/11 enquiry as momentum gathers against the official story.

Watch a few min of video and discuss.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:38:32 PM
Conclusion: It was those Islamic extremists in those planes.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:39:21 PM
Wrong. :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:40:11 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:40:44 PM
Watch the vid man. blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:53:17 PM
The entire idea is completely flawed from the start.  Why the hell would you need to rigg the buildings with explosives when two planes full of fuel were going to t*** into them at top speed?  You've got to have a screw loose to believe any of these loose change style conspiracy theories, it's basically the left's version of the nutters who think global warming is a myth designed to destroy US business or that dinosaur bones were planted by evil secularists. 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 12:59:34 PM
"Why the hell would you need to rigg the buildings with explosives when two planes full of fuel were going to **** into them at top speed?" Blau Star.

Do you know anything about it?

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Keefaz on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:01:11 PM
Surely to have a controlled demolition you'd need to drill several thousand holes and fill them with explosive. You reckon somebody would've noticed, like.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:01:41 PM
Not with shaped charges no.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:01:46 PM
"Why the hell would you need to rigg the buildings with explosives when two planes full of fuel were going to **** into them at top speed?" Blau Star.

Do you know anything about it?



Do you?  Have you compared it to other incidents where planes with a full load of fuel have been stotted into buildings the size of the WTC to show that's not how they would have collapsed?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:02:54 PM
Yet these people are established physicists from some of America's best Universities.  How long can this go on describing people that are well versed in their field being described as crackpots. 

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951 - There's one being hounded out of his job for daring to question the official version, oh yeah, and writing a paper on it, as to why the official version doesn't make sense. 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:04:59 PM
Yep, there are people with practically the entire alphabet after their name who say global warming is a myth, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is false and aliens are abducting texans and probing them.  I don't believe them either.

EDIT: The conspiracy theories don't even agree with each other!  I've seen "proof" from "experts" that the planes were commercial jets rigged to fire missles, that a missile was launched to hit at the same time as the planes, that the planes were actually missiles themselves, that the planes hit and then charges that had been rigged throughout the building... Usually backed up by some wobbly physics and some seriously shakey "evidence" in the for of clips of a hotdog seller who's just had a building fall on his head saying it sounded like an explosion!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:06:10 PM
"Do you?  Have you compared it to other incidents where planes with a full load of fuel have been stotted into buildings the size of the WTC to show that's not how they would have collapsed?" Blau

Yes.

They have compared it to simiar buildings that burnt all weekend and never came down, not just for a few hours.
Jet fuel would have burnt of in a few minutes without reaching the temp to melt reinforced steel.
What happened to the core of the building ie the steel pillars? How did they end up as molted steel in the floor? The only thing that could have done that is thermite, a very exotic steel melting explosive or gel...Depends on what they used.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:07:18 PM
Yep, there are people with practically the entire alphabet after their name who say global warming is a myth, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is false and aliens are abducting texans and probing them.  I don't believe them either.

I'd like to see examples of these to be honest.  I agree on the Global warming one, and evolution, but hey, whose government is backing these people...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Keefaz on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:07:19 PM
As others have said, they really are just theories. No one has experience of the effects that crashing a airliner into a WTC tower would have.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:07:30 PM
"Yep, there are people with practically the entire alphabet after their name who say global warming is a myth, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is false and aliens are abducting texans and probing them.  I don't believe them either." Blau

Forget about that. Let's talk about 9/11. bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:09:32 PM
As others have said, they really are just theories. No one has experience of the effects that crashing a airliner into a WTC tower would have.

I think it has more to do with finding traces of thermite, than what the planes did, or did not, cause.  Where exactly did the thermite come from?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:09:50 PM
"Do you?  Have you compared it to other incidents where planes with a full load of fuel have been stotted into buildings the size of the WTC to show that's not how they would have collapsed?" Blau

Yes.

They have compared it to simiar buildings that burnt all weekend and never came down, not just for a few hours.
Jet fuel would have burnt of in a few minutes without reaching the temp to melt reinforced steel.
What happened to the core of the building ie the steel pillars? How did they end up as molted steel in the floor? The only thing that could have done that is thermite, a very exotic steel melting explosive or gel...Depends on what they used.



No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:09:57 PM
How the buildings fell makes as much sense as saying this is a conspiracy; its very difficult for me to belive the officail events due to the physical evidence, yet its hard to believe a government being willing to sacarifice so many lives in front of the world for their own gains.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Stubbs on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:10:51 PM
Parky - your views are quite franky absurd. Cant you accept that the Islamic terrorists you worship and make excuses for regularly on this board actually did intentionally kill 3,500 people?


 :thdn: :roll:


Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:11:22 PM
"No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing."


So how about WT7? Not hit by planes and with a much smaller subsidiary fire...How did that come down? Seriously how did it?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:12:53 PM
Not again  :lol: Parky's on a wind-up ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:14:14 PM
"No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing."


So how about WT7? Not hit by planes and with a much smaller subsidiary fire...How did that come down? Seriously how did it?

Shoddy bulding work, controlled explosion because they wanted to make it safe, vibration from the catastrophic explosions that had happened nearby and which no-one had expected when building it.  None of which would mean that they pointlessly put bombs in a building that was going to be totalled by an airliner anyway.  All these idiotic theories do nothing but aid the cause of neo-cons who want to paint people who disagree with their kamakazi foreign policy as subnormal and gullible fruitloops.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JPFIN on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:15:28 PM
Conclusion: It was those Islamic extremists in those planes.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:16:44 PM
Yep, there are people with practically the entire alphabet after their name who say global warming is a myth, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is false and aliens are abducting texans and probing them.  I don't believe them either.

Global warming - people point to the lack of evidence that it is happening. They fail to understand that true evidence on this can only come counter-factually. That game is about prediction, not 'i observed X repeatedly and therefore we know Y will happen'. Not the way that research game works, there is uncertainty until it happens and only then can you be sure. until then anyone can say 'categorically prove it'

6000 years old etc - no academic in the world challenges the age of the earth, theological or not.

Aliens etc - astro-physicists have worked out the probability that they exist using complex mathematical models and basic probability theory. Its Billions and billions to one on that they exist.

These physics boys put together a coherent argument based on known physics models, no conjecture.

I personally am ambivalent to the theory but they can not be dismissed in the way you have done although i agree with the sceptical sentiment regarding the overall question.




* Note to self - stop coming over as a bit of a t***.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dokko on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:17:12 PM
The towers should have never falled in their own footprints, its only possible through controlled explosions.

Did the jet fuel spread evenly throughout the building, weakening the structure in the exact same places at the exact same time, once for tower 1, and again for 2.

More chance of winning the lottery on a Sunday.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:17:25 PM
In an interview with one of the original engineers of the WTC he revealed that the buildings were designed to take hits from jets and he was astounded that they came down. He was later fired. Going to try and find the story for you.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:20:50 PM
In an interview with one of the original engineers of the WTC he revealed that the buildings were designed to take hits from jets and he was astounded that they came down. He was later fired. Going to try and find the story for you.

You dont need to i have read and seen the interview.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Mowen on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:21:41 PM
Forget about that. Let's talk about 9/11. bluewink.gif

Berlin Wall?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:22:30 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:23:18 PM
Really don't see the point in getting worked up about it. However it happened, the fact remains - it happened. Even if you can categorically prove it was all part of some elaborate American New Rightist plot, what the f*** does it achieve?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:25:02 PM
Parky - your views are quite franky absurd. Cant you accept that the Islamic terrorists you worship and make excuses for regularly on this board actually did intentionally kill 3,500 people?


 :thdn: :roll:




That post is nonsense.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:25:02 PM
"And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all." Blau

.....And what is your evidence that this is true?

Why was the steel not allowed to be examined by independant teams or even the FCC as is usually the case?
Why was the steel shipped to Hong Kong pretty sharpish for disposal?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:26:15 PM
"And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all." Blau

.....And what is your evidence that this is true?

That it happened and that I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise, even in the hours and horus of conflicting conpiracy videos.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:26:56 PM
And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

To be fair, it was "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" that started it all.  It's the geeky students that are f***ing it up, by claiming things as facts, when they're not.  Loose Change, for instance, is the greatest mistake of the whole "truth" movement.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:28:34 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:29:07 PM
The "Scholars for Truth" campaign will get to the bottom of it...I am fully confident a new 9/11 story will emerge as the old one loses credability.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:29:22 PM
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers

A list of those involved.  They are not all crackpots, to be fair.  They make good arguments, that are ignored because people don't want to listen, as they've accepted the current version of events.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:29:30 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:34:29 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking s***.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:34:31 PM
"No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing."


So how about WT7? Not hit by planes and with a much smaller subsidiary fire...How did that come down? Seriously how did it?

Shoddy bulding work, controlled explosion because they wanted to make it safe, vibration from the catastrophic explosions that had happened nearby and which no-one had expected when building it.  None of which would mean that they pointlessly put bombs in a building that was going to be totalled by an airliner anyway.  All these idiotic theories do nothing but aid the cause of neo-cons who want to paint people who disagree with their kamakazi foreign policy as subnormal and gullible fruitloops.
Similar to George Galloway's view on this and I agree.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dr Spectrum on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:36:33 PM
The difficulty for me is, I can't argue with any of this MIT guys points. I've got no idea what smoke from a burning building looks like, I dont know how steel columbs behave in heat, how am I supposed to know if anything this guy is saying is wrong? Its too technical. I can't decide if it was a setup or not from technobabble. Granted I've heard a lot more evidence as to why it couldn't have been the planes but thats not the reason I think Bush is responsible. I wouldn't be able to argue with anyone and convice them it was Bush. I just have a gut feeling that he did "what had to be done" to start his oil war. I hope that when a new adminstration takes over the Oval Office, the truth comes out, by whatever means, to whatever end.

0.02$.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieDazzler on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:38:53 PM
Watch this, its 1 hour 1/2 long but an interesting watch...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:39:46 PM
:lol: 

It's Loose Change!  :BangHead:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:46:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4&mode=related&search=

Some experts want to re-open a new 9/11 enquiry as momentum gathers against the official story.

Watch a few min of video and discuss.

Parky

FFS just give us the link to the last time we had this arguement and save us all a lot of time

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:49:22 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking s***.





4.5 - 5 billion years TBC
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:54:15 PM
To be clear I don't think Bush has anything to do with the conspiracy and had no idea what was going on that day. He was shitting himself like most others in the admin.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 01:56:21 PM
It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking s***.





4.5 - 5 billion years TBC

Nicely corrected but I was just being hypothetical.

I started to read Bill Bryson's History of Everything but left it on a train in Switzerland. Bit gutted as it was very well written.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:00:51 PM
To be clear I don't think Bush has anything to do with the conspiracy and had no idea what was going on that day. He was shitting himself like most others in the admin.

Just say it Parky - ITS A ZIONIST CONSPIRACY OMG!!!!!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:27:04 PM
I never understood how people were able to go around in the weeks before 911 and drill holes all over peoples offices and load up explosives without anyone noticing......................................
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:29:56 PM
I know its a tough one innit Rob.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:30:52 PM
I never understood how people were able to go around in the weeks before 911 and drill holes all over peoples offices and load up explosives without anyone noticing......................................

At night?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:32:28 PM
I never understood or beleived we paid £8m for Bumdong, but its right there in the figures so we must have.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:35:11 PM
''At night?'' Chix

Ample oppurtunity under the guise of maintenance during the day really. Call me Columbo. Oh and the security firms were changed about a year before the incident. Might want to look into that as well. coffee.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 02:45:08 PM
My point about academics having differing views isn't to do with young earth theory though - any view on "What should have happened" to the WTC, or, before the event what would happened, is simply theories.  Science is, by its very nature, fluid.  You theorise one thing and something happens to change that theory.  The people making these videos hope that by wheeling out Dr Nick Riviera PhD, they can infer that the general consensus of the scientific community is that "Mega skyscrapers don't collapse that way when planes hit them in that way."  It isn't.  You can find peers of people such as Kevin Barrett, who heads the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" lot who say things like
Quote
"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.

And plenty of people with a .edu address who are willing to explain the faulty science behind such theories, thus
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

As for the guy who said they were supposedly "jet-proof", the Titanic was supposedly sink-proof.  Did he specify if they were supposed to widthstand a plane hit in the usual scenario of an accidental hit where the pilot is trying to avert disaster, or were they specifically "12 nutters wanging it at full pelt in a passenger jet with a full load of fuel proof"?

You're asking us to believe that someone (with the inference being that only a US governement-linked agency could pull it off) has the manpower, expertise, influence and intelligence to pull off a gigantic terrorist attack on the US, the like that has never been seen before, but, knowing that it would be subject to scruteny not seen since the JFK assasination, chose to fly jets at a jet-proof building and then demolish with bombs in such a way that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could see that is what happened.  You're free to believe that, I don't.

Was Bush, or his pupeteers involved by the way?  Was it to pre-empt an attack on Iraq?  Why did they not say it was Iraqis then, rather than neo-con marras the Sauds?  Was it to get people on-side with the new administration?  If so, why was Bush left sitting like a complete plank for ages waiting for someone to tell him what to do, rather than immediately on the scene doing his Captain America impression?  There's more holes in this theory than the toons defence.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:08:35 PM
Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:14:01 PM
Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:14:16 PM
Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Might have something to do with this? 

Quote from: Wikipedia
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:15:34 PM
Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Fruitloops the lot of ye. :roll:


Really don't see the point in getting worked up about it. However it happened, the fact remains - it happened. Even if you can categorically prove it was all part of some elaborate American New Rightist plot, what the f*** does it achieve?

My talents here are obviously wasted. bluesigh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:17:40 PM
those jews. i can't believe they tried to argue it was one single event. i suppose they'd only pay one lump sum for all 4 planes  :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:17:57 PM
Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Might have something to do with this? 

Quote from: Wikipedia
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.


I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats f***ed nowadays.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:19:03 PM
Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Might have something to do with this? 

Quote from: Wikipedia
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.


I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats f***ed nowadays.

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:20:26 PM
Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Might have something to do with this? 

Quote from: Wikipedia
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.


I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats f***ed nowadays.

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D

He still made a billion clear profit and owned the best real estate in Manhattan. f*** me thats some business.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:22:01 PM
Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Might have something to do with this? 

Quote from: Wikipedia
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [6] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [7]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[8]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [9]. He plans to use some or all of the settlement to rebuild.


I stand corrected but its all from memory with me and thats f***ed nowadays.

I thought I'd best get a googled site, I seen Rehhagel lurking.  :D

He still made a billion clear profit and owned the best real estate in Manhattan. f*** me thats some business.

he only bought the complex a few months before 9/11 too...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:22:12 PM
Blau Star:

''As for the guy who said they were supposedly "jet-proof", the Titanic was supposedly sink-proof.  Did he specify if they were supposed to widthstand a plane hit in the usual scenario of an accidental hit where the pilot is trying to avert disaster, or were they specifically "12 nutters wanging it at full pelt in a passenger jet with a full load of fuel proof"?

Some common misconceptions here...I'll clear up. Big Jets are build like sardine cans, they have to be as light as possible of airline companies won't buy them as fuel saving is of primary concern. 2. Jet fuel burns off very quickly, all the fuel would have been spent inside a minute. The seconday fires is what people would have seen and it are these ie office stuff which is meant to have molten the steel?? 3. The Jet hitting the second tower almost missed and you can clearyl see most of the fuel burning off outside the building. 4. For this fuel to have weakend the entire structure it would have to have spread down the whole central steel core of the building, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. The main fuel burn site was very near the top of BOTH BUILDING. IMO forget the jet fuel burning theory it is not even worth considering for a man of your intelligence and the average layman who looks at this issue a bit deeper.

You're asking us to believe that someone (with the inference being that only a US governement-linked agency could pull it off) has the manpower, expertise, influence and intelligence to pull off a gigantic terrorist attack on the US, the like that has never been seen before, but, knowing that it would be subject to scruteny not seen since the JFK assasination, chose to fly jets at a jet-proof building and then demolish with bombs in such a way that anyone with a basic knowledge of physics could see that is what happened.  You're free to believe that, I don't.

No idea who pulled this off, aided it or kept quiet it was going to happen and so I can't really posit a worthwile theory around this point. But what is clear is who benefitted from this tragic incident. My opinon is that Bush or his close cohorts had nothing to do with it, maybe a rogue element in some parts of the Govt or intelligence services or intelligence services form different countries helped or at the very leat conspired to keep it quiet. I am sure and there is plenty of evidence that certain people knew something was going to happen, the stock market reports for one.

Was Bush, or his pupeteers involved by the way?  Was it to pre-empt an attack on Iraq?  Why did they not say it was Iraqis then, rather than neo-con marras the Sauds?  Was it to get people on-side with the new administration?  If so, why was Bush left sitting like a complete plank for ages waiting for someone to tell him what to do, rather than immediately on the scene doing his Captain America impression?  There's more holes in this theory than the toons defence.''

Answered the first bit above. For a long time they did say that AL QUEIDA WAS LINKED WITH IRAQ it is well documented by speeches of various Govt spokesman especially DICK CHENEY. I don't think it was an attempt to simply get people on the ''side of the admin'', definetely not on the side of BUSH anyway. I agree he came out of it very badly and interestingly was protected during THAT DAY very badly...I think more than anything it was a WARNING TO THE ADMIN. But from whom I have no idea.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:24:04 PM
This place should have a 9/11 forum tbh
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:28:49 PM
This place should have a 9/11 forum tbh

What a good idea... along with an Israel one.  Get rid of the clutter. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:32:25 PM
I am pretty excited at the moment, and I want to share this excitement with fellow members.

The power of prayer has been questioned by many, but I have proof that prayer does in fact work, although God does not fulfil 100% of a prayer, he does try his best to get as close as possible. That he never fulfils 100% does not diminish his power or the effects and truth of prayer, as he has a difficult job due to conflicting prayers.

I wrote the following:

Quote
Re: Telephone Telepathy
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2006, 02:37:12 PM »

There is proof that prayer works. Whenever a boxer wins a title fight he always thanks god, or whenever an American athlete wins a gold. Bush must have prayed to be president too.

I pray that Bluff will come back and post a link from today's Daily Mail article about the 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

God's answer was:
Quote
BlufPurdi
Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
« Reply #37 on: Today at 01:29:22 PM »

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers

A list of those involved.  They are not all crackpots, to be fair.  They make good arguments, that are ignored because people don't want to listen, as they've accepted the current version of events.

Sure he was 9 days late (he is busy), and Bluf did not post a link about the scholars from the Daily Mail article, but this does not mean prayer does not work, for essentially I asked God to make Bluf post about the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", and he did.

This is a beautiful day for all of us, I feel like running to the local grocers and lobbing a grenade at the grocerer while shouting "God eats grapes!", as he's defying God's plan by selling apples which we all know is against his wishes.



Regarding those scholars, of the full members I am most convinced by:

1. Kevin Barrett (FM)
Folklore

2. John Bylsma (FM)
French language and culture

3. Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT    (What subject is that?)

4. Davidson Loehr (FM)
Theology; Philosophy of science; Philosophy of religion  (We need a theologist to explain how God made Bush blow up the towers)

5. Raymond Munro (FM)
Professor of Theatre, Clark University  (We need him to re-enact the scene for us)

6. Larry Burk (FM)
Radiology, Medical hypnosis (You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy, now repeat after me "Bush blew up the twin towers to get oil from Iraq)


These guys are doing a great job, and I admire the humility of those that don't state where they are scholars, especially Mr John Bylsma.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:35:27 PM
 :lol:

Considering how many are on that list, you've picked suspiciously few, my dear.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:38:07 PM
Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:39:59 PM
Excuse me I want a refund on the last 15 mins of my life.

I have a simple straightforward question for you Perky.

Why? what extra was gained by blowing up the towers after flying two Boeings into them? did the organisers think "Ye knaa, if we just fly two commercial airliners into the towers killing all the passengers, many hundreds in the buildings and also on the ground then people wont really take notice will they? what we need to do is then blow the towers up as well, kill more but that way we can give the conspiracy cocks stuff to work on"

Fruitloops the lot of ye.  :roll:

Site bought by Silverstein from Port authority for $4bn some months before and insurance taken out. As they collpased the pay out was $7bn. That motivation enough for ye pud?

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

Because Islamic terrorists couldn't conceivably place detonation devices in specific places?  Whereas you can fly planes into it, then use that as the reason they fell, but really they fell due to pre-planned explosives?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:41:40 PM

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how physics proves it couldn't have just been planes which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:43:45 PM
I personally can only go on what I saw and what I saw was two planes fly into the WTC and then them collapse on themselves like a planned demolition. There is no doubt in my mind some mad Arabs with stanley knives hijacked the planes but I wouldn't be at all suprised  if the government knew about this and simply failed to act for several reasons.

People get all flustered about trying to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy. If you want a higher soap box to preach from then just have a quick look at the Oklahoma City Bombing in '95. Tonnes of firm evidence backing up the fact it wasn't what it seemed.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:46:27 PM
''The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how it wouldn't happen, which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to. ''
 
The failure to quote link conspiracy? :lol:

I read the link, it was a good one, but no different from the 15 or so others I've read. Very raitonal and dismissive. Of course it could all be true (the official version), so why the reluctance to let independant analysts look at the site? And why the delaying (some 8 months) before Bush even condescended to the enquiry? These are the things that make me curious. Maybe that's just me. We can take a bet if you like that the official story will change in the next 3 years?
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:47:48 PM

Ok then, if thats the case then reverse the question. Why fly two commercial airliners into them? why not just fill it with explosives, and blow them up? still blame the Islamic terrorists but save yourself a whole load of hassle in the process.

The usual response to such questions is "Don't ask me, ask the perps!" as above, followed by some faulty science about how physics proves it couldn't have just been planes which is aready adequately debunked in the link I posted which Parky removed from the things he was replying to.
And you've all chomped tbh. He's having a larf imo
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Jimburst on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:56:09 PM
Yep, there are people with practically the entire alphabet after their name who say global warming is a myth, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is false and aliens are abducting texans and probing them.  I don't believe them either.

Aliens etc - astro-physicists have worked out the probability that they exist using complex mathematical models and basic probability theory. Its Billions and billions to one on that they exist.

* Note to self - stop coming over as a bit of a t***.

but the billions of years it would take for them to get here would mean that they have a TINY window of opportunity to get here and find us evolved enough to report on the probings, while they would have to, on their own planet, evolve sufficiently to make working cryogenics and REALLY f***ing FAST spaceships, target our planet and have an interest in our vastly inferior race... first ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Friday 15 September 2006, 03:58:03 PM
did it really look like a planned demolition?

it looks more like the top falls onto the bottom at the point where the planes entered:

(http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/911/wtc-collapse-01.jpg)

so not a straight-down collapse, in fact the collapse took out some nearby buildings too, and made some damaged beyond repair (130 liberty st). you can tell that it collapsed more at one side than the other, cos the steel lattice at one side stayed erect for up to 15 storeys after the collapse.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:07:00 PM
Quote
BlufGrandma
Considering how many are on that list, you've picked suspiciously few, my dear.

My nan talks like that, maybe you two are friends?

Here's a task for you grandma: how many on the list are structural engineers, what %? how many have had their theory published in academic peer review journals to ensure reliability?

Some have defined themselves as physicists, physics is a broad subject, it does not means they are experts in all sub categories of physics, such as structural engineering which is what is required in regards to explaining the tower collapse.

An I.T expert may have some knowledge of programming, but he's not an expert in programming, a programmer is. Programming is a category within I.T, and so is networking, so is web design.

Come on grandma, you have to ask yourself why so many on the list are not even physicists. Once you've done that, ask yourself why you needed to adopt Parky's grandma character "my dear".
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Stubbs on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:35:01 PM
Parky's outlandish drivel on this board, including his conspiracy thoeries are cringeworthy.

Parky hails Castro as a legend, hates America with a passion and defends Islamic terrorists who deliberately murder civillians.

I guess that makes him pretty well qualified to offer credible, well-argued debate on 9/11, huh?

In my opinion, you're a marxist fruitcake who's a few cans short of a six-pack.  blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:42:36 PM
what's the point of the planes if they have explosives placed inside the building?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:46:50 PM
If the buildings came down without the planes...They would have to explain how terrorists had that much time and access to such a prominent building. The way the buildings were constructed with the 12 pillar central steel core, it couldn't be levelled with a truck bomb or summat....Many charges have to be placed at key points on the internal frame, all this takes time.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:47:12 PM
what's the point of the planes if they have explosives placed inside the building?

I suppose it would be much harder to explain how terrorists were able to rig explosives got into a category 1, high security building than just saying they twocked some planes and flew them into the WTC.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Keefaz on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:52:14 PM
did it really look like a planned demolition?

it looks more like the top falls onto the bottom at the point where the planes entered:

(http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/911/wtc-collapse-01.jpg)

so not a straight-down collapse, in fact the collapse took out some nearby buildings too, and made some damaged beyond repair (130 liberty st). you can tell that it collapsed more at one side than the other, cos the steel lattice at one side stayed erect for up to 15 storeys after the collapse.

Aheah... fake.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 04:55:56 PM
Quote
BlufGrandma
Considering how many are on that list, you've picked suspiciously few, my dear.

My nan talks like that, maybe you two are friends?

Yeah.

Here's a task for you grandma: how many on the list are structural engineers, what %? how many have had their theory published in academic peer review journals to ensure reliability?

Some have defined themselves as physicists, physics is a broad subject, it does not means they are experts in all sub categories of physics, such as structural engineering which is what is required in regards to explaining the tower collapse.

An I.T expert may have some knowledge of programming, but he's not an expert in programming, a programmer is. Programming is a category within I.T, and so is networking, so is web design.

Come on grandma, you have to ask yourself why so many on the list are not even physicists. Once you've done that, ask yourself why you needed to adopt Parky's grandma character "my dear".


Zero, I imagine, the way you've snatched at this.  However, does that make what has been published by the site wrong?  Forget whether it is, just that, because they aren't structural engineers, they must be wrong?  BlueStar's site was interesting, and tried (successfully?) to debunk theories, but we'll see on that.

And I called you my dear, because the Aliens told me to.  That might well be Parky...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Elephant on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:08:40 PM
did it really look like a planned demolition?

it looks more like the top falls onto the bottom at the point where the planes entered:

(http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/911/wtc-collapse-01.jpg)

so not a straight-down collapse, in fact the collapse took out some nearby buildings too, and made some damaged beyond repair (130 liberty st). you can tell that it collapsed more at one side than the other, cos the steel lattice at one side stayed erect for up to 15 storeys after the collapse.

Aheah... fake.

Seconded.

That picture is fake.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:09:21 PM
''And I called you my dear, because the Aliens told me too.  That might well be Parky...'' Blufatino


 :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:11:51 PM
sorry elephant, keefaz, but that's how it happened.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SrSuu0fw1mI

suppose that's a fake too  :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Elephant on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:13:19 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if that was fake too tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:15:30 PM
My take on 9/11

The CIA were complicit in some way.

The terrorists were al qaida operatives.

The towers could have been rigged to collpase in such an event as the most economically and operationally efficient way to deal with a major attack. From a security point of view it could be viewed as a good thing they collapsed then rather than continued to burn with a couple of planes hanging out the side. Imagine trying to install the neccessary explosives to demolish them safely AFTER the attack!!!!!! Anyone thought of that yet????????

Silverstein is a dodgy f***er.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:20:11 PM
sorry elephant, keefaz, but that's how it happened.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SrSuu0fw1mI

suppose that's a fake too  :roll:

Agreed, it's not fake.  Although, the photo looks weird, for whatever reason.  One buidling clearly toppled to the side, that was due to the plane hitting more to the side then the first impact which was pretty much the centre.  The top part of the building falling to the side though doesn't mean it couldn't have started falling due to controlled explosions though. 

Infact, if that was falling to the side, which it clearly was, why didn't it just fall off?  Surely it wouldn't have been placing all its weight on the floors below? 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Lagerstedt on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:20:24 PM
Exactly who is this Silverstein?

Just read that he insured the buildings for a couple of hundred million dollars six months prior to the attack. He made around 4-6 billion dollars on that insurance..

Is that for real or is that just pure bullshit?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:24:44 PM
My take on 9/11

The CIA were complicit in some way. - Agreed.

The terrorists were al qaida operatives. - Agreed.

The towers could have been rigged to collpase in such an event as the most economically and operationally efficient way to deal with a major attack. From a security point of view it could be viewed as a good thing they collapsed then rather than continued to burn with a couple of planes hanging out the side. Imagine trying to install the neccessary explosives to demolish them safely AFTER the attack!!!!!! Anyone thought of that yet???????? - Good point.

Silverstein is a dodgy f***er. - Agreed.

The lack of financial support for the commission looking into 9/11 is also something to be suspicious about.  More money was given to the investigations into Clinton and his blowjobs, than the greatest attack on America in the modern era.  It was also delayed for a bizarre amount of time.  The man that headed the commission Lee H. Hamilton also believes they were set up to fail.  Given the delays and lack of funds.  He also admits that he thinks the official version of events will change over the decades.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:25:31 PM
Exactly who is this Silverstein?

Just read that he insured the buildings for a couple of hundred million dollars six months prior to the attack. He made around 4-6 billion dollars on that insurance..

Is that for real or is that just pure bullshit?

That's for real.  No conspiracies there, just search his name, it's all 'FACT!'
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 05:54:41 PM
Chix:

''My take on 9/11

The CIA were complicit in some way. Don't agree, mainly because the CIA were the victims of swinging cuts afterwards and also took the most criticism. This organisation is geared to survive and wouldn't bring this on themselves. One
CELL OF THE CIA...Perhaps.

The terrorists were al qaida operatives. Broadly agree although some would have been with the security services, who's I don't know. Others would have been told they were part of an excercise and wouldn't have known jack s*** till the last few minutes.

The towers could have been rigged to collpase in such an event as the most economically and operationally efficient way to deal with a major attack. From a security point of view it could be viewed as a good thing they collapsed then rather than continued to burn with a couple of planes hanging out the side. Imagine trying to install the neccessary explosives to demolish them safely AFTER the attack!!!!!! Anyone thought of that yet????????VERY GOOD POINT AND YET another example of your fine mind.

Silverstein is a dodgy f***er.'' One of the dodgiest. People are still looking for the gold that was apparently kept under one of the towers.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Lagerstedt on Friday 15 September 2006, 06:00:38 PM
Exactly who is this Silverstein?

Just read that he insured the buildings for a couple of hundred million dollars six months prior to the attack. He made around 4-6 billion dollars on that insurance..

Is that for real or is that just pure bullshit?

That's for real.  No conspiracies there, just search his name, it's all 'FACT!'

I mean, are there any evidence of an insurance like that?

For the record, I'm not much for conspiracies and especially not in this case. People are talking about USA faked the moon landing, which I'm fine with. But 9/11, with thousands of casualties, you got to be more careful. I find all this conspiracy talk rather disrespectful to be honest...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 15 September 2006, 06:04:32 PM
I agree Lager, I don't think the civilian Govt had anything to do with it. Too risky with too many chances to get found out.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Friday 15 September 2006, 06:38:42 PM
Quote
Bluf
Zero, I imagine, the way you've snatched at this.  However, does that make what has been published by the site wrong?  Forget whether it is, just that, because they aren't structural engineers, they must be wrong?

It makes whatever they write unlikely to be true and unreliable due to their lack of expertise in terms of experience and/or qualifications and/or publications in academic journals etc.

What exactly can a Folklore scholar know about structural engineering? about as much as you or I. I know nothing at all about structural engineering.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Friday 15 September 2006, 08:04:45 PM
Chix:

''My take on 9/11

The CIA were complicit in some way. Don't agree, mainly because the CIA were the victims of swinging cuts afterwards and also took the most criticism. This organisation is geared to survive and wouldn't bring this on themselves. One
CELL OF THE CIA...Perhaps.

The terrorists were al qaida operatives. Broadly agree although some would have been with the security services, who's I don't know. Others would have been told they were part of an excercise and wouldn't have known jack s*** till the last few minutes.

The towers could have been rigged to collpase in such an event as the most economically and operationally efficient way to deal with a major attack. From a security point of view it could be viewed as a good thing they collapsed then rather than continued to burn with a couple of planes hanging out the side. Imagine trying to install the neccessary explosives to demolish them safely AFTER the attack!!!!!! Anyone thought of that yet????????VERY GOOD POINT AND YET another example of your fine mind.

Silverstein is a dodgy f***er.'' One of the dodgiest. People are still looking for the gold that was apparently kept under one of the towers.

I love this guy ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Knightrider on Friday 15 September 2006, 08:29:31 PM
what's the point of the planes if they have explosives placed inside the building?

To shock and awe. To create the drama that was 9/11. Had they just pressed the button to bring them down (17 seconds to collapse) it wouldn't have had the same impact.

Just assuming BTW, I don't know where I stand on the whole 9/11 topic, much less the controlled demolition theory. I will say this, however, we would be foolish to write off opponents of the official story as crack-pots and mad conspiracy theorists, especially when there are valid and legitimate issues being raised by professionals. I for one would not be shocked or surprised if I were to one day learn that 9/11 was one big staged event by the US/and others. They are more than capable and they've masterminded far worse, let us not forget.

All I know is that the whole event prior, during and after stinks from the top to the bottom. If pushed I would say I'm skeptical of all or any "official" line and having watched the whole event live, I just don't buy the "bad guys did it" line. They had help and lots of it in my opinion.

I don't believe we are at war with terror either, there are other agendas directing that, but for what end, who knows.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Keefaz on Friday 15 September 2006, 09:31:49 PM
Tbh, I'd be a lot more worried about terrorists if I thought they could rig one of the most populated and used buildings in the world with explosives. In comparison, hijacking a plane is (or was) a piece of p*ss that any of us could do.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Bellers on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:16:56 PM
I though for a long, long time the 9/11 attacks was a cover up. It gave the US the chance to save over a billion of dollars and at the same time it got the public wrapped round their finger, now all they have to do is shout "9/11" and they have the right to as they will. The way the buildings collapsed, the external damage to the plane that didn't make, it smacks of a US cover up...

Now I have a different point of view, whether I care less or no longer believe it was a scam, I don't know, but I believe the way the buildings collapsed could be explained by the melting of the upper structuer caused which a domino effect down the tower. However there is still a lot to be answered, why is there clear evidence the flight heading for the white house was shot down? And why was the pentagon evacuated before it was hit? etc, etc...

Yes, the US have a massive amount of explaining to do, but all they'll do is continue to fob us off with excuses. There's no way the truth will ever come out and as usal the questions will go answered as the US f*** off smelling of roses...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Knightrider on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:28:23 PM
What gets me, why the World Trade Center? Why not the White House? Why not Capitol Hill? Why not Buckinham Palace? This is what gets me about so-called terrorism, if you're hell bent on killing as many people as you can, there are more attractive targets in that sense. If you want to crush your enemy, why not top Bush, or Blair, it would be far easier to do than hijack a plane and flying it into a building.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: smoggeordie on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:32:45 PM
Purely for effect? Not seeing the towers day in, day out, seeing a permenant hole in the skyline is a daily reminder for Americans that terrorism is still out there.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:38:24 PM
The thing about terrorists is that their target is usually innocent people. That's my interpretation of it anyways. They very rarely target an important death like Bush or Blair although that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was allegedly headed for the White House.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:39:40 PM
What gets me, why the World Trade Center? Why not the White House? Why not Capitol Hill? Why not Buckinham Palace? This is what gets me about so-called terrorism, if you're hell bent on killing as many people as you can, there are more attractive targets in that sense. If you want to crush your enemy, why not top Bush, or Blair, it would be far easier to do than hijack a plane and flying it into a building.

Partly because there wasn't a massive insurance claim to cash in on, perhaps?  And to fair, there's not one 'terrorist' attack, in one go, that has acheived more in death, for the apparent price.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Knightrider on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:44:53 PM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:47:31 PM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

I think it was a bonus. If there was indeed no bombs planted then they could not have been sure that flying the planes into the WTC buildings would have brought them down. I think it was their intention to just crash it into the business and cause some considerable damage.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: smoggeordie on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:47:31 PM
Doesn't seem random to me. Two huge buildings, seen every day by millions of people, famous all round the world, thousands of lives inside. Seems like an ideal terrorist target.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:49:25 PM
wasn't the WTC built in a way which would have made it terrorist proof to an extent with the metal supports crossing over each other? or did I heard wrong.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Friday 15 September 2006, 10:53:33 PM
wasn't the WTC built in a way which would have made it terrorist proof to an extent with the metal supports crossing over each other? or did I heard wrong.

It was made in three different sections, to prevent a collapse like what happened. 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: OmahaNUFC on Friday 15 September 2006, 11:17:14 PM
Do you idiots really believe the Bush administration is competent enough to keep such a vast conspiracy secret?  The secret CIA prisons was leaked, wiretapping was leaked, Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent was leaked.  C'mon.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: David Icke - Son of God on Friday 15 September 2006, 11:39:30 PM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

Completely crippling the US economy by targeting the heart of the financial district of NY, killing thousands of people and huge amounts of destruction reason enough?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:22:46 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

Completely crippling the US economy by targeting the heart of the financial district of NY, killing thousands of people and huge amounts of destruction reason enough?

Can someone remind me how the crippling economic effects manifested themselves?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:40:27 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:41:39 AM
You're all wrong tbh...it was a missile of course.  :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hIv7AQrhZe4&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:43:19 AM
Knight, The WTC was always a terrorist target, Bin Laden tried to blow it up in 95 i think? A bomb was meant to be in driven into the bassment in a van.

It is also a symbol of american wealth and its role in the western driven global economy. I therefore believe that they had to have planned in some way for it actually getting hit. Its standard security procedure to think about the aftermath of an attack.

The WTC was an ongoing risk and it is not inconceivable that they planned the clean up beforehand. It was an nice isolated site in Manhattan. I've been to ground zero and its not that big an area. Remarkable given the ingerdients inolved. Imagine the damage done to the area if it has TOPPLED11!!!!

OMG OMG i've solved 9/11

 :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Wullie on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:53:27 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Is pretty much what I was going to say. The WTC was the perfect hit. Symbolically, financially, politically and simply of terms of mass murder.

One point to be made is the absolute certainty that people would see it round the world forever more. Fly a plane into any other of the mentioned places, all you get is the pictures and footage of the smoking building, or some shitty CCTV of the event like the Pentagon. Into the WTC however, you've got two massively symbolic buildings right next to each other, essentially counted as one iconic building. Fly a plane into one of them and you can guarantee within 5 minutes, you've got nearly the whole planet watching the coverage and seeing the next one go in live.

The image of that second plane entering the camera shot bound for the second tower while we watch the other one burn is an image which I'm sure will stay with all of us until we die, it still sends a horrible shiver down my spine. I don't think there's a building/buildings in the world that would have been a better hit.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 12:57:53 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Hence having explosives to ensure they didnt topple and fell in a straight line would have been an excellent defence against such a threat.

O







M








G



 :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:20:47 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Hence having explosives to ensure they didnt topple and fell in a straight line would have been an excellent defence against such a threat.

O







M








G



 :lol:

 :roll: :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:27:20 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Hence having explosives to ensure they didnt topple and fell in a straight line would have been an excellent defence against such a threat.


 :lol:

 :roll: :lol:

Interesting that me you and wullie had 3 slightly different slants but basically the same reply to HTT's retardedness all at the same time.  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:29:30 AM
And if it wasn't an aeroplane which hit the Pentagon...then what the f*ck happened to the passengers??? Load of b*llocks man. It was 4 aeroplanes hijacked and crashed, no bombs, no government cover-ups, etc.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:33:49 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Hence having explosives to ensure they didnt topple and fell in a straight line would have been an excellent defence against such a threat.


 :lol:

 :roll: :lol:

Interesting that me you and wullie had 3 slightly different slants but basically the same reply to HTT's retardedness all at the same time.  :lol:

great minds think alike, and fools never differ. one of those will do. along with stating the obvious.  bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:34:28 AM
And if it wasn't an aeroplane which hit the Pentagon...then what the f*ck happened to the passengers??? Load of b*llocks man. It was 4 aeroplanes hijacked and crashed, no bombs, no government cover-ups, etc.

The thread is about whether the WTC was rigged as a security measure in advance of the attacks as they

a) Knew it was the US's highest risk target and therefore planned for the aftermath of an attack and

b) A toppling building is much more dangerous and difficult to clean up than one that falls in its own area, like a demolition.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Optimistic Nut on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:36:01 AM
And the same people arguing this point, also claim the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, so where are these people, and where did this plane go?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:37:03 AM
And the same people arguing this point, also claim the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, so where are these people, and where did this plane go?

I'm not.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:39:52 AM
Op' Nut likes to lump us all together.  If you believe one theory, you believe them all.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:44:32 AM
Op' Nut likes to lump us all together.  If you believe one theory, you believe them all.

the conspiracy theorists don't even agree with each other!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:45:52 AM
I know, that's what I hate.  There's so much mis-information, and people pounce on it, much like the above, as if it has just disproved the original point of the thread.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:46:11 AM
Maybe I'm being ignorant here like but do we even know why the World Trade Centers were targeted, they do seem rather random, and did the hijackers mean to bring them down or was that just a bonus?

yep, you're being ignorant  tongue.gif

WTC towers were amongst the most iconic and famous buildings in the world and symbolised the US, if not the global, economy. they also held 50,000 workers in the complex so the death toll would be huge and the sight spectacular. you must remember that the towers were also attacked in the early 90s, when the plan was to topple one onto the other. this time they succeeded in demolishing the towers, though obl apparently wanted to create a domino effect to wipe out more of lower manhattan, which was a bit optimistic on his part.

as for why they didn't target the capitol or the white house, they did! the one plane downed in penn was heading for dc and apparently towards one of these buildings. don't forget that they also hit the Pentagon, HQ of the american military.

Hence having explosives to ensure they didnt topple and fell in a straight line would have been an excellent defence against such a threat.


 :lol:

 :roll: :lol:

Interesting that me you and wullie had 3 slightly different slants but basically the same reply to HTT's retardedness all at the same time.  :lol:

great minds think alike, and fools never differ. one of those will do. along with stating the obvious.  bluewink.gif

It were the slants that were interesting not that we're all cleverer than Night Knight.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:47:37 AM
I know, that's what I hate.  There's so much mis-information, and people pounce on it, much like the above, as if it has just disproved the original point of the thread.

as if it disproved anything. 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:50:43 AM
^slant an is apt word considering what we were talking about  :lol:

bluf, aye, that is what Bluestar said on the first page. i wouldn't expect conspiracists to agree with each other. they come out with a lot of speculative bollocks but it is all thrown out there to try and explain gaps in our understanding or to synthesise aspects of an event that otherwise don't fit together. it is not so much the wacky conclusions that theorists attempt to come up with that are interesting, but the questions they raise.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:51:48 AM
"The thread is about whether the WTC was rigged as a security measure in advance of the attacks as they

a) Knew it was the US's highest risk target and therefore planned for the aftermath of an attack and

b) A toppling building is much more dangerous and difficult to clean up than one that falls in its own area, like a demolition." Chix


.....Bingo!!!

The people who helped the terrorists also knew they could take the buildings down. Simple really. :lol:

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:52:21 AM
Loose Change is the greatest b****** ever.  As it's the conspiracy material always referred to in the media.  I bet those f***ing physicists are kicking themselves they couldn't make a fancy video with a catchy tune playing throughout it.  f***ing amateurs.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:55:06 AM
"The thread is about whether the WTC was rigged as a security measure in advance of the attacks as they

a) Knew it was the US's highest risk target and therefore planned for the aftermath of an attack and

b) A toppling building is much more dangerous and difficult to clean up than one that falls in its own area, like a demolition." Chix


.....Bingo!!!

The people who helped the terrorists also knew they could take the buildings down. Simple really. :lol:



These people being who exactly Parky?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:57:44 AM
The one's that told them to pay cash for first class seats 20 min before departure. bluedead.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 01:59:55 AM
The one's that told them to pay cash for first class seats 20 min before departure. bluedead.gif

alex would say you were taking the p*ss at this point. How did you hear of such conjecture?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:05:02 AM
This is what makes me laugh there are people on here (not you) who have read virtually nothing about 9/11 and are prepared to argue the toss over what happenned. That is why it is nice to have you on a thread like this as you have quite an open mind. Yes that is how they bought their tickets.
Well wether it is a hosted project (including secret service elements) or plain old terrorist nutters, the last thing you want to leave behind is a paper trail ie your credit card/bank details for the authorities to ferret over after the event. God knows what they might find! :wink:

Anyway I'm very keen on the idea that key terrorist targets already have pre-defined security procedures in place including demolition. Obviously this isn't summat you want to broadcast is it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:10:07 AM
This is what makes me laugh there are people on here (not you) who have read virtually nothing about 9/11 and are prepared to argue the toss over what happenned. That is why it is nice to have you on a thread like this as you have quite an open mind. Yes that is how they bought their tickets.

Anyway I'm very keen on the idea that key terrorist targets already have pre-defined security procedures in place including demolition. Obviously this isn't summat you want to broadcast is it.


You didnt answer the question and tried to deflect me with flattery. I think thats because you want me to bring up the CIA again?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:11:15 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:13:37 AM
I've modifyied it. :lol:

How they bought their tickets was buried in an article about the surveillance video (I have only ever seen one) they tend not to release this stuff if they can help it. There is a big info lockdown after these events....Gives the perpretators time to get everything straight I guess.
I still don't think it was the CIA proper and maybe ONE rougue element taking instruction.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:19:21 AM
I've modifyied it. :lol:

How they bought their tickets was buried in an article about the surveillance video (I have only ever seen one) they tend not to release this stuff if they can help it. There is a big info lockdown after these events....Gives the perpretators time to get everything straight I guess.
I still don't think it was the CIA proper and maybe ONE rougue element taking instruction.

Then you need to read up on CIA obstruction of FBI operatives over a 6 month period before the attack. FBI are responsible for  tracking people on the ground and were not able to or were not told to by the CIA who are responsible for identifying threats across the border. This is documented. Why? Internal politics is blamed now.

There, i said it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:27:20 AM
That is correct, but I haven't read much about it. Of course Osama is like a celebrity in CIA circles. The deal wouldn't have been too hard to strike I guess, especially with all that free and protected kidney dialasis on the line.

One other less mentioned fact is that one of the buidings housed one of the largest on-going anti-fraud in Govt inquiries in the history of America. They had paperwork and files in there going back to the 70's and were putting together some kind of big hit on irregular budgets and transactions in the Govt and fraudalent declerations. Looks like they killed more than one stone with those birds. :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:50:38 AM
That is correct, but I haven't read much about it. Of course Osama is like a celebrity in CIA circles. The deal wouldn't have been too hard to strike I guess, especially with all that free and protected kidney dialasis on the line.

One other less mentioned fact is that one of the buidings housed one of the largest on-going anti-fraud in Govt inquiries in the history of America. They had paperwork and files in there going back to the 70's and were putting together some kind of big hit on irregular budgets and transactions in the Govt and fraudalent declerations. Looks like they killed more than one stone with those birds. :wink:

That should all be hyphenated tbh.

Its the murkiest stench-trench in history.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: smoggeordie on Saturday 16 September 2006, 10:01:04 AM
TBH I think it was Aliens

Proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaRKm8p9f9A&NR)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 10:04:29 AM
Bit of the old reversing the film trick eh. bluesleep.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Pip on Saturday 16 September 2006, 10:08:28 AM
Watched a 'truth about bin Laden' special on CNN a few weeks back and it confirmed the fact that WTC was targeted because it represented 'capitalism' and the financial wealth of America. The Pentagon was targeted because it represented the military strength of America and the White House was targeted because it represented 'democracy' or some s*** like that.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:12:05 PM
what's the point of the planes if they have explosives placed inside the building?


ahh but then we wouldn't have ANOTHER possible set of conspiracies
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:15:56 PM
I though for a long, long time the 9/11 attacks was a cover up. It gave the US the chance to save over a billion of dollars and at the same time it got the public wrapped round their finger, now all they have to do is shout "9/11" and they have the right to as they will. The way the buildings collapsed, the external damage to the plane that didn't make, it smacks of a US cover up...

Now I have a different point of view, whether I care less or no longer believe it was a scam, I don't know, but I believe the way the buildings collapsed could be explained by the melting of the upper structuer caused which a domino effect down the tower. However there is still a lot to be answered, why is there clear evidence the flight heading for the white house was shot down? And why was the pentagon evacuated before it was hit? etc, etc...

Yes, the US have a massive amount of explaining to do, but all they'll do is continue to fob us off with excuses. There's no way the truth will ever come out and as usal the questions will go answered as the US f*** off smelling of roses...

do you have any idea what they have spent since on the army in Iraq/Afcrapistan and on homeland defence initiatives? It's a damn sight more than $1bn
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:21:38 PM
Infact the whole idea was to spend spend spend!! bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:29:52 PM

(http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/911/wtc-collapse-01.jpg)


Bluf, Parky and anyone else who believe it was controlled demolition, please just explain this photo

Are you now suggested they rigged up such a sophisticatd system that would survive the impact and allow them to selectively detonate charges in the exact places that would be consistent with the pillars collapsing at the correct floors and the correct side?

And on a more simple note, why did they detonate the second impacted building first, if they are trying to simulate a meltdown? And how many casualites do you think they considered was acceptable, considering they let half the NYFD go into the building after impact? How do you think they calculated the length of time necessary to wait before pushing the button? Did they have access to the several experts now saying it wouldn't happen that way?

Watching your attempts at trying to use your understanding of structural mechanics to debunk reality is like watching a virgin fumble with a bra strap
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Aphrodite on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:36:34 PM

(http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/images/articles/911/wtc-collapse-01.jpg)


Bluf, Parky and anyone else who believe it was controlled demolition, please just explain this photo

Are you now suggested they rigged up such a sophisticatd system that would survive the impact and allow them to selectively detonate charges in the exact places that would be consistent with the pillars collapsing at the correct floors and the correct side?

And on a more simple note, why did they detonate the second impacted building first, if they are trying to simulate a meltdown? And how many casualites do you think they considered was acceptable, considering they let half the NYFD go into the building after impact? How do you think they calculated the length of time necessary to wait before pushing the button? Did they have access to the several experts now saying it wouldn't happen that way?

Watching your attempts at trying to use your understanding of structural mechanics to debunk reality is like watching a virgin fumble with a bra strap

:lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:45:54 PM
I don't have to explain anything, the truth will out whether it is next year or in 20 years...Either way...They are going to have to make up another story.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:47:03 PM
I don't have to explain anything, the truth will out whether it is next year or in 20 years...Either way...They are going to have to make up another story.

You are the instrument of your of own discreditation my dear man  bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:47:53 PM
 :lol:

Drat!! bluedead.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: STM on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:48:40 PM
Diana's death, JFK assasination and 911.

All have had conspiracy theories thrown at the truth. Why? because people don't want to believe that what happened actually happened.

The simplicty of it all is that Diana died in a car crash, Lee Harvey Oswald shot kennedy and islamic terroists were what cause those two buildings to collapse.

The terrosists refered to it as "The planes operation". If they or the american government ( bluelaugh.gif) detonated explosives in that building in order to create a collapse then they would have reffered to it as "blowing those bulidings up with explosives opertation".     
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 02:50:10 PM
Diana's death, JFK assasination and 911.

All have had conspiracy theories thrown at the truth. Why? because people don't want to believe that what happened actually happened.

The simplicty of it all is that Diana died in a car crash, Lee Harvey Oswald shot kennedy and islamic terroists were what cause those two buildings to collapse.

The terrosists refered to it as "The planes operation". If they or the american government ( bluelaugh.gif) detonated explosives in that building in order to create a collapse then they would have reffered to it as "blowing those bulidings up with explosives opertation".     

they're all such sensitive souls tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Saturday 16 September 2006, 03:25:18 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Saturday 16 September 2006, 03:42:11 PM
Quote

Parky
I don't have to explain anything

He has faith. Do you pray at all?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Saturday 16 September 2006, 05:17:44 PM
Quote

Parky
I don't have to explain anything

He has faith. Do you pray at all?

we'll tell you when you tell us your qualifications TBH
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 05:59:31 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.

experts?

OK lets deconstruct what the phyics expert says:




shot of a fireman saying the collapse looked like when you control demolish a building.

why wouldnt it? Both situations would look similar. Controlled demolition is 10% explosive 90% use of the buildings own momentum. Pure misrepresentation of an on the spot observation

claims from bystanders of hearing a series of explosions

or the sound of floors hitting each other in sequence? could you tell the difference?, have you ever heard a controlled demolition or natural building collapse? Idiotic to include this footage as supporting evidence

there are 'squib' signatures emmanating for the signs of the building as it collapses.

A more simpler solution is that this is air being blown out of windows as the floors collapse. I also refer to my above post, regarding a control system for detonating each floor in sequence

there are white smoke clouds held up as signature signs of exlosives

wouldn't stand up to any kind of challenge, an unsupportable claim

all of the debris from the crime scene was removed quickly to hide evidence

a simple calculation and consideration of the condition of the site renders keeping all debris in place until every piece is examined by experts a la a plane crash before being removed as a complete non starter. A fantasy wish. Do they honestly think there would be any evidence of an expertly carried out secret demolition left in the debris?

there was no attempt to reconstruct the building in the same way a downed plane is rebuilt in a hangar

putting aside the fact no-one at the time disputed the cause of the collapes, unlike in an air crash, do they honestly think you could isolate and reconstruct each floor? How would they know what part was what. Plane parts are extremely identifiable precisely for this reason. Buildings are not built with this in mind. Again, a fantasy non-starter

A claim that NIST have only retained 200 articles of the debris

Surely in 200 pieces of debris there would be evidence of demolition. As part of a crime scene the FBI would have tested for explosive residue, not to mention the numerous environmental studies that have collected dust samples due to concerns over toxicity of the aftermath. Any one of these could easily be tested by the conspiracy theorists.

evidence could only be retrieved from landfill, not the actual site

Again as above this is not an unresonable expectation. And which part of removing it to a landfill removes any evidence of demolition? It's not as if the entire debris was cleared, dumped in a landfill and grassed over in a matter of weeks. Clearance is ongoing as we speak

the kerosene would have only initiated a fire, not sustained it. The rest was made up of 'fire-code' approved items.

Fire resistance regulations are not absolute. Something signed of as fire resistant is not unflammable. Tests do not cater for the conditions of a kerosene fireball, they are tested with single flames in controlled conditions. There were plenty of combustibe entities in the fabric of the building and assoiated services. The amount of paper and carpboard was immense. The fire was spread over a large area and a few floors. The radiation from this environment would be immense, adding to temperature increases by conduction

The smoke emmanating from the building was black, a sign of an in-efficient (i.e. not hot) fire.

Black smoke is also a sign of toxic materials such as plastics and fibres being burned. Smoke is not a reliable indicator of the conditions inside the building

The core was made of steel designed to withstand high loads, ergo, it should not have collapsed (presumably even if they accept part of it melted)

An A-Level student knows that there is a difference between static and dynamic loading. The momentum of collpasing floors above would exceed the designed static limit by miles.

The core is designed to be flame proof.

In the event of a small fire spreading normally, not an instantaneous fireball that pushed much of the contents fo the building into the central areas

The core is designed to not act as a chimney. So far as they know, the sealing measures worked

This desing is in the predicted event of a small fire starting in an office and spreading normally. This is not the same as an instant infernoe over several floors, creating some very nice big air holes in 3 sides of the builidng. The smoke patters from the videos clearly show there was a convectione effectup through to the roof. While probably not contributing much, office workers smashed many windows also. There is direct testimony from firefighters that the burning jet fuel penetrated to the ground floors thyrough the lift shafts starting subsidiary fires. This does not sound like a hermetic seal to me

Theories and simulations by a computer scientist of floor collapse as the initial casue of collapse are contested

They have actually been rejected by the official account also

There have been no simulations of core melting

There have been no simulations of demolition, or supporting the theory that the core would not fall straight down. Surely one of these experts could knock up a simulation supporting their claims?

The core beams would not have collapsed with the rest of the structure - they were destroyed with explosives. If not, they would not have fallen straight down but toppled sideways

Do they honestly believe that after a natural collapse, there would be 40 odd steel columns still standing 100 floors high? Patently ridiculous. The subsidiary structures of the building are all attached to the core, pure momentum of the falling mass would overcome any strctural joints in the core

There is too much instant concrete dust from floors etc to be from a natural collapse. It would have been retained by carpets etc. This must have come from exploding concrete.

The concrete is not part of the strutural core. Why would they need to blow it up? How would they manage to place explosives under the carpts of the offices? The dust came from everywhere, did they literally place explosives in every concrete part of every floor/outer columns/exterior?

All concrete was destroyed in the collapse - this would only have occured with explosives

They seem to be supporting their flawed theory above, that the entire structure was wired to blow. This is not how controlled demoltion works, and is extremely uncontrollable.

Everything in the building was vapourised, computers etc - this was due to explosives. (identified by examining the debris for the metals used in the circuit boards, though strangely enough not detecting explosive residue)

They are suggesting that 80 floors of concrete would not pulverise a plastic PC? There were no human remains left larger than a hand etc. All human remains recovered would have been port mortem examined, did these have signs of explosives? Do they have any idea of the amount of explosive required to reduce everything to dust? Literally a block of semtex placed every few metres at least. Again this goes against all principles of controlled demolition

One of the towers collapsed from the very top. This would not be possible without explovies

I can't see from the video anything to support this. If it did happen, why would you place explosives at the top? Again another case of incomplete analysis of the evidence. The claim does not dovetail with any of their other claims.

evacuation drills were held a week before the attacks - this implies at least someone knew something was going to happen.

So these terrible people who can collaberate with terrorists do have feelings? If so, why demolish the buildings after half the NYFD have entereed the builidng. Is holding an evactuation dril really a sign that something knew something? Why would they not just blow the whistle? Did they kill more than they thought they would and are now feelig terribly guilty? Another throwaway piece of 'evidence' used to shore up a collective argument

There were power cuts a week before the attack, which ostensibly covered the placement of explosives

As is explained above, the amount of work to rig this supposed explosion could never have been done in this timeframe. Even the secret placement of enough charged for a proper controlled demolition would require months. And another thing, the sheer number of people required to do this would be ridiculous. Nakamoto Towers anyone? Quite apart from the fact the guy seems to not believe what he has just said. If so, why say it? Just another throwaway piece of evidence in the house of cards





As usual in conspiracy theories, no hard evidence is offered, just a collection of weak small arguments collected into a house of cards. Nothing is offered as proof, merely conjecture. Questions are asked of events without offereing possible alternatives that do not fit the 'theory'


I personally blame the fact that so few people are taking Physics at A-level anymore that there are enough people who can blindly accept these theories without challenging them, and are prepared to accept the opinions of contrary 'experts'
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Saturday 16 September 2006, 06:11:03 PM
Say again? :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Saturday 16 September 2006, 06:33:13 PM
Invicta

There are loads of sites that refute the conspiracy claims, why bother yourself?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 06:38:00 PM
Invicta

There are loads of sites that refute the conspiracy claims, why bother yourself?

when faced with stupidity you have to act

if you're not part of the solution...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 06:52:33 PM
Little does Vic know the U.S. Govt are planning on releasing 'new info' on 9/11 at the end of this year. :P
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:05:11 PM
Little does Vic know the U.S. Govt are planning on releasing 'new info' on 9/11 at the end of this year. :P

the explosives were placed by Iranians who knew about the plot, but thought they would give it an extra kick? and hence that's why we have to invade Iran
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:16:44 PM
OMG!! So that's how they're ganna do it!! bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:40:11 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.

experts?

OK lets deconstruct what the phyics expert says:




shot of a fireman saying the collapse looked like when you control demolish a building.

why wouldnt it? Both situations would look similar. Controlled demolition is 10% explosive 90% use of the buildings own momentum. Pure misrepresentation of an on the spot observation

claims from bystanders of hearing a series of explosions

or the sound of floors hitting each other in sequence? could you tell the difference?, have you ever heard a controlled demolition or natural building collapse? Idiotic to include this footage as supporting evidence

there are 'squib' signatures emmanating for the signs of the building as it collapses.

A more simpler solution is that this is air being blown out of windows as the floors collapse. I also refer to my above post, regarding a control system for detonating each floor in sequence

there are white smoke clouds held up as signature signs of exlosives

wouldn't stand up to any kind of challenge, an unsupportable claim

all of the debris from the crime scene was removed quickly to hide evidence

a simple calculation and consideration of the condition of the site renders keeping all debris in place until every piece is examined by experts a la a plane crash before being removed as a complete non starter. A fantasy wish. Do they honestly think there would be any evidence of an expertly carried out secret demolition left in the debris?

there was no attempt to reconstruct the building in the same way a downed plane is rebuilt in a hangar

putting aside the fact no-one at the time disputed the cause of the collapes, unlike in an air crash, do they honestly think you could isolate and reconstruct each floor? How would they know what part was what. Plane parts are extremely identifiable precisely for this reason. Buildings are not built with this in mind. Again, a fantasy non-starter

A claim that NIST have only retained 200 articles of the debris

Surely in 200 pieces of debris there would be evidence of demolition. As part of a crime scene the FBI would have tested for explosive residue, not to mention the numerous environmental studies that have collected dust samples due to concerns over toxicity of the aftermath. Any one of these could easily be tested by the conspiracy theorists.

evidence could only be retrieved from landfill, not the actual site

Again as above this is not an unresonable expectation. And which part of removing it to a landfill removes any evidence of demolition? It's not as if the entire debris was cleared, dumped in a landfill and grassed over in a matter of weeks. Clearance is ongoing as we speak

the kerosene would have only initiated a fire, not sustained it. The rest was made up of 'fire-code' approved items.

Fire resistance regulations are not absolute. Something signed of as fire resistant is not unflammable. Tests do not cater for the conditions of a kerosene fireball, they are tested with single flames in controlled conditions. There were plenty of combustibe entities in the fabric of the building and assoiated services. The amount of paper and carpboard was immense. The fire was spread over a large area and a few floors. The radiation from this environment would be immense, adding to temperature increases by conduction

The smoke emmanating from the building was black, a sign of an in-efficient (i.e. not hot) fire.

Black smoke is also a sign of toxic materials such as plastics and fibres being burned. Smoke is not a reliable indicator of the conditions inside the building

The core was made of steel designed to withstand high loads, ergo, it should not have collapsed (presumably even if they accept part of it melted)

An A-Level student knows that there is a difference between static and dynamic loading. The momentum of collpasing floors above would exceed the designed static limit by miles.

The core is designed to be flame proof.

In the event of a small fire spreading normally, not an instantaneous fireball that pushed much of the contents fo the building into the central areas

The core is designed to not act as a chimney. So far as they know, the sealing measures worked

This desing is in the predicted event of a small fire starting in an office and spreading normally. This is not the same as an instant infernoe over several floors, creating some very nice big air holes in 3 sides of the builidng. The smoke patters from the videos clearly show there was a convectione effectup through to the roof. While probably not contributing much, office workers smashed many windows also. There is direct testimony from firefighters that the burning jet fuel penetrated to the ground floors thyrough the lift shafts starting subsidiary fires. This does not sound like a hermetic seal to me

Theories and simulations by a computer scientist of floor collapse as the initial casue of collapse are contested

They have actually been rejected by the official account also

There have been no simulations of core melting

There have been no simulations of demolition, or supporting the theory that the core would not fall straight down. Surely one of these experts could knock up a simulation supporting their claims?

The core beams would not have collapsed with the rest of the structure - they were destroyed with explosives. If not, they would not have fallen straight down but toppled sideways

Do they honestly believe that after a natural collapse, there would be 40 odd steel columns still standing 100 floors high? Patently ridiculous. The subsidiary structures of the building are all attached to the core, pure momentum of the falling mass would overcome any strctural joints in the core

There is too much instant concrete dust from floors etc to be from a natural collapse. It would have been retained by carpets etc. This must have come from exploding concrete.

The concrete is not part of the strutural core. Why would they need to blow it up? How would they manage to place explosives under the carpts of the offices? The dust came from everywhere, did they literally place explosives in every concrete part of every floor/outer columns/exterior?

All concrete was destroyed in the collapse - this would only have occured with explosives

They seem to be supporting their flawed theory above, that the entire structure was wired to blow. This is not how controlled demoltion works, and is extremely uncontrollable.

Everything in the building was vapourised, computers etc - this was due to explosives. (identified by examining the debris for the metals used in the circuit boards, though strangely enough not detecting explosive residue)

They are suggesting that 80 floors of concrete would not pulverise a plastic PC? There were no human remains left larger than a hand etc. All human remains recovered would have been port mortem examined, did these have signs of explosives? Do they have any idea of the amount of explosive required to reduce everything to dust? Literally a block of semtex placed every few metres at least. Again this goes against all principles of controlled demolition

One of the towers collapsed from the very top. This would not be possible without explovies

I can't see from the video anything to support this. If it did happen, why would you place explosives at the top? Again another case of incomplete analysis of the evidence. The claim does not dovetail with any of their other claims.

evacuation drills were held a week before the attacks - this implies at least someone knew something was going to happen.

So these terrible people who can collaberate with terrorists do have feelings? If so, why demolish the buildings after half the NYFD have entereed the builidng. Is holding an evactuation dril really a sign that something knew something? Why would they not just blow the whistle? Did they kill more than they thought they would and are now feelig terribly guilty? Another throwaway piece of 'evidence' used to shore up a collective argument

There were power cuts a week before the attack, which ostensibly covered the placement of explosives

As is explained above, the amount of work to rig this supposed explosion could never have been done in this timeframe. Even the secret placement of enough charged for a proper controlled demolition would require months. And another thing, the sheer number of people required to do this would be ridiculous. Nakamoto Towers anyone? Quite apart from the fact the guy seems to not believe what he has just said. If so, why say it? Just another throwaway piece of evidence in the house of cards





As usual in conspiracy theories, no hard evidence is offered, just a collection of weak small arguments collected into a house of cards. Nothing is offered as proof, merely conjecture. Questions are asked of events without offereing possible alternatives that do not fit the 'theory'


I personally blame the fact that so few people are taking Physics at A-level anymore that there are enough people who can blindly accept these theories without challenging them, and are prepared to accept the opinions of contrary 'experts'

 :lol:

I dont know who are stupider, people who believe there was a US led conspiracy or people who dont but take it that seriously they post enormous counter arguments? Just ignore it if you think its s****? I dunno maybe am wrong on that.

And before you start, all i said is that it is feasible that they demolished the building so that they didnt turn into an inferno and topple causing more damage to manhattan. I also think that a death toll of less than 3000 would be a sacrifice that the c***s at the top of the power game would happily accept. Thats not to say its true though.

I dont really believe in any conspiracy but there are some excellent books about intelligence failures pre 9/11 and the actions of the CIA before hand that make the true tale of the event quite murky.

If you are going to respond Vic do me the favour of at least reading my take on 9/11 earlier in thread. I believe it was al qaida  that did it.

And your comment about being part of the solution? The issue i have is that people HAVE to question the official line of events. If those two journalists from the Washington Post were on here now going on about a conspiracy involving Nixon and people were slagging off this example of 'challenge' to the official version of events, then history teaches us they would be idiots. There was a conspiracy in this instance and it brought down the government. Solution you say? Solution to what?

 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Pip on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:51:43 PM
Diana's death, JFK assasination and 911.

All have had conspiracy theories thrown at the truth. Why? because people don't want to believe that what happened actually happened.

The simplicty of it all is that Diana died in a car crash, Lee Harvey Oswald shot kennedy and islamic terroists were what cause those two buildings to collapse.

The terrosists refered to it as "The planes operation". If they or the american government ( bluelaugh.gif) detonated explosives in that building in order to create a collapse then they would have reffered to it as "blowing those bulidings up with explosives opertation".     

Not really, no. Had to be others! Had to I said.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:55:41 PM
At the end of the day if you want to cause chaos in the U.S. and you are a criminal mastermind there are far easier and bigger damage causing targets. I often wonder in a very THX1138 kind of way why 'the terrorists' NEVER go for those.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 07:58:50 PM
Diana's death, JFK assasination and 911.

All have had conspiracy theories thrown at the truth. Why? because people don't want to believe that what happened actually happened.

The simplicty of it all is that Diana died in a car crash, Lee Harvey Oswald shot kennedy and islamic terroists were what cause those two buildings to collapse.

The terrosists refered to it as "The planes operation". If they or the american government ( bluelaugh.gif) detonated explosives in that building in order to create a collapse then they would have reffered to it as "blowing those bulidings up with explosives opertation".     

Not really, no. Had to be others! Had to I said.

This is easy. Think about these words.

DONT GET CAUGHT.

Then think about Nixon and why the conspiracy unearthed by the journalists doesnt make it to your list.

Again.

DONT GET CAUGHT.

A-level history is enough to let you understand that it is creation not a by-product of events.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:09:56 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.

(extremely big post)  bluelaugh.gif


 :lol:

I dont know who are stupider, people who believe there was a US led conspiracy or people who dont but take it that seriously they post enormous counter arguments? Just ignore it if you think its s****? I dunno maybe am wrong on that.

And before you start, all i said is that it is feasible that they demolished the building so that they didnt turn into an inferno and topple causing more damage to manhattan. I also think that a death toll of less than 3000 would be a sacrifice that the c***s at the top of the power game would happily accept. Thats not to say its true though.

I dont really believe in any conspiracy but there are some excellent books about intelligence failures pre 9/11 and the actions of the CIA before hand that make the true tale of the event quite murky.

If you are going to respond Vic do me the favour of at least reading my take on 9/11 earlier in thread. I believe it was al qaida  that did it.

And your comment about being part of the solution? The issue i have is that people HAVE to question the official line of events. If those two journalists from the Washington Post were on here now going on about a conspiracy involving Nixon and people were slagging off this example of 'challenge' to the official version of events, then history teaches us they would be idiots. There was a conspiracy in this instance and it brought down the government. Solution you say? Solution to what?

there is a difference in questioning what a politician tells you with no evidence to back it up, and planting counter conspiracy theories so full of holes they are ridiculous

as a rational being, you have to be compelled to challenge stupidity when you find it, otherwise, well you're just a scientologist tbh.


OK, you surmise the US knew the towers were a target, BUT in other threads, you highlight the CIA/FBI conflicts, which revolved around the few people who were worried about it being obstructed and ignored. A lot of evidence has been documented that the administration were not taking a plane attack seriously (if they had even conceived that it could happen)

anyway, assuming they thought it could happen, then they would have had a much better anti-air defence plan. Not even having a clear protocol for whether you can shoot down a passenger plane, and having no fighters available to shoot down a hijacked jet in manhatten airspace suggests this was not the case. There were just 4 fighters on alert covering the entire NE

Also, why if you knew it could happen, just settle that it would and say, oh well, if it does we'll rig explosives in the building so we can demolish it. How could that ever take place with no-one raising the alarm? It would have to have been done with the cooperation of a lot of people. As for any other threat that could demolish the building, that was fully taken care of after the truck bombing with physical security in the tower. Ironically a lot of people died because of these measures such as door codes. In fact the head of security of WTC was formerly one of the top CIA intel heads who was being ignored over threats and retired a bit p*ssed off over it (he died in the collapse btw).

demolition just does not add up, in any way shape or form.

I can't conceive of any situation whereby someone would say rigging the building for demolition just in case was a practical idea. And there are plenty of situations on record where govts do have worst case scenario plans that would involve a lot of casualties, but are for the common good.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:22:16 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.

(extremely big post)  bluelaugh.gif


 :lol:

I dont know who are stupider, people who believe there was a US led conspiracy or people who dont but take it that seriously they post enormous counter arguments? Just ignore it if you think its s****? I dunno maybe am wrong on that.

And before you start, all i said is that it is feasible that they demolished the building so that they didnt turn into an inferno and topple causing more damage to manhattan. I also think that a death toll of less than 3000 would be a sacrifice that the c***s at the top of the power game would happily accept. Thats not to say its true though.

I dont really believe in any conspiracy but there are some excellent books about intelligence failures pre 9/11 and the actions of the CIA before hand that make the true tale of the event quite murky.

If you are going to respond Vic do me the favour of at least reading my take on 9/11 earlier in thread. I believe it was al qaida  that did it.

And your comment about being part of the solution? The issue i have is that people HAVE to question the official line of events. If those two journalists from the Washington Post were on here now going on about a conspiracy involving Nixon and people were slagging off this example of 'challenge' to the official version of events, then history teaches us they would be idiots. There was a conspiracy in this instance and it brought down the government. Solution you say? Solution to what?

there is a difference in questioning what a politician tells you with no evidence to back it up, and planting counter conspiracy theories so full of holes they are ridiculous

anyway, assuming they thought it could happen, then they would have had a much better anti-air defence plan. Not even having a clear protocol for whether you can shoot down a passenger plane, and having no fighters available to shoot down a hijacked jet in manhatten airspace suggests this was not the case. There were just 4 fighters on alert covering the entire NE

Also, why if you knew it could happen, just settle that it would and say, oh well, if it does we'll rig explosives in the building so we can demolish it.

In fact the head of security of WTC was formerly one of the top CIA intel heads who was being ignored over threats and retired a bit p*ssed off over it (he died in the collapse btw).

demolition just does not add up, in any way shape or form.



On the first point, i agree.

The air defence plan is an alternative and i think this is where the US have identified failures. That doesnt mean that they would say, 'look lets not worry about the eventuality, lets just ensure good air space defence'. Plus the building was under threat from bombing from the ground in the 90's. In this case an air defence is useless.

Demolition does make sense. I think the logic of my first post on the rationale for demolition still holds tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:29:35 PM
I suppose the terrorists had prior warning that there were so many Air Force exercises going on that day there would be practically NO AIR DEFENCE. :roll:

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:32:45 PM
Whilst i wait for a reply, i just want to add this.

9/11 was the most important event of this century, as young as it is. I like to discuss 9/11 on this basis not from the perspective of any crackpot conspiracy.

The events and their implications are enormously important and hence a canny topic for debate.

It sits at the heart of so many other more violent events and episodes of history that have occured in the last 6 years.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:33:14 PM
:lol:

Yeah, "the planes operation".  Straight from "The Road To 9/11", nice one. :lol:  You do know that they admit 90% of that was dramatized and made up, yeah?

Vic, you make fair questions, to be honest.  But I love how questions from respected people in their fields, have more knowledge than you or I, just get laughed at, because the majority have accepted an official version of events.  A set of events that the head of the 9/11 commission said he's was sure would change various times over the decades, as he feels they were set up to fail.

(extremely big post)  bluelaugh.gif


 :lol:

I dont know who are stupider, people who believe there was a US led conspiracy or people who dont but take it that seriously they post enormous counter arguments? Just ignore it if you think its s****? I dunno maybe am wrong on that.

And before you start, all i said is that it is feasible that they demolished the building so that they didnt turn into an inferno and topple causing more damage to manhattan. I also think that a death toll of less than 3000 would be a sacrifice that the c***s at the top of the power game would happily accept. Thats not to say its true though.

I dont really believe in any conspiracy but there are some excellent books about intelligence failures pre 9/11 and the actions of the CIA before hand that make the true tale of the event quite murky.

If you are going to respond Vic do me the favour of at least reading my take on 9/11 earlier in thread. I believe it was al qaida  that did it.

And your comment about being part of the solution? The issue i have is that people HAVE to question the official line of events. If those two journalists from the Washington Post were on here now going on about a conspiracy involving Nixon and people were slagging off this example of 'challenge' to the official version of events, then history teaches us they would be idiots. There was a conspiracy in this instance and it brought down the government. Solution you say? Solution to what?

there is a difference in questioning what a politician tells you with no evidence to back it up, and planting counter conspiracy theories so full of holes they are ridiculous

anyway, assuming they thought it could happen, then they would have had a much better anti-air defence plan. Not even having a clear protocol for whether you can shoot down a passenger plane, and having no fighters available to shoot down a hijacked jet in manhatten airspace suggests this was not the case. There were just 4 fighters on alert covering the entire NE

Also, why if you knew it could happen, just settle that it would and say, oh well, if it does we'll rig explosives in the building so we can demolish it.

In fact the head of security of WTC was formerly one of the top CIA intel heads who was being ignored over threats and retired a bit p*ssed off over it (he died in the collapse btw).

demolition just does not add up, in any way shape or form.



On the first point, i agree.

The air defence plan is an alternative and i think this is where the US have identified failures. That doesnt mean that they would say, 'look lets not worry about the eventuality, lets just ensure good air space defence'. Plus the building was under threat from bombing from the ground in the 90's. In this case an air defence is useless.

Demolition does make sense. I think the logic of my first post on the rationale for demolition still holds tbh.

As I said in the post, after the first bomb, and with the existing building features, any non-air based threat could cause a potential collapse was well examined and planned for.

I really do think if you conceived an air threat, you would put 100% of your effort into a defence plan, and not even think about planting explosives in secret just in case. It's just so off the charts its crazy. It's X-Files imho
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:35:36 PM
"9/11 was the most important event of this century, as young as it is. I like to discuss 9/11 on this basis not from the perspective of any crackpot conspiracy." Chix


Agreed. Also that so many people in power don't want to discuss it. blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:47:12 PM
"I really do think if you conceived an air threat, you would put 100% of your effort into a defence plan, and not even think about planting explosives in secret just in case. It's just so off the charts its crazy. It's X-Files imho" Vic


Of course they conceived an air threat...That's why they had the airforce stand down. What bit of that don't you get Vic? :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:50:28 PM
"I really do think if you conceived an air threat, you would put 100% of your effort into a defence plan, and not even think about planting explosives in secret just in case. It's just so off the charts its crazy. It's X-Files imho" Vic


Of course they conceived an air threat...That's why they had the airforce stand down. What bit of that don't you get Vic? :lol:

 :lol:  blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 16 September 2006, 08:57:29 PM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: madras on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:25:19 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.
shouldn't you find out at what point the authorities found out the plane had been hijacked ? and occasions do happen in this country when a transponder on an aircraft fails and it changes course....doesn't get shot down.


can anyone tell me why they would have to go to those extremes to,in their eyes "legitimise" the invasion of iraq(while we are on wouldn't you think they would have claimed an iraqi or 2 were involved instead of saudis and egyptians ?),it would have been a damn sight easier to demolish a few embassies in far off lands.(which is what i thought was going to happen)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:47:06 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.

Yep, Pinky my son you are correct.

That is most surely what would happen.....NOW ie post 9/11 before that a hijack was just that a plane hijacked and held to ransom for some form of gain, be it monetary, asylum or the release of political prisoners. Until 8.45 or so on the morning of 9/11 nobody realistically expected people to fly commercial airliners into major buildings. Simple, straight forward therefore no government or military advisors would have sanctioned the shooting down of a plane full of civilians. Yes, the ill fated Pensylvannia? one could well have been shot down but that was after the others had already happened therefore shooting it down was a definite possibility (and frankly a fair enough one given that all the passengers were destined to die anyway).

As always though my son, you have a canny counter argument even if its got more holes in than a block of that comedy cheese they use on Tom n Jerry. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:49:43 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.

How do you know that?  If you were a hijacker in 2001, wouldn't you tell the passegners you just wanted to be taken somewhere, rather than you were on a suicide misison so they might as well try and chin you?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:56:41 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.

How do you know that?  If you were a hijacker in 2001, wouldn't you tell the passegners you just wanted to be taken somewhere, rather than you were on a suicide misison so they might as well try and chin you?

that's a good point. the cleverness of 9/11 is that the hijackers exploited the recommended reactions and procedures usual in a hijacking. that is, sit tight, don't interfere with the hijackers, don't try to be the hero, just wait till they have landed the plane then the authorities will deal with negotiations.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:01:24 AM
Whilst i wait for a reply, i just want to add this.

9/11 was the most important event of this century, as young as it is. I like to discuss 9/11 on this basis not from the perspective of any crackpot conspiracy.

The events and their implications are enormously important and hence a canny topic for debate.

It sits at the heart of so many other more violent events and episodes of history that have occured in the last 6 years.

well you're wasting your timee on here - nowt but lunatics here
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:02:24 AM
"can anyone tell me why they would have to go to those extremes to,in their eyes "legitimise" the invasion of iraq(while we are on wouldn't you think they would have claimed an iraqi or 2 were involved instead of saudis and egyptians ?),it would have been a damn sight easier to demolish a few embassies in far off lands.(which is what i thought was going to happen)" Madras.

It's a bit like trying to second guess a room full of nutters at Broadmoor. As I said earlier I don't beleive the Bush regime had anything to do with it or knew anything (or very little) about it. The point of this thread is that the buildings were demolished and didn't come down on their own.
It could be that procedures are in place to protect nearby buildings and make them fall straight down.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: James on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:11:59 AM
I highly doubt that unseen forces would have needed to demolish the twin towers to trigger a war in the middle east. The crashing of four planes into famous American buildings would have surely been enough.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:12:35 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.

7 minutes to get half the RAF in the air????

 What planet are you living on mate?

There are a couple of Air Defence Tornadoes (maybe) on quick alert around Inverness - someone at National ATC in Southampton has to figure out the plane has been hijacked - they then have to inform their supervisors, who will check of course and then tell their supervisors.  Soemone will call the RAF in Norwood who will ask them to check.  With luck at  the same time someone will try and get hold of a senior officer and a politican to sign off an interception.  At eaach stage, assuming they get through INSTANTLY,  everyone has to explain who they are and why they are calling.

Because we're not expecting a first N strike the planes are not actually running their engines and the crews are proabbly sitting reading.  Once the alarm goes off they have to start the plane up and align the nav systems.  Some one has to tell them roughly where they are to go (avoiding all the other aircraft over the UK

Even if they go flat out from takeoff it will take them some time to get south and they then have to identifiy the correct hijacked plane - if the hijackers do the obvious and Squawk the same codes as another airliner heading into LHR then the fighter has to close a number of different pottential targets for visiual id but if its another BA 737 how do you tell............

I reckon its an 80% chance they'd get through


 


Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Groundhog on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:32:59 AM
This what would happen here.

A jet takes off say from Glasgow airport, after 15 min there is word to the tower it is being hijacked and heading for London (House of Commons or Buck Pal). Within 7 min half the RAF would be in the air. In another 4 min it would be locked on. 15min from the warning it would be a pile of smouldering sardine can somewhere in middle England. That's how it should work.

7 minutes to get half the RAF in the air????

 What planet are you living on mate?

There are a couple of Air Defence Tornadoes (maybe) on quick alert around Inverness - someone at National ATC in Southampton has to figure out the plane has been hijacked - they then have to inform their supervisors, who will check of course and then tell their supervisors.  Soemone will call the RAF in Norwood who will ask them to check.  With luck at  the same time someone will try and get hold of a senior officer and a politican to sign off an interception.  At eaach stage, assuming they get through INSTANTLY,  everyone has to explain who they are and why they are calling.

Because we're not expecting a first N strike the planes are not actually running their engines and the crews are proabbly sitting reading.  Once the alarm goes off they have to start the plane up and align the nav systems.  Some one has to tell them roughly where they are to go (avoiding all the other aircraft over the UK

Even if they go flat out from takeoff it will take them some time to get south and they then have to identifiy the correct hijacked plane - if the hijackers do the obvious and Squawk the same codes as another airliner heading into LHR then the fighter has to close a number of different pottential targets for visiual id but if its another BA 737 how do you tell............
I reckon its an 80% chance they'd get through


 




 :lol: Radgy, you've been watching far too many Yank action movies, hahaha
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Cajun on Sunday 17 September 2006, 10:35:44 AM
I highly doubt that unseen forces would have needed to demolish the twin towers to trigger a war in the middle east. The crashing of four planes into famous American buildings would have surely been enough.

Thats the thing, only 3 of the planes made it so they had to go to plan B  bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 11:53:31 AM
interesting poinmt - if the explosives were a backup to the planes why didn't the White House explode when the UA flight came down in Penslylvania?   Aftet all the dark forces had planned to hit the place and the chief crooks were all away from the place that morning - very sinister

or its all a load of cock .................
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:12:08 PM
We're at cross purposes here Rob. I'm not saying the explosive were a back-up for the terrorists/perpertrators, they are a fail safe to bring the buildings down as normal practice incase of fire etc or damage caused in an accident. This is so as to protect surrounding buildings. The terrorists had nothing to do with the explosives that (I'm arguing) bought down those towers.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 12:30:40 PM
Uh?

tell me one building that is prepared for fail safe demolition in this way parky   

i've never heard of one
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 17 September 2006, 01:11:02 PM
It's not bandied around is it? But for instance if there was a fire or earthquake and the WTC complex was damaged I'd imagine they'd want to bring them straight down....As seen by millions on telly. blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Sunday 17 September 2006, 02:27:54 PM
Quote
Rob

Uh?

tell me one building that is prepared for fail safe demolition in this way parky   

i've never heard of one

Quote
Parky
It's not bandied around is it? But for instance if there was a fire or earthquake and the WTC complex was damaged I'd imagine they'd want to bring them straight down....As seen by millions on telly.


They (who? I don't know but anyone but terrorists I imagine) brought it down by demolition but forgot to tell the firefighters who went up to rescue people, and didn't mind killing thousands of people so as not to damage some nearby buildings?

When did they decide to bring it down and why if the towers wouldn't have fell anyway due to the impact and result of the damage caused by the planes? Or are you saying it was coming down anyway because of the impact but they (who?) just made it come down quicker?


Did you know that when Tesco start making losses it will also blow up most of its stores for insurance purposes so they can regain the money. I won't explain this, I have faith, just take my word for it...they're hardly going to tell anyone now are they. NOW THAT IS ROCK SOLID PROOF! It's the kind used in court to send people to prison...in Zimbabwe that is.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Sunday 17 September 2006, 02:31:36 PM
Quote
Rob

Uh?

tell me one building that is prepared for fail safe demolition in this way parky   

i've never heard of one

Quote
Parky
It's not bandied around is it? But for instance if there was a fire or earthquake and the WTC complex was damaged I'd imagine they'd want to bring them straight down....As seen by millions on telly.


They (who? I don't know but anyone but terrorists I imagine) brought it down by demolition but forgot to tell the firefighters who went up to rescue people, and didn't mind killing thousands of people so as not to damage some nearby buildings?

When did they decide to bring it down and why if the towers wouldn't have fell anyway due to the impact and result of the damage caused by the planes? Or are you saying it was coming down anyway because of the impact but they (who?) just made it come down quicker?


Did you know that when Tesco start making losses it will also blow up most of its stores for insurance purposes so they can regain the money. I won't explain this, I have faith, just take my word for it...they're hardly going to tell anyone now are they. NOW THAT IS ROCK SOLID PROOF! It's the kind used in court to send people to prison...in Zimbabwe that is.

Someone should really teach you how to use the quote function.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Sunday 17 September 2006, 04:01:27 PM
You forgot to use a full stop Mr Hall. Want me to teach you how to use it?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: JH on Sunday 17 September 2006, 04:07:36 PM
I don't know what you mean ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 05:09:22 PM
Quote
Rob

Uh?

tell me one building that is prepared for fail safe demolition in this way parky   

i've never heard of one

Quote
Parky
It's not bandied around is it? But for instance if there was a fire or earthquake and the WTC complex was damaged I'd imagine they'd want to bring them straight down....As seen by millions on telly.


They (who? I don't know but anyone but terrorists I imagine) brought it down by demolition but forgot to tell the firefighters who went up to rescue people, and didn't mind killing thousands of people so as not to damage some nearby buildings?

When did they decide to bring it down and why if the towers wouldn't have fell anyway due to the impact and result of the damage caused by the planes? Or are you saying it was coming down anyway because of the impact but they (who?) just made it come down quicker?


Did you know that when Tesco start making losses it will also blow up most of its stores for insurance purposes so they can regain the money. I won't explain this, I have faith, just take my word for it...they're hardly going to tell anyone now are they. NOW THAT IS ROCK SOLID PROOF! It's the kind used in court to send people to prison...in Zimbabwe that is.

fo ran unlettered hayseed you sometimes hit the truth
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Sunday 17 September 2006, 06:58:21 PM
<safety officer 1> hmm how can we possibly make working and living in the wtc complex safer than it already is?
<safety officer 2> maybe we could rig both the towers up with explosives
<safety officer 1> excellent idea, that sounds really really safe, and intelligent, not at all ridiculous.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 17 September 2006, 07:03:03 PM
on the other hand if you've ever read about the Chernobyl disaster.........  you'd go along with the inventor Barnes Wallis

"I try to make my works idiot proof but the damn idiots prove to be so damn clever"
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 17 September 2006, 11:44:35 PM
"<safety officer 1> hmm how can we possibly make working and living in the wtc complex safer than it already is?
<safety officer 2> maybe we could rig both the towers up with explosives
<safety officer 1> excellent idea, that sounds really really safe, and intelligent, not at all ridiculous."

Takes one to recognise one. :roll: :lol:

I couldn't care less when and how the explosives were put in....The FACT  is they were demolished, it is clear to see.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Sunday 17 September 2006, 11:50:07 PM
<safety officer 1> hmm how can we possibly make working and living in the wtc complex safer than it already is?
<safety officer 2> maybe we could rig both the towers up with explosives
<safety officer 1> excellent idea, that sounds really really safe, and intelligent, not at all ridiculous.

:lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 12:52:25 AM
 :lol: Indeed.
















I don't think safety officers have much sway when the security services are involved do you?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:01:20 AM
:lol: Indeed.
















I don't think safety officers have much sway when the security services are involved do you?

No.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:05:13 AM
i know if owned a tall building, i'd rig it up with explosives so that at the button of a button the building collapses, destroying everything and killing everyone inside.

just to be safe, like.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:14:08 AM
The trick is to get planes to hit it first Jonny....or did you miss that part. tongue.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:19:17 AM
oh so you don't install the dynamite until AFTER the planes hit! duh, silly me, i didn't read the instructions to "HOW TO MAKE YOUR BUILDING SAFER BY RIGGING UP WITH EXPLOSIVES" manual, as it was all in arabic.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:24:42 AM
They don't use dynamite these days son. :roll:


..and who's talking about safety...??

....and it isn't about who's building it is or when they placed the charges....I guess the real question is who gained from it? Don't you watch Columbo? bluedead.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: johnnypd on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:31:39 AM
They don't use dynamite these days son. :roll:


..and who's talking about safety...??

....and it isn't about who's building it is or when they placed the charges....I guess the real question is who gained from it? Don't you watch Columbo? bluedead.gif

you probably forgot, but you were talking about safety - "This is so as to protect surrounding buildings."
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Monday 18 September 2006, 05:57:19 AM
They don't use dynamite these days son. :roll:


..and who's talking about safety...??

....and it isn't about who's building it is or when they placed the charges....I guess the real question is who gained from it? Don't you watch Columbo? bluedead.gif

you probably forgot, but you were talking about safety - "This is so as to protect surrounding buildings."

Go on son, you're there, hes on the ropes take him TAKE HIM!!!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Monday 18 September 2006, 10:09:04 AM
Quote
.
Parky
I guess the real question is who gained from it?

1. The democrats did it to demonstrate that the republicans couldn't protect the citizens as a means to win the next election.
2. Iran did it so America would topple its enemy Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda did it to gain worldwide attention for its cause.
4. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth did it to gain some attention to finally be considered experts.
5. Anti-Capitalists did it because the WTC is a symbol of capitalism, and they wanted to destroy it.
6. Bush did it so he could slag off Iraq for 2 years, gather support by spending months at the U.N, then finally invade.
7. Employees within the building did it so they could commit suicide by jumping off so their loved one's would not have to spend their lives asking why they committed suicide.
8. The firefighters did it because they wanted to gain hero status.
9. CIA/FBI/MOSSAD did it because they wanted to go on an adventure.
10. Michael Moore did it so he could make some money by making a film about it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rehhagel on Monday 18 September 2006, 10:13:06 AM
Quote
Parky
The FACT  is they were demolished, it is clear to see.

The FACT is that a pencil bends in water, it is clear to see. Scientists who try to explain it with their mumbo jumbo light travels through water at a slower speed than it does through air, which causes an illusion, is nonsense. They just want government funding so they can develop weapons to give to the FBI/CIA so they can kill some Cubans.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 10:46:34 AM
Parky,

you've flip flopped in this thread like a 2 bit ho'  blueyes.gif


first off you start by saying the towers were exploded because there is a plethora of 'Physics experts' saying they could never have collapsed from being hit by 2 planes

now you're saying that they were exploded to make sure they fell straight down, instead of falling over sideways because 2 planes hit them


You dissapoint me  bluesigh.gif


Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 12:58:50 PM
"....first off you start by saying the towers were exploded because there is a plethora of 'Physics experts' saying they could never have collapsed from being hit by 2 planes

now you're saying that they were exploded to make sure they fell straight down, instead of falling over sideways because 2 planes hit them..."

I think those two might be connected.....Mmmm?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:01:23 PM
Gemmill was right when he said these threads are worse than doing work :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 01:02:03 PM
"....first off you start by saying the towers were exploded because there is a plethora of 'Physics experts' saying they could never have collapsed from being hit by 2 planes

now you're saying that they were exploded to make sure they fell straight down, instead of falling over sideways because 2 planes hit them..."

I think those two might be connected.....Mmmm?


yes they are, they are both your informed opinions  bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 05:05:56 PM
just seen on the program 9/11 liars on C4 that all the debris was hand sifted twice - once while being cleared, and again at the landfill, looking for human remains.

not quite what is claimed on the video now is it?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 05:10:54 PM
Did it mention anything about the steel?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 05:11:56 PM
"Gemmill was right when he said these threads are worse than doing work..." Alex


 :lol: :lol:

He's never done a days work in his life.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Monday 18 September 2006, 05:57:01 PM
Gemmill was right when he said these threads are worse than doing work :lol:

I'm waiting for someone to start another evolution thread about the walking shark (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_sc/underwater_discoveries) they've just discovered, so we can have another 9 page episode of The Parky Show.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Tisd09 on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:18:24 PM
I am no expert and have no evidence do argue either way, but surely if it were a controlled explosion the buildings would not fall as they did. The clip that was posted earlier showed the top part topple and then the rest of the building collapse.

Controlled explosions normally take a lot of planning and alot of explosions is strategic places (I guess) surely this kind of work would not go un-noticed.

I think it was a terrible terrorist act, I can't see what anybody other than terrorists would gain from those buildings being brought down.

Also if it was for the safety of people and there was no danger of a collapse from "just the planes hitting" then they would have had time to evacuate the area and have a proper controlled collapse, not with a fair amount of civilians and emergency service officers around.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:19:32 PM
I am no expert and have no evidence do argue either way, but surely if it were a controlled explosion the buildings would not fall as they did. The clip that was posted earlier showed the top part topple and then the rest of the building collapse.

Controlled explosions normally take a lot of planning and alot of explosions is strategic places (I guess) surely this kind of work would not go un-noticed.

I think it was a terrible terrorist act, I can't see what anybody other than terrorists would gain from those buildings being brought down.

Also if it was for the safety of people and there was no danger of a collapse from "just the planes hitting" then they would have had time to evacuate the area and have a proper controlled collapse, not with a fair amount of civilians and emergency service officers around.

tsk talking sense in this thread  :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:22:38 PM
Tis09,

60% of people who voted in the poll think you're wrong.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:24:12 PM
"tsk talking sense in this thread"..Vic


Yes Vic if talking sense worked there would be world peace. :wink: 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Tisd09 on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:32:23 PM
And how does that help your agument? And what do you think is wrong in what I said?
I didn't look at the poll before I posted If I knew 10 people disagreed with me I would have never have aired my views.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 08:51:47 PM
There is a lot of common sense in what you say, don't get me wrong, but things of this nature don't work like that.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Tisd09 on Monday 18 September 2006, 09:08:39 PM
There is a lot of common sense in what you say, don't get me wrong, but things of this nature don't work like that.

Why? I am not asking that to get into a debate with you, just if you believe what I am saying conatains a lot of common sense then why doesn't things happen like that.

If the planes themselves were not going to trigger an attack why would they execute a controlled explosion with so many people still at risk. I could understand your argument more if you were saying it was the American Government or a 3 letter agency behind the collapse, but I see no logic in the Towers being brought down when they were brought down in the interest of safety.

Didn't many other buildings also collapse on that day? Were they brought down in the interest of safety as well.

Call me naive but I believe things as they happened. Bin Laden wanted to make a statement, he picked a very recogniseable landmark and shocked us all. Yes terrorism was around before 9/11 but this brought it to the front of the que. I remember returning home from work to see the pictures, I couldn't believe what I saw, when I first seen the planes hit I didn't know the towers had collapsed, not even sure if it had happened by the time I got home, but the planes were shocking enough.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 09:33:06 PM
I'm looking at the idea or theory that they were somehow 'pulled' in the interest of safety, a judgement which under the circumstances and death toll I can imagine was a grotesquely difficult call. The owner is on tape saying he 'pulled' WT7 as the fire was spreading and he didn't want to risk any more firemeans lives. That is a FACT it is on TAPE. Looking at that I began to wonder if they had demolished the other two (main) buildings as well. That is why I started the thread as there is now so many people some of whom are experts calling for a new enquiry.

Of course if they weren't demolished by, 'the good guys' the alternative is frankly unthinkable if you look at the amount of support and logistics and money terror groups need to succeed. Whatever is put about in the news about recruiting nutters in Mosques etc...Well it really isn't like that, the modern terrorist is no different from a soilder.


Think about this a minute...

Terrorism has never thrived anywhere or been successful without the backing of covert  Govt agencies...From the Taliban (CIA invention) to the Khymer Rouge, to the rebels in Kashmir (backed by SIS and Pakistan) to the Contras (again CIA) to the Chechens (allegedly Saudi  money).

AL FATAH - Supported by moderate islamist countries and Kuwait.
Red Army Faction - Supported by East Germany
Hizbollah - Sponsored by Iran
IMK in Kurdistan - Supported by Saudia Arabia and Turkey.
Japanese Red Army - funds and training from the former USSR....etc..

If it really was terrorists that took those buildings down they were aided and abetted by a powerful friends and allies.....Then we need to ask WHO is behind them?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 09:37:08 PM
flip flop flip flop flip flop

 bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 09:51:21 PM
Tisd09,

Comments from rescue workers are particularly interesting...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+mysteries+demolition
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 10:56:25 PM
what a load of s***

so they find sulphur on the surface of the steel beams? (which doesnt lower the melting point, the sulphur needs to be part of the metal itself) but they can't find any trace of explosives?

so the core was taken out by shaped charges and thermite well before the collapse? Even though the core is the only thing holding the building up? Even though you would never use thermite and shaped charges together - which was it? Even though you cannot create a timed thermite reaction in different places?

so the building would not have dropped into the basement through the use of gravity?

so the word pull now means blow up?

so Juliani knew the towers would collapse, because he was in on the plot, rather than the fact the WTC engineers were inside the building and issued this warning after inspecting the core?

so the squib signatures were signs of demolition? - Did you notice the difference in number between the 3 or 4 signatures on the WTC and the hundreds on controlled demolition sites?

So a large squib emerged from the skylobby floor because they needed lots of explosives to defeat the steel there? Or is it because the lift shafts teminate at these floors, where air would escape during a collase?

So there was a pyroclastic flow of dust because the explosions used in the demolition of a building exactly replicate the conditions in a volcano, and not a natural collapse of 100 floors of concrete. And again, the flow was generated by exploding every last piece of concrete in the structure? Eeven though there are only a few squibs, and the building is already doomed due to the intricate network of shaped charges and thermite reactors, all precisely controlled with miles of invisible det cord.

So the steel in the basement was still melting for days after because of thermite reactions, which are themselves started by high temperatures and the presence of iron oxide, 2 things that were definitely not present in the rubble pile?


once again, even without the contradictions in the movie itself, there is no hard evidence proferred. And as for the list of perpetrators, it grows and grows, despite the water tight secrecy around the entire plot.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Tisd09 on Monday 18 September 2006, 11:06:47 PM
Tisd09,

Comments from rescue workers are particularly interesting...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=911+mysteries+demolition

Its getting a bit late now so I will watch the video another time thanks for the link though. Again I am not expert in any of this but didn't the terrorists get funded by Bin Laden, it is well known he has lots of money. Also I thought the Talibans weaponary power came from the left over Russian assualt? As I said I am no expert in any of this, I base my theory on instinct. My instinct tells me that if the collapses were planned it was a very poor decision to do it when they did.

Sometimes people like to look for something else, its almost as if some people (not saying this is you Parky) are not prepared to accept a simple truth that there are some evil people in this world one sets of those evil people are Islamic extremist who will not settle until the whole world is an Islamic state, if they did manage to turn the US into an Islamic state do you think they will stop there. This was a cold, calculated plan of extremist Islamics who have been brainwashed into thinking anything non-Islamic is evil.

I am not going to ignorant and call all guys who disagree with me nut jobs or anything like that I simply don't believe a theory that the US government were behing it or that it was "pulled" in the interest of safety.

Good night fellas!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 11:32:51 PM
''so the squib signatures were signs of demolition? - Did you notice the difference in number between the 3 or 4 signatures on the WTC and the hundreds on controlled demolition sites?'' Vic

There is a very good reason for this, I wonder if you can work it out?? bluecool.gif


Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 11:36:37 PM
''so the squib signatures were signs of demolition? - Did you notice the difference in number between the 3 or 4 signatures on the WTC and the hundreds on controlled demolition sites?'' Vic

There is a very good reason for this, I wonder if you can work it out?? bluecool.gif


along with invisible det cord they used invisible explosives?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 18 September 2006, 11:40:07 PM
Perhaps you should google up what was actually under those buildings...might clear up the det cord (fake) mystery for ya..



You have to ask yerself how many demolitions have you watched on telly and what type of buildings were they? Or are you like me a demolition expert? :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Monday 18 September 2006, 11:54:01 PM
i've no idea where you are going with this tbh.

i'm quite tired
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 10:57:45 AM
Hindu,

The Carlyle Group.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html


"The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before becoming Defence Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major, former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA director before becoming US President.

The financial assets of the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Ladenís family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Ladenís brother, was represented on Harkenís board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath."



"CHRONOLOGY: The Bushes And The Carlyle Group" Bushnews.com

Source: http://www.bushnews.com/bushcarlyle.htm

"The Bush-Carlyle Group Archive" Buzzflash

A link to a number of links on the Carlyle Group

Source: http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Bush-Carlyle.html

Carlyle's way Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government, and industry. By Dan Briody January 8, 2002 Red Herring

Source: http://www.redherring.com/vc/2002/0111/947.html

"he group has been able to parlay its political clout into a lucrative buyout practice (in other words, purchasing struggling companies, turning them around, and selling them for huge profits)--everything from defense contractors to telecommunications and aerospace companies. It is a kind of ruthless investing made popular by the movie Wall Street, and any industry that relies heavily on government regulation is fair game for Carlyle's brand of access capitalism. Carlyle has established itself as the gatekeeper between private business interests and U.S. defense spending. And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up."

"The Carlyle Group" Spectrazine

Alfred Mendes looks at a single US investment corporation and asks some pertinent questions about democracy, terrorism and power.

Source: http://www.spectrezine.org/global/carlyle.htm


"A further delving into the background of the listed Carlyle officers is called for here - and whom better to start with than its chairman, Carlucci. As noted in his C.V. above, he had strong ties with the intelligence agencies, as confirmed by Philip Agee in his book, “On The Run”: “Carlucci had been on the team in Kinshasa when Patrick Lumumba was assassinated and the Congolese revolution stopped. Then he worked four years in Brasil following the military coup in 1964”. Agee was in Portugal not long after the April ‘75 coup by the communist-led Armed Forces Movement had overthrown the dictatorship of Salazar - as a result of which, President Ford had sent Carlucci as ambassador to Portugal. As Agee writes: “If the new ambassador, Frank Carlucci, was any indication, the Ford administration was determined, both alone and in concert with European allies to stop the revolution”...”He would be in charge of coordinating all efforts to ‘save Portugal’”. 

But more pertinent to his role in later years were the many directorships he held, among which were General Dynamics, Westinghouse Electrics, the Rand Corp. - and Ashland Oil (among others). He had also been a college classmate of Donald Rumsfeld, the present Secretary of Defense. Perhaps his most interesting relationship was with the very right-wing Dr. Constantine Menges of the Hudson Institute who had worked for Carlucci in the Department for Health, Education and Welfare.


As Bob Woodward revealed in  The Veil: “ In a 1980 article (The New York Times), Menges stated that events in Iran, Afghanistan and Nicaragua marked a ‘turning point in the invisible war between radical and moderate forces’ for control of oil (this author’s italics), the Middle East and Central America”. This was a significant slip-of-the-tongue on the part of Menges, and was to prove correct. After the collapse of the USSR, the American oil companies wasted no time in moving in on the Caucasian oil & gas fields (see author’s article “The Thin End Of The Wedge). In ‘81, William Casey, Director of CIA, made Menges Intelligence Officer for Latin America, a position he held until,  In 1983, and on the advice of Carlucci, he was transferred to the National Security Council, under Reagan."
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Gemmill on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 11:01:18 AM
Can't believe that nearly a third of the people that have voted think it was explosives.  Loonies tbh.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 11:45:32 AM
"Terrorism has never thrived anywhere or been successful without the backing of covert  Govt agencies.."

Mau-Mau?

The Bolsheviks?

The Lords Resistance Army???


The IRA - no state backing there Parky
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 12:04:30 PM
Parky, I think you were you trying to say the difference was steel frame as opposed to steel reinforced concrete. Anyway, if the others in the film were SRC which I doubt, then that just produces more conflicts within the film claims themselves

Why are there any squibs when all you need do is knock out the steel core? And if there are so few as you seem to accept, what happens to the pyroclastic flow / instantaneous dust cloud / pulverised computers argument from the first film?


Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 12:07:30 PM
what a load of s***

so they find sulphur on the surface of the steel beams? (which doesnt lower the melting point, the sulphur needs to be part of the metal itself) but they can't find any trace of explosives?

so the core was taken out by shaped charges and thermite well before the collapse? Even though the core is the only thing holding the building up? Even though you would never use thermite and shaped charges together - which was it? Even though you cannot create a timed thermite reaction in different places?

so the building would not have dropped into the basement through the use of gravity?

so the word pull now means blow up?

so Juliani knew the towers would collapse, because he was in on the plot, rather than the fact the WTC engineers were inside the building and issued this warning after inspecting the core?

so the squib signatures were signs of demolition? - Did you notice the difference in number between the 3 or 4 signatures on the WTC and the hundreds on controlled demolition sites?

So a large squib emerged from the skylobby floor because they needed lots of explosives to defeat the steel there? Or is it because the lift shafts teminate at these floors, where air would escape during a collase?

So there was a pyroclastic flow of dust because the explosions used in the demolition of a building exactly replicate the conditions in a volcano, and not a natural collapse of 100 floors of concrete. And again, the flow was generated by exploding every last piece of concrete in the structure? Eeven though there are only a few squibs, and the building is already doomed due to the intricate network of shaped charges and thermite reactors, all precisely controlled with miles of invisible det cord.

So the steel in the basement was still melting for days after because of thermite reactions, which are themselves started by high temperatures and the presence of iron oxide, 2 things that were definitely not present in the rubble pile?


once again, even without the contradictions in the movie itself, there is no hard evidence proferred. And as for the list of perpetrators, it grows and grows, despite the water tight secrecy around the entire plot.




brilliant!!!!! 

as you say pyroclastic flows are NOT generated by explosions - which are totally different from the inside of volcanoes and the idea of  people winding loads and loads of det cord around the structure and not being noticed  is hysterical - the stuff looks like a washing line - and it takes A LOT to get a decent sized bang

I think they'd have noticed TBH
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 01:44:04 PM
"When the unthinkable happens you often find people stop thinking"..Parky. :lol:


So tell me, Vic and Rob is the cornerstone of your argument from hence going to be that the didn't have time to plant the explosives and even if they did,they would have been noticed?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 02:21:23 PM
No the cornerstone of our argument is that you are talking crap and what is worse you know it

you really ARE better crusading against injustice Parky or for the Revolution rather than this Daily Express conspiracy theory s***
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 02:25:13 PM
"When the unthinkable happens you often find people stop thinking"..Parky. :lol:


So tell me, Vic and Rob is the cornerstone of your argument from hence going to be that the didn't have time to plant the explosives and even if they did,they would have been noticed?

that, and all the other points you haven't answered further back

^^^^^^

 bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 02:37:57 PM
Parky pwned tbh. His heart wasn't in it though to be fair, just on the wind-up.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 02:44:59 PM
Parky pwned tbh. His heart wasn't in it though to be fair, just on the wind-up.

Its a sad sad day for humanity when Perkys not got the fight left.  bluesigh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 02:48:54 PM
I haven't finished with this thread yet fellas. bluedead.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Gemmill on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:01:44 PM
Pinky and Parky. :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:03:03 PM
I haven't finished with this thread yet fellas. bluedead.gif
Don't know when you're beat tbh ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:29:20 PM
Haven't even taken the gloves off tbh. tongue.gif

It's like leading elves through the forest, if you tell them straight away how scary the forest is they would never come in. blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:44:25 PM
"It's like leading elves through the forest,"

Oh dear


 Tolkenism Alert!!!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:46:44 PM
 bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

I'll have time a bit later to follow up on points.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:49:42 PM
Haven't even taken the gloves off tbh. tongue.gif

It's like leading elves through the forest, if you tell them straight away how scary the forest is they would never come in. blueyes.gif
Intangible in the face of defeat, as ever  tongue.gif

;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:50:22 PM
Dark was the day when the Wizard Parko, brow beaten by the forces arrayed heavily against him, return-ed to the Tower carefully checking that no-one had quietly insetered majic devices of evil to cause sudden collapse the  Hobbit Hole around himself in his majesty arrayed etc etc etc etc
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:51:41 PM
Dark was the day when the Wizard Parko, brow beaten by the forces arrayed heavily against him, return-ed to the Tower carefully checking that no-one had quietly insetered majic devices of evil to cause sudden collapse the  Hobbit Hole around himself in his majesty arrayed etc etc etc etc

I was just beginning to enjoy that....
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:57:36 PM
I can write another 4 volumes by 18:00
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 04:59:23 PM
Make sure my hat is bigger than the other wizards hats. :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 05:01:14 PM
Its yer staff you need to worry about Parky

PS where DID the Elves come from?   don't remember any of them when I was in the Socialist Labour League................
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 05:05:21 PM
Mate I've done the rounds...Wouldn't be pertinent to name my various nests...


Not sure where the elves came from.. bluelaugh.gif

Perhaps I will take this thread into the realms of mythology...As it is this that we are dealing with...Shock and Awe and all that..
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 05:10:34 PM
Mate I've done the rounds...Wouldn't be pertinent to name my various nests...


Not sure where the elves came from.. bluelaugh.gif

Perhaps I will take this thread into the realms of mythology...As it is this that we are dealing with...Shock and Awe and all that..
Was already there tbh
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 05:13:17 PM
The poll is much closer than I had hoped for 14 - 21. bluebigeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 07:36:58 PM
"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air
Force, its own navy, its own fundraising mechanism,
and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national
interest, free from all checks and balances, and free
from the law itself." – Senator Daniel K. Inouye
during the Iran-contra scandal.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 07:42:21 PM
"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air
Force, its own navy, its own fundraising mechanism,
and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national
interest, free from all checks and balances, and free
from the law itself." – Senator Daniel K. Inouye
during the Iran-contra scandal.


do they have a website?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 07:45:57 PM
They have 100's Vic.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 19 September 2006, 08:01:44 PM
9/11 was a shadow Govt/state sponsored - false flag act of grotesque terrorism carried out by elements of the U.S. oligarchy and security services against the American people, who even unto this day know little of the events of that day - apart from the weazel and cowardly U.S. media version.

This rogue network deeply inmbedded in the upper echelons of the U.S heierachy had help from secret service elements from the U.K and Mossad.

Senior figures in this group can be traced back to Iran-Contra, the Kennedy assasination, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. They have assets as a private intelligence network set up under Reagan's executive order 12333. These assets would include technical specialists, intelligence and counter intelligence and state of the art surveillance and anti-personal protocols, a shoot to kill policy goes without saying.

"In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far
less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened
in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she
startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was
not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London
were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, “just
to keep the people frightened.” Orwell, 1984, 127.
 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 09:46:34 AM
Mi5 whistleblower...Davidos Shayler.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 09:51:16 AM
A whistle brought them down? Now you're just being silly.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Mowen on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 09:55:54 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald dunnit.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 09:56:10 AM
The poll is much closer than I had hoped for 14 - 21. bluebigeek.gif
sad, very sad

to see a once great fighter against injustice reduced to boasting about a straw poll on a conspiracy theory................ 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 10:51:38 AM
If you look into it Rob you will see this event is the cornerstone for various grotesque and cruel injustices handed out against innocents. I will not rest till I take this mutha down.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 11:06:36 AM
Seen too many X-Files episodes.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 11:19:45 AM
He'll have "the shield of truth and the sword of justice" out shortly......................... 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 11:32:12 AM
It cannot hold the light
Tongue clotted in mud -
-there is another between consciousness and illusion,
he had broken the key light and bluff light,
the holding and the giving
Through silent glades at dawn,
through the frosted and the body,
the small star slips the crescent moon.


Parky.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 12:05:54 PM
God help us - he's gone all Eastern Mystic on us - the Omar Khyam onf Byker!!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 12:14:02 PM
 bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 03:45:25 PM
I will not rest till I take this mutha down.

George W ?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 03:46:54 PM
No. The 9/11 fairytale.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 03:48:15 PM
I meant is that the GW quote you have on tape?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 05:03:49 PM
No. The 9/11 fairytale.

Elves... now fairy's


I ask you all - WHERE WILL THIS END?






Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: CaliMag on Wednesday 20 September 2006, 05:10:27 PM
Seen too many X-Files episodes.


It was actually a spin-off of the X-Files called "The Lone Gunmen."
http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243069/
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=73&contentid=301&page=1


In the pilot episode the CIA takes over jets to crash into the WTC by remote control all in an effort to boost their own budget and legal authority.

It wasn't as popular as the X-files and it got cancelled after one season... aparently though it was very popluar with Parky.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 22 September 2006, 09:43:40 AM
the only viewer I suspect
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 22 September 2006, 09:48:29 AM
Is there any need for the petty sniping?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Friday 22 September 2006, 11:40:38 AM
I'm still waiting for you to blow this thread to pieces Parkster  blueyes.gif

until then my boy, it's 'weapons free'  :cool:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 22 September 2006, 11:53:39 AM
All in good time. The meister will strike when he is ready.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 22 September 2006, 11:56:37 AM
All in good time. The meister will strike when he is ready.
Sheister more like ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 22 September 2006, 12:11:44 PM
Can't find the elves no doubt.....................   
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Friday 22 September 2006, 12:16:10 PM
Can't find the elves no doubt.....................   
Gearing up for Xmas already.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 22 September 2006, 12:37:21 PM
in his grotto already...................   
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 28 September 2006, 10:43:34 PM
 A simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrate that the towers collapsed in a time which was impossible had the top floors been smashing through the lower floors.

Without air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers apparently collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the  exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds.
 
The entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously converted into a free falling collection of disconnected rubble, something only achievable through the co-ordinated use of demolition.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Thursday 28 September 2006, 10:51:29 PM
f***'s sake Parky. Give it a rest son!  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 28 September 2006, 11:01:08 PM
 bluecool.gif

Its basics man. They can't have it both ways, there was either resistence or there wasn't. If there was resistance then the collapse would have been slower and I'd have no qualms about it. If there wasn't resistance then the collapse was artificial. Simple really a 7 year old would get it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Thursday 28 September 2006, 11:05:08 PM
Know what Parky? You're like a dog with a frickin' bone. You just won't let go, will you? :lol:

Think I found your pic on the web earlier:

(http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/dog.man/bone.jpg)

 :winking:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 28 September 2006, 11:08:31 PM
 bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

One thing GM you're always good for a laugh. :thup:

But here at Parky towers this thread is entering fairytale mode and I'm not ganna let people down.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 28 September 2006, 11:42:24 PM
Alice in Wonderland...

"Returning back again to AA Flight 11, another problem concerns the time-line of the cell phone call made by the flight attendant. In it, she claims that (shortly after) the hijackers gained access to the cockpit, the plane quickly changed direction and started rapidly descending towards the WTC - eliciting from her, the chilling statements: ³I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!² These were the last words of communication (supposedly) uttered by Ms. Sweeney, and, as the transcript of this call clearly demonstrates, these events occurred in quick succession. Therefore, it is beyond dispute, that (according to her account), describing the entry into the cockpit by the hijackers, this occurred when Flight 11 was somewhere off the edge of Manhattan, over the Hudson River, within sight of the NY skyline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1556000/1556096.stm
http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/investigation/1005hijackercar.html

This again, presents an even more serious problem: that is, if the hijackers had not breached the cockpit earlier, over Albany, (WHY) did the plane deviate from its charted course, 150 miles north of NYC? Furthermore, how could investigators possibly conclude, that the flight was commandeered (by hijackers), 15 minutes after takeoff from Boston¹s Logan Airport, (when compared) to the cell phone call made by Madeline Sweeney? Moreover, why was (the meticulously detailed) Ms. Sweeney, (a Massachucettes-based flight attendant for 12 years), unable to identify Manhattan or the Hudson River, above and beyond ³buildings and water?²

By (accepting both) pieces of evidence, we would somehow have to ridiculously conclude, that unbeknownst to the pilots, the hijackers conducted a stabbing (and quite possibly, a shooting) rampage, terrorizing passengers and crew members for a full 25 minutes, while ³telepathically² forcing the pilots to perform a turn over Albany, and fly 150 miles south to Manhattan. Add to this, the ³surreptitious transmissions² from the cockpit radio mike, initiated by the pilot for most of the flight, and you would have to further assume, that the pilots themselves, were impersonating the ³heavily-accented² voices of the hijackers, up until the point when the (actual) hijackers Œstormed the cockpit, which occurred shortly before impact (according to Sweeney) - an unsatisfactory conclusion, to be sure.

Even more unsettling, was the network news broadcast, aired a few days after 9/11, that featured the last moments of the (recorded) Sweeney phone call. Anyone listening to this call, should have immediately been struck by one thing..............namely, the only voice you hear screaming is Madeline Sweeney¹s. Can it truly be plausible, that in the moments before crashing into the North Tower of the WTC, one flight attendant would, among 9 other crew members and 81 passengers, be the only one heard shrieking in terror? "
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 28 September 2006, 11:56:53 PM
Elves and magik mushrooms....

"Sadly, even the NYC Police Dept. jumped on the ³evidence bandwagon,² by claiming to have found a passport from one of the hijacker¹s, 8 blocks away from WTC. In the now familiar manner, the NYC Police Dept. would have us believe, that the passport somehow managed to miraculously survive the raging infernos of the WTC towers, and float to the ground, unscathed. This minor miracle, was again repeated in Pennsylvania, whereupon a terrorist suicide note was discovered by FBI investigators, near the smoldering crater of the crash site.........despite Flight 93 (in the words of the FBI) being ³vaporized² on impact.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
http://www.commondreams.org/view01/0929-07.htm

Even more incredible, is the fact that of the five passengers the FBI originally identified as the hijackers of AA Flight 11, three are alive, and living in the Middle East. To date, a total of seven Middle Eastern individuals, originally implicated in the hijackings of 9/11, have proven to be alive. Since the FBI has publicly stated that the hijackers could¹ve used (did use) false I.D.¹s, how could they possibly have known who the real hijackers were? Upon notification of the errors, the FBI allegedly apologized for the mistakes, yet they immediately substituted seven new (Middle Eastern-named) suspects, with a new list on 9/28/01. This, of course, leads to another troubling question: If seven of the original names, thus far, have proven to be incorrect ( based on false I.D.¹s), what evidence could they possibly have had, to immediately implicate seven new suspects? Even more importantly, how can we now possibly assume, that the other twelve original ³identifications² were correct, and that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible?"

http://worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Pip on Friday 29 September 2006, 12:26:24 AM
Copy-pasting from whatreallyhappened.com eh Parky? ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: peasepud on Friday 29 September 2006, 05:09:32 AM
Copy-pasting from whatreallyhappened.com eh Parky? ;)

imafookinfruitcake.com tbh
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 29 September 2006, 09:57:31 AM
Well there must be thousands of us then Peas. bluebigrazz.gif

Good luck with your biometric card when it arrives. :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:10:25 AM
I don't even think they used jets.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: CaliMag on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:16:35 AM
I don't even think they used jets.

Telekentics clearly... kinda like that movie Scanners.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:18:17 AM
WHAT did you SEE? Tell me. :wink:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: madras on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:27:26 AM
WHAT did you SEE? Tell me. :wink:
a friend,an engineer,not an expert in demolition mind, told me that you wouldn't bring down a building like that in that way,ie explosions that far to the exterior as the super structure is very central,as in the diagrams.and in fact the "puffs" are, the signs of the inside consetena effect as the inside collapses the exterior follows,it only looks from the outside that it all goes down at once,in fact as we are watching the inside has already collapsing or is collapsing and the outside looks stable(split second)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:30:07 AM
Have another read of this:

Without air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers apparently collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the  exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds.

Parkystein.
 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: madras on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:40:08 AM
Have another read of this:

Without air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers apparently collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the  exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds.

Parkystein.
 
and re read what i said,that what was happening on the inside was invisible,what you see is the outer most skin,look at the diagrams on your film,the outer skin takes no pressure ,the central core,as the load barer,if it falls,will fall in on itself and the outside(visible)will only follow.

think about it...the building is buit on a central core...what point would these external demolition explosives have.........and how obvious would it be....or would they think,"i'm sure no one will have a camera on it.



well done parky to drag it over so may pages,hope you've just beem stirring and not believing.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:41:30 AM
I imagine everything in life is invisible to you my dear. blueyes.gif

Yes the strongest part of the building the central core collapsed first....even thought the planes hit the exterior - sometimes 30m from the central core...FFS!

I beleive what I want and if I require second guessing...I'll ask for it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: madras on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:50:16 AM
I imagine everything in life is invisible to you my dear. blueyes.gif

Yes the strongest part of the building the central core collapsed first....even thought the planes hit the exterior - sometimes 30m from the central core...FFS!

I beleive what I want and if I require second guessing...I'll ask for it.
"sometimes 30m from the central core"..what does that mean...some of it was 30m some of it wasn't? ...hey a car whacked into th e back of mine,the impact was 2metres a way from me but i felt it!!


believe what you want but if you make it public expect it to be open to question,ridicule or agreement.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 12:52:49 AM
It's about tin can alluminium hitting re-inforced steel....There are behaviour patterns and MIT compurters and test beds and co-efficencies and a whole whost of other bollocks...THOSE PLANES DID NOT BRING DOWN THOSE TOWERS.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Saturday 30 September 2006, 01:59:21 AM
What???

You expecct us to take that?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: garth on Saturday 30 September 2006, 04:31:16 AM
I have to agree with Parky, there is no way those planes brought down those towers by themselves, there wouldn't be enough heat to melt the steel never alone collapse the whole building in 10 secs there had to be something else that helped those buildings to collapse like that.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 08:07:25 AM
Some sense at last. :thup:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Saturday 30 September 2006, 10:41:09 AM
I have to agree with Parky, there is no way those planes brought down those towers by themselves, there wouldn't be enough heat to melt the steel never alone collapse the whole building in 10 secs there had to be something else that helped those buildings to collapse like that.

Some sense at last. :thup:

Numbnuts. The pair of you. The towers did not collapse after 10 seconds. It was a good while longer than that, long enough for the fire to spread and for the central core of the building to disintegrate.

As for there never being enough heat...how the f*** would you know? Where you there?

Bunch of ragged arse conspiracy-driven nutcase rambling dickheads.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Saturday 30 September 2006, 01:59:30 PM
He meant collapse IN ten seconds.
They actually collapsed in 11 seconds.
Impossible.

It's well documented at what temp jet fuel burns (kerosene) and how long it can burn.
The experts say it would have burnt off very quickly as most specialised fuels do.
The stuff that was burning in the offices was commonal garden office stuff...Hence the blackish smoke ie poorly burning fire.
Those two towers were losing money hand over fist and they had been trying to sell them for at least 10 years.
Then Larry Silverstein bought them and insured them.
The rest as they say is history.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 1 October 2006, 05:30:25 AM

The experts say it would have burnt off very quickly as most specialised fuels do.


The handful of experts you hand-pick to back up your theories.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Sunday 1 October 2006, 06:35:03 AM
He meant collapse IN ten seconds.
They actually collapsed in 11 seconds.
Impossible.

It's well documented at what temp jet fuel burns (kerosene) and how long it can burn.
The experts say it would have burnt off very quickly as most specialised fuels do.
The stuff that was burning in the offices was commonal garden office stuff...Hence the blackish smoke ie poorly burning fire.
Those two towers were losing money hand over fist and they had been trying to sell them for at least 10 years.
Then Larry Silverstein bought them and insured them.
The rest as they say is history.

No matter what spin you want to put on it, thats the truth.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 1 October 2006, 10:15:03 AM
I've been a way for a week and he's still making no sense
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 10:48:30 AM
This kind of stuff is not your bag Rob I know that.

But its the official story that doesn't make sense unless you beleive in fairy stories that is.
How alluminium wings penetrate without folding backwards against the reinforced steel of the outer shell is not only impossible, but could never be repeated in the lab. In the end they had to say they were 'shredded'. :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 10:52:56 AM
"The handful of experts you hand-pick to back up your theories." Chix


.....Or the handful of trusted Govt. bankrolled experts...... :lol:

We can have that both ways you see.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 10:58:45 AM
"The handful of experts you hand-pick to back up your theories." Blue


None of these are my 'theories', they are all theories in the public domain, they just interest me that is all. :cool:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 1 October 2006, 11:18:10 AM
They seem to interest you more than the debunkings of them do. I guess the government control physics professors as well.

Might as well put this here rather than making a new thread:

Jewish "terrorist" assaulted and thrown off plane:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1777847.ece
Quote
"This man could have garrotted me and what was awful was that one or two of the passengers went up afterwards to thank him," said Mr Stein. He has since been told by airline staff he was targeted because he was using an iPod, had used the toilet when he got on the plane and that his tan made him appear "Arab".

This is becoming like the paedophile hysteria when pillocks went around smashing paediatricians windows...
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Action Verb on Sunday 1 October 2006, 11:31:44 AM
If this has already been posted, then apologies, but the following link goes through the popular Loose Change film - one of the biggest in terms of providing 'facts' for the conspiracy. It goes through the film scene by scene, debunking pretty much everything - including the collapse of the building rubbish.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

The actual Loose Change video itself: - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change

If you believe in the conspiracy theories, i'm guessing you've already seen Loose Change, if you haven't, then watch it, while reading the page at the same time. If you feel that you haven't got the patience for reading that, then please, cease to argue something from one point of view based on a couple of YouTube videos.

You should then watch this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/05/30/penn-teller-on-911-conspiracy-theories/

After finishing, please feel free to kill yourself.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 11:34:49 AM
I debunked the loose change film myself so its not news to me and I haven't provided a link to it. Probably backed by the Govt anyway.. blueyes.gif :wink:

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Action Verb on Sunday 1 October 2006, 11:46:00 AM
If you have debunked the Loose Change video yourself, then there is no logical way for you to think that it was a controlled demolition.

Unless ofcourse you yourself are sponsored by some radical faction to spread terror and government distrust. OMGLOFLFDOLFDSFLSDFS!!!111DLF!!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Action Verb on Sunday 1 October 2006, 11:56:08 AM
The earlier Penn & Teller link was down on YouTube, here's on GoogleVideo -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Sunday 1 October 2006, 01:07:39 PM
I have to agree with Parky, there is no way those planes brought down those towers by themselves, there wouldn't be enough heat to melt the steel never alone collapse the whole building in 10 secs there had to be something else that helped those buildings to collapse like that.

they didn't collapse in 10 seconds - they burnt for some considerable time before collapsing
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 02:27:26 PM
Yes we know that Rob, they weren't hit by planes and fell to the ground. No one is saying that. Christ stop wasting my time. bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 02:40:57 PM
"they didn't collapse in 10 seconds - they burnt for some considerable time before collapsing" Rob.

No Rob two or three floors of a 110 story building burnt for some time. bluesleep.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Sunday 1 October 2006, 05:03:01 PM
And the genius conspiritors decided, of all the ways to mass murder people, to choose a method that anyone with a remidial level of education in physics could tell was impossible.  We don't have anything to fear from them anyway, they're clearly thick as f***.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Sunday 1 October 2006, 06:51:39 PM
You know what they say..''The bigger the lie'' etc..
People don't question anything these days and spend most of their time seeing if they can get the PS3 with a tenner knocked off. bluelaugh.gif

Well you know if I was a criminal mastermind, I think it would have been a lot easier to hire a couple of small cargo planes and fill them with explosives and fly them in, that way it cuts out a lot of grey areas inc airport security, the USAF, althought that didn't seem to be around, NORAD, the FIA etc....

Tell me why would people bother with such an elaborate scheme filled with variables...Tut Tut Mr Laden.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlueStar on Monday 2 October 2006, 08:41:20 AM
Such an elaborate scheme.  Get on a plane with a 4 inch knife.  Hijack it.  Fly it into a building.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 2 October 2006, 06:44:48 PM
You make it sound so easy its a wonder they even bothered with flying lessons.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Monday 2 October 2006, 07:46:53 PM
It could have been a big accident. Maybe the pilots had been drinking a la Henri Paul... bluebigeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 2 October 2006, 08:31:56 PM
Wish I hadn't started this thread now....Bit nervous about flying to England this week. bluedead.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: GeordieMessiah on Monday 2 October 2006, 08:36:24 PM
Wish I hadn't started this thread now....Bit nervous about flying to England this week. bluedead.gif

I shouldn't imagine you'll have any problems...you'll not get past security anyway...the CIA will have been intercepting your posts on here for ages and you'll be shuttled off into an obscure corner of the airport for a thorough body cavity search.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Monday 2 October 2006, 08:38:52 PM
I've thought of that. I'll be busy all night printing CIA on me library card. They'll back off when they see that. :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 3 October 2006, 07:28:15 AM
too late parky - I'm afraid I 've already ratted on you for the £ 5  they were offering as a reward

apparently when they've finished with you in Qatar they'll hand you over to the Israelis
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 3 October 2006, 02:50:58 PM
A simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrate that the towers collapsed in a time which was impossible had the top floors been smashing through the lower floors.

Without air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81m/s sq, regardless of weight. An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in 9.2 secs ( a little longer for air resistance). The towers apparently collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that at each stage of the 110 storey collapse, the falling rubble would have its acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But the towers collapsed in 11 secs, virtually a free fall. Although there are too many variables to calculate the  exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds.
 
The entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously converted into a free falling collection of disconnected rubble, something only achievable through the co-ordinated use of demolition.


Right, I'm temporarily visiting from inside what is generally known as the moving home and broadband mindspace aka internet withdrawal hell. As such Parky, you are not allowed to get away with spouting pseudo physcis as fact ummm kay~?


1. Impact points were IIRC 30 floors below top floor, i.e. the model does not start from the top floor

2. The thing that affects how well the remaining floors would slow down the collapse is momentum, not acceleration

3. What you are actually comparing is the resistance force of a static structure designed to hold the static weight of the floors above, versus the combined momentum of the weight of 30 floors falling at 9.8m/s2.

4. 9 seconds versus 11 seconds is not 'virtually' the same at all

5. "Although there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible for a pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds" - i.e. we don't know s*** but on the same basis, we categorically assert you're talking s***
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 5 October 2006, 06:15:01 PM
1. Yes but in relative terms pretty much near the top.

2.Either way you'd expect the remaining reinforced steel structure and intact floors to slow down the collapse. (Didn't happen).

3.Resistance is resistance however you look at it. (I repeat there wasn't any).

4.Not sure what your on about they collapsed in 11 secs. In freefall it would have been 9.8. Nothing in it really is there?

5.With minimal resistance it would have taken considerably (relatively speaking) longer. A 7 year old could work it out.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Friday 6 October 2006, 03:31:26 PM
1. not at all, 30 is a significant proportion of 110

2. no, read it again. 30 floors of moving debris is not going to be stopped by a structure designed to hold a static load

3. there was resistance, but due to the momentum of the debris (not free fall acceleration) it was negligable

4. in physics terms, 2 seconds is ample evidence of a resistive effort

5. these theories of yours often look as if a seven year old has proposed them  bluelaugh.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 6 October 2006, 03:40:24 PM
1. Yes but in relative terms pretty much near the top.

2.Either way you'd expect the remaining reinforced steel structure and intact floors to slow down the collapse. (Didn't happen).

3.Resistance is resistance however you look at it. (I repeat there wasn't any).

4.Not sure what your on about they collapsed in 11 secs. In freefall it would have been 9.8. Nothing in it really is there?

5.With minimal resistance it would have taken considerably (relatively speaking) longer. A 7 year old could work it out.


You can tell he dropped sciences at an early age....................... 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 6 October 2006, 04:45:46 PM
You buggers!! :wullie: :)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Nobody on Monday 9 October 2006, 04:42:29 PM
Finally, we will be able to close this thread as South Park will tell us the TRUTH behind 9/11 in the new episode entitled "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce"
Quote from: southparkstudios.com
The world’s biggest conspiracy of all time will finally be uncovered when Eric Cartman exposes the true culprit behind the September 11th attacks.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ticaL on Monday 9 October 2006, 05:13:48 PM
Simpsons did it!
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Nobody on Monday 9 October 2006, 05:22:41 PM
Simpsons did it!
So? They've done everything :D
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 12:55:43 PM
Bump. blueeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 12:59:23 PM
Barf
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 01:19:41 PM
Burp
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:13:02 PM
By the poll 40% beleive there was somethng untoward about the collapse of the towers.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: alex on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:16:11 PM
By the poll 40% beleive there was somethng untoward about the collapse of the towers.
The same people rate Luque  tongue.gif

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: madras on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:16:46 PM
By the poll 40% beleive there was somethng untoward about the collapse of the towers.
"i" before "e" except.................

40% eh ?poll must be rigged,that poll's a conspiracy I tells ya.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:25:30 PM
I might as well add a snippet into this thread - but my point is aside from whether they were brought down with explosives.

The towers contained thousands of tons of asbestos and in the weeks after they fell hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people were exposed to this.

Asbestosis takes years to manifest itself after the initial exposure so any compensation sought by the victims could run into billions.

Hence its no suprise that the great christian GW Bush came out with this gem in his state of the union address in 2005

Quote
Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript.2/  para 6

1   There is nothing frivolous about asbestosis. I have known several people who contacted this and the remainder of there lives was sheer hell.

2   What a sack of s*** bush is. Not only have the attacks given him the perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan (which was already being planned for October 2001) and Iraq (which was always an ambition from the moment he entered the white House) but now he wants congress to stop the victims from claiming any compensation at all.




BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:34:33 PM
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:41:34 PM
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif

Are you logged on through 2 accounts and chatting to yourself? ..... again!  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:46:07 PM
Silence Adam!! blueeek.gif



 bluecool.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 02:50:06 PM
They've really got to stop financing Al Quaeda as well. bluewink.gif

Are you logged on through 2 accounts and chatting to yourself? ..... again!  :lol:

 :lol: We certainly can't rule it out
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:03:10 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:10:43 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 03:12:26 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:46:15 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif

I see what you mean Chez

Why does vic put words into my mouth then argue against my alleged position?

Vic who mentioned 'pull it'?

I was referring to the way it fell after no planes had hit it you silly boy :doh:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:49:33 PM
Might as well get ALL the insurance money. :lol:

Those building were losing money year in year out and it seemed impossible to get a buyer or get them re-insured cause of the poor state of the fire proofing on the metal beams. Enter Silverstein....Game over. bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:51:00 PM
Might as well get ALL the insurance money. :lol:

Those building were losing money year in year out and it seemed impossible to get a buyer or get them re-insured cause of the poor state of the fire proofing on the metal beams. Enter Silverstein....Game over. bluewink.gif

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!  :august31:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:52:18 PM
.......it's just business Kitty.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 05:54:02 PM
.......it's just business Kitty.

I just like saying it  bluebiggrin.gif  Otherwise I'd have to read the thread and post something serious  :huff:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 06:11:21 PM
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:38:27 PM
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.

Yeah, i nailed it in post 88 tbh.

Whether the Port Authorities or then Silverstein knew the attack was coming that day or not is irrevelevant.

The towers were already a terrorist target. Big companies do 'risk assessments' on their assets all the time (my company has a large building that could be targetted and i know there is a plan in place if anything happens).

The risk assessment would have included people trying to bring the towers down (pretty much top of the list since the early 90s).

Ok, this is where it gets tricky  :roll: what do you think they are planning for in the event of another attack?

a) How to save the building? Perhaps with joists erected in the Hudson river, 700 helicopters and a f*** load of string?

or

b) How to make sure the clean up is as quick and as efficient as possible, how to minimise the disruption to life in lower manhattan?

Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment. 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:51:01 PM
"Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment." Chez

Sounds reasonable, but if you're buying loss making buildings you best know that soon you'll get a chance to demolish them....That is where it gets tricky. blueyes.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 07:55:21 PM
Silverstein may have known nothing other than 'if they do get hit, "PULL EM" and we can re-develop with a clear $1billion on top'.

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:21:25 PM
I will be opening a second front on this very soon. blueeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dokko on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:25:56 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

My feelings also, something fishy about the whole thing, we'll never know the truth though.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 08:32:44 PM
Happy as Larry:

Then the catastrophe came upon New York. On September 11, only three months after signing the lease between Silverstein and the Port Authorities, two large passenger jets crashed into the towers. Larry was lucky, that he was not responsible for liabilities towards the Port Authorities, since the disaster was an act of God. Quite the contrary happened. Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:17:58 PM
BTW WTC 7 is the most compelling reason to think that all the buildings were pre-wired with explosives.

Indeed.  Yet it gets ignored and passed off as irrelevant.

"we decided to pull it"

yep, damning evidence

2sheds, a good example of Vi's poor use of sarcasm.  blueyes.gif

I see what you mean Chez

Why does vic put words into my mouth then argue against my alleged position?

Vic who mentioned 'pull it'?

I was referring to the way it fell after no planes had hit it you silly boy :doh:

if you knew anything about the subject you would have understood, but never mind, don't let ignorance get in the way of your opinions
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: ChezGiven on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:21:53 PM
Silverstein is on record as saying 'We decided to pull it' (WTC7).

Keep your head Vic.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 09:22:23 PM
The first 5 or so pages are very good Kitty. After that it goes a bit into repetition.

Yeah, i nailed it in post 88 tbh.

Whether the Port Authorities or then Silverstein knew the attack was coming that day or not is irrevelevant.

The towers were already a terrorist target. Big companies do 'risk assessments' on their assets all the time (my company has a large building that could be targetted and i know there is a plan in place if anything happens).

The risk assessment would have included people trying to bring the towers down (pretty much top of the list since the early 90s).

Ok, this is where it gets tricky  :roll: what do you think they are planning for in the event of another attack?

a) How to save the building? Perhaps with joists erected in the Hudson river, 700 helicopters and a f*** load of string?

or

b) How to make sure the clean up is as quick and as efficient as possible, how to minimise the disruption to life in lower manhattan?

Then if you are sneaky billionaire with an insurance policy that pays out if they collapse, you might just go down the route that b) suggests to you but not even tell anyone about it.

There, you dont need conspiracies with fundamentalist arabs and neocons in them. You just need to understand how to handle biilions of dollars worth of investment. 

right, so they had a formal written plan?

suspending all commen sense for a minute, don't you think people would be interested in a little thing like murder charges in such a scenario?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 10:41:33 PM
I will be opening a second front on this very soon. blueeek.gif

Madness!  No-one ever won fighting on 2 fronts  bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:33:43 PM
I open fronts where people just see shops. bluewink.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:35:37 PM
I open fronts where people just see shops. bluewink.gif

You mean you open your Y-Fronts whenever you're at the shops  bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:37:05 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:41:38 PM
So for people not following the story here are the main losers:

"The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: "Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001."
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:47:31 PM
So for people not following the story here are the main losers:

"The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: "Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001."

Lloyd's - what with that and asbestos, I'd have my money out of Lloyds pronto.  Not that I've got any of course, Mrs Kitman sees to that  bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:48:36 PM
So for people not following the story here are the main losers:

"The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: "Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001."

don't you think they might have hired a private detective or two, you know, to investigate the alleged pre-planned mass murder of American citizens by their client? if only to save them a few bob?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:50:55 PM
Larry didn't kill or plan to kill anyone.....I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I've just said he's been extremely lucky with his re-insuring is all. :)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Tuesday 28 November 2006, 11:56:24 PM
Parky - I appreciate this may have been covered earlier, but as I am far too lazy busy to read all of that, if this was an insurance job, wouldn't it have shown up in the forensic investigation of the site?  Didn't the authorities go through the rubble piece by piece looking for clues?  If various buildings had been detonated by a deranged homocidal property investor, wasn't there evidence of massive amounts of explosives left in the debris, notwithstanding the burning aviation fuel?

Or have I watched too many episodes of CSI?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:01:22 AM
Well of course Kitty there was no independent inquiry, these aren't amateurs we're dealing with here. The steel was shipped off to Hong Kong pronto to be melted down....No independent body of any kind got anywhere near any of it..Not an insurance job mind, I don't think so....But there are clues in the insurance 'rubble'. bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:03:51 AM
Parky - I appreciate this may have been covered earlier, but as I am far too lazy busy to read all of that, if this was an insurance job, wouldn't it have shown up in the forensic investigation of the site?  Didn't the authorities go through the rubble piece by piece looking for clues?  If various buildings had been detonated by a deranged homocidal property investor, wasn't there evidence of massive amounts of explosives left in the debris, notwithstanding the burning aviation fuel?

Or have I watched too many episodes of CSI?

Parky's grasp of Physics is about as bad as the blokes making the conspiracy videos
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:09:17 AM
Well of course Kitty there was no independent inquiry, these aren't amateurs we're dealing with here. The steel was shipped off to Hong Kong pronto to be melted down....No independent body of any kind got anywhere near any of it..Not an insurance job mind, I don't think so....But there are clues in the insurance 'rubble'. bluebiggrin.gif

Can you imagine being the loss assessor? 

"$7 billion you say?  No way, I have an independent quote here from Wimpey Homes says you could rebuild the lot for $150 million in an attractive neo-Georgian style."

Actually I'm surprised they're paying out for an act of terrorism.  Having checked my own home insurance policy in the event that Kitman Mansions falls victim to a crazed Jihadist terror bomber, I was alarmed to learn I would be up s*** creek  blueeek.gif.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: CaliMag on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:09:34 AM
As Parky would tell you physics is purely a jewish science anyway...

 :roll:

Silverstein FFS?!?! Did you make that name up?


This thread is becoming much less funny lately.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:12:54 AM
I'm surprised you're so ignorant about the country you live in Cali. bluewink.gif


Here

http://www.silversteinproperties.com/
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:22:44 AM
What does interest me is that The NY Port Authority who were still the owners (remember old Larry was only leasing) waived their right to compensation.....I'm sure there is legal precedent for that somewhere, but it still sits uneasy with me.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 09:28:47 AM
probably find they are liable "for keeping the site in good condition"
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 11:52:22 AM
Quote
Well of course Kitty there was no independent inquiry, these aren't amateurs we're dealing with here. The steel was shipped off to Hong Kong pronto to be melted down....No independent body of any kind got anywhere near any of it..Not an insurance job mind, I don't think so....But there are clues in the insurance 'rubble'. bluebiggrin.gif

Thats another puzzle - why was the steel shipped off so quickly?

All that steel is evidence from a crime scene - shirley in a country the size of the US they could have put aside 200 or so acres to store this stuff until a full fornsic investigation was conducted

Please note the word 'full'
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 11:57:30 AM
Bush initially didn't even want an enquiry into 9/11. blueeek.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 12:01:32 PM
well after his performance when he was told about it I'm not surprised
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Wednesday 29 November 2006, 07:15:11 PM
well after his performance when he was told about it I'm not surprised

Which is pretty compelling evidence for thinking that if it was an inside job then Gee Dubya was not in on it beforehand.

Cheney tho - there's another matter
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Thursday 30 November 2006, 03:07:17 PM
if you were planning some super complex operation would YOU  mention it to DubyA???????????? 


 :obi: :obi: :obi:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 30 November 2006, 03:08:01 PM
He knew nothing I'm sure of that.
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Kitman on Thursday 30 November 2006, 03:20:06 PM
He knew nothing I'm sure of that.

In Bush's case I imagine he consistently knows nothing.  He doesn't strike me as a detail man or a big picture man.  He probably likes bright colours though  bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Thursday 30 November 2006, 05:56:38 PM
so Bush knew nothing?

how far does that extend then? Bearing in mind the more people who didn't know, the more people with a vested interest in finding out who murdered thousands of American citizens


as usual, the fairy stories don't add up
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Dave on Thursday 30 November 2006, 06:10:23 PM
http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,29356.msg554153.html#msg554153
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: BlufPurdi on Thursday 30 November 2006, 06:12:30 PM
Wrong. :roll:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Thursday 30 November 2006, 06:17:27 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Thursday 30 November 2006, 07:27:01 PM
Would that be the islamic extremists that carelessly forgot their koran was left in the hire car before they matyred themselves?  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Thursday 30 November 2006, 11:23:57 PM
with a sign saying "we did it, by Allah, your coppership"
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Friday 1 December 2006, 12:10:50 AM
I find it quite realistic that someone stupid enough to think he's going to heaven with 80 virgins if he murders 3,000 people then he might just forget to burn his Qu'ran before he goes to the next life....

Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: 2sheds on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:03:36 AM
'Might just forget to burn his Qu'ran'? :roll:

You really are stupid aren't you :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:05:22 AM
Maybe we can ask vic to burn a Koran outside his local mosque today............................
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:13:10 AM
Now that's an idea. :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:16:44 AM
Carrying a large cartoon of the prophet (pbh)
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:43:54 AM
......large cartoon of himself would probably be enough.. bluebiggrin.gif
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Rob W on Friday 1 December 2006, 11:54:00 AM
probably Self Explode at the sight of aall them Moslems..................... 
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Invicta_Toon on Friday 1 December 2006, 12:23:51 PM
there's a f*** off great big mosque right next to Uni in town
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Parky on Friday 1 December 2006, 01:17:51 PM
What you waiting for?
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Magnetic North on Friday 1 December 2006, 01:24:51 PM
"Do you? Have you compared it to other incidents where planes with a full load of fuel have been stotted into buildings the size of the WTC to show that's not how they would have collapsed?" Blau

Yes.

They have compared it to simiar buildings that burnt all weekend and never came down, not just for a few hours.
Jet fuel would have burnt of in a few minutes without reaching the temp to melt reinforced steel.
What happened to the core of the building ie the steel pillars? How did they end up as molted steel in the floor? The only thing that could have done that is thermite, a very exotic steel melting explosive or gel...Depends on what they used.



Parky, you have far too much time on your hands! Wish I had your job!  :lol:
Title: Re: 9/11 Controlled demolition.
Post by: Magnetic North on Friday 1 December 2006, 02:18:56 PM
Never bothered looking at this thread before  :oops:, but I'll have to watch the video again with better sound, if I can cope with Jeff King's geeky fiddling and fidgeting with the left lens of his specs.