Author Topic: 9/11: The Falling Man.  (Read 67141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #75 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 09:02:56 AM »
You're more than welcome to your opinion.  In actual fact it was you that started with the "Let them believe what they think, we know the truth" stuff.

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

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

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

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

Nah, I do know where you're coming from.  I've read a canny few books on the whole JFK thing and have serious doubts about the "official line" there.  Even though this is something which is probably more widely accepted than any conspiracies surrounding 9/11, you can still be left feeling like a bit of a nutcase sometimes for thinking it. 

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #76 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 10:03:45 AM »
well we'll not ask you then bluebiggrin.gif
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #77 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 10:16:07 AM »
 bluebigrazz.gif bluebiggrin.gif

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #78 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 10:54:06 AM »
Baron,

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

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

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

One of the most insidous events was the put betting on the stock market, huge tranches of money betting the market would go down and specifically airline stocks especially American Airlines. These were never fully investigated. Infact nothing about this tragedy has been independently investigated. If the US government really wanted to dispell all the theories, then why not encourage independent analysis?

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #79 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:24:50 AM »
11,900 put options were placed against AA, Boeing and United Airlines on Sept 10th...More than 10 times the daily average.

optimistic nit

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #80 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:44:17 AM »
I don't pretend to know anything as fact, even though you do get others acting like the official story is fact, but I do think they knew it was going to happen and then allowed it. Use it as a great opportunity to start the great "War on Terror".

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

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


how many of the witnesses had ever heard a bomb go off before?

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #81 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:48:22 AM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

It doesn't matter how many people have heard a bomb go off.  Seperate explosions shouldn't be happening.  Unless you care to tell me, and the rest of the 'conspiracy theorists', what they were. 
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #82 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:50:48 AM »
Separate explosions may well not have been happening.  I'm sure there are a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds to be heard when two great big jet liners fly into 100-storey skyscrapers causing them to crumble to the ground.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #83 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:51:55 AM »
The Pentagon wasn't hit by 'flight 77'. The Pentagon was hit by a Tomahawk missle. Perhaps a warning shot by certain elements within the govt to the broader 'uninitiated' Govt community to keep their heads down and tow the unspoken line.

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #84 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:56:23 AM »
Separate explosions may well not have been happening.  I'm sure there are a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds to be heard when two great big jet liners fly into 100-storey skyscrapers causing them to crumble to the ground.

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

Listen to what people have to say about it, don't just hear the word explosion and then pass it off as "a lot of strange and unpleasant sounds".  Although, that's certainly more than the inquiry did, they just ignored it all.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

optimistic nit

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #85 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:56:51 AM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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


i think that something fishy was going on mesel, however parts of the conspiracy theories like "seperate explosions" and "what was bush doing" give the theory no credence when they are so easily put down. like gemmill said i'm sure that there are lots of strange and unpleasant sounds when something like that happens.

alex

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #86 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:57:27 AM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #87 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 11:59:48 AM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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

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

Neither of us know, because the authorities refuse to look into these things.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

alex

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #88 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:05:16 PM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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

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

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

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #89 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:08:43 PM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If they just placed bombs, then brought the f***ers down, they could say it was terrorists, but you wouldn't have the visual impact of the planes and the clear 'evidence' of it being terrorists.  Quite simple really.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #90 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:10:52 PM »
Alex,

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

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

optimistic nit

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #91 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:17:53 PM »
what i dont understand about this part of the theory is why bring the towers down? you already have the biggest terror attack in american modern history, why go the extra mile?

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #92 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:20:52 PM »
I can't answer that one mate.

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #93 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:21:48 PM »
how many new york residents have ever heard a bomb go off before?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #94 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:24:40 PM »
Alex,

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

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

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

Your last sentence, and the way you sound so certain about it, makes you sound more than a bit of a mentalist btw. ;)

Offline BlufPurdi

  • Administrator
  • Speaking truth to stupid since 2005.
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #95 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:26:07 PM »
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

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

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

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

Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened.  All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc.  Why bring the towers down?  Because they made millions, if not billions off it.
Making mistakes is how you learn.
Every generation must fight the same battles again and again and again. There is no final victory, and there is no final defeat, and so a little bit of history may help.
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #96 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:28:36 PM »
Gemill,

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

Offline Nicos Papavasiliou

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #97 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:28:40 PM »
Oh come on, it's not Hollywood!  I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too.

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

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

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

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

But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc.  Swings and roundabouts.
CHINKY ISN'T SHORT FOR CHINESE MAN!!

Gemmill

  • Guest
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #98 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:29:55 PM »
Gemill,

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


The Titanic was designed not to sink tbh.

Offline Rob W

  • General Member
Re: 9/11: The Falling Man.
« Reply #99 on: Friday 17 March 2006, 12:30:05 PM »
The Pentagon wasn't hit by 'flight 77'. The Pentagon was hit by a Tomahawk missle. Perhaps a warning shot by certain elements within the govt to the broader 'uninitiated' Govt community to keep their heads down and tow the unspoken line.

evidence?
The rapturous, wild & ineffable pleasure of drinking at someone else's expense