Terror Threat raised to Severe

[lou]

Just because someone doesn't believe your crack pot ideas, doesn't mean they instantly believe everything a government says.

Took the words right outta my mouth (well off my keyboard)

[Zingari]

Just because someone doesn't believe your crack pot ideas, doesn't mean they instantly believe everything a government says.

they ain't my ideas , crackpot or otherwise ,

i've listened to them and believe there is still much that the official explanations and narratives fail to explain . The devil as they say , is in the detail .

all l am saying is dismissing them in the usual " Elvis riding Shergar on the moon with the lizard people " type of way is ridiculous

[Guest Bilo]

Just because someone doesn't believe your crack pot ideas, doesn't mean they instantly believe everything a government says.

Correctamundo.

I'm no fan of George Bush or Tony Blair but I have trouble believing they'd murder over 3000 of their own citizens and cover it up all in order to start a war that has time has proved they cannot win.

[Zingari]

Correctamundo.

I'm no fan of George Bush or Tony Blair but I have trouble believing they'd murder over 3000 of their own citizens and cover it up all in order to start a war that has time has proved they cannot win.

have you never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident ( that never happened )?

[Guest Bilo]

have you never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident ( that never happened )?

And that has what to do with Tony Blair, George Bush and the murder of 3000 civilians?

Tony Blair and Dubya were still shitting their nappies in 1964 and I strongly suspect the same could be said of the latter 30 years later.

The Gulf of Tonkin would have been far easier to orchestrate than something like 9/11 which would have taken literally thousands of people to remain quiet for the conspiracy to go uncovered. Something that huge would have been nigh on impossible to cover up for the thick end of 10 years.

[breadandcheese]

A 737 made out of aluminium would not harm a building made out of 300 vertical steel columns very much at all. The aluminium plane would disappear before much damage was done to the steel columns. The planes engines would do a little bit of damage though.

You seem to have confused relative strength of materials (and the bonds between the elements) with momentum and force. If the force of the aluminium body colliding with the steel is large enough, the steel will be irreparably damaged. As an analogy, a person jumping from a 6 foot diving board into a swimming pool is fine. That same person jumping from 100 feet into water will have the bones in their body shattered from the force at which they hit the water.

The overall strength of the massive 300 steel columns that ran for hundreds of feet below impact would easily of held the building up.

Possibly, possibly not. A skyscraper is able to support the load of the building by transferring and spreading the force of the concrete efficiently around the steel frame of the building. If the steel frame is damaged, this inhibits the effective spread of the force. As the steel heated up (note: not melted) to over 1000 degrees, the steel would have lost integrity and strength. This would cause it to buckle which led to the collapse of the floors where the fire was raging.

The question then is, would the lower floors of the building have sufficient strength to survive the force of these top floors falling onto it. The force from the top floors falling just one or two storeys onto the floor below would have created enough momentum and force to destroy it, thus creating an even larger force falling onto the floor below, and the floor below that, until the building collapsed floor by floor within seconds.

[Ford Super Sunday]

Possibly, possibly not. A skyscraper is able to support the load of the building by transferring and spreading the force of the concrete efficiently around the steel frame of the building. If the steel frame is damaged, this inhibits the effective spread of the force. As the steel heated up (note: not melted) to over 1000 degrees, the steel would have lost integrity and strength. This would cause it to buckle which led to the collapse of the floors where the fire was raging.

The question then is, would the lower floors of the building have sufficient strength to survive the force of these top floors falling onto it. The force from the top floors falling just one or two storeys onto the floor below would have created enough momentum and force to destroy it, thus creating an even larger force falling onto the floor below, and the floor below that, until the building collapsed floor by floor within seconds.

A documentary I watched (yes, i'm so gullible as to believe a documentary with scientists) said that the steel loses 50% of it's strength when it is burned at a certain temprature.

Add that to the steel trussets holding the inner core and the outer layer together collapsing due to the heat (again note, not melting, just coming apart from its connection), and the fact that all of the steel was covered in Fire-resistant foam, instead of concrete to save weight, which, naturally, was blown away when the plane hit the impact area.

[breadandcheese]

A documentary I watched (yes, i'm so gullible as to believe a documentary with scientists) said that the steel loses 50% of it's strength when it is burned at a certain temprature.

Add that to the steel trussets holding the inner core and the outer layer together collapsing due to the heat (again note, not melting, just coming apart from its connection), and the fact that all of the steel was covered in Fire-resistant foam, instead of concrete to save weight, which, naturally, was blown away when the plane hit the impact area.

Who produced the documentary? Was it George Bush CIA Zionists inc.? I hear their editing and production values are superb.

[Babylon]

You seem to have confused relative strength of materials (and the bonds between the elements) with momentum and force. If the force of the aluminium body colliding with the steel is large enough, the steel will be irreparably damaged. As an analogy, a person jumping from a 6 foot diving board into a swimming pool is fine. That same person jumping from 100 feet into water will have the bones in their body shattered from the force at which they hit the water.

Possibly, possibly not. A skyscraper is able to support the load of the building by transferring and spreading the force of the concrete efficiently around the steel frame of the building. If the steel frame is damaged, this inhibits the effective spread of the force. As the steel heated up (note: not melted) to over 1000 degrees, the steel would have lost integrity and strength. This would cause it to buckle which led to the collapse of the floors where the fire was raging.

The question then is, would the lower floors of the building have sufficient strength to survive the force of these top floors falling onto it. The force from the top floors falling just one or two storeys onto the floor below would have created enough momentum and force to destroy it, thus creating an even larger force falling onto the floor below, and the floor below that, until the building collapsed floor by floor within seconds.

Thank you... I was just about to post all of this after i'd had my lunch. I was even busy flicking through my physics books to quote the actual equations.

[Zingari]

And that has what to do with Tony Blair, George Bush and the murder of 3000 civilians?

Tony Blair and Dubya were still shitting their nappies in 1964 and I strongly suspect the same could be said of the latter 30 years later.

The Gulf of Tonkin would have been far easier to orchestrate than something like 9/11 which would have taken literally thousands of people to remain quiet for the conspiracy to go uncovered. Something that huge would have been nigh on impossible to cover up for the thick end of 10 years.

I'm not suggesting that Bush and Blair were involved in the gulf of Tonkin , I'm suggesting that governments orchestrate events by the Hegelian principle , and have done so on numerous occasions

President Johnson was well aware of what had happened , but chose to pass a bill which brought the USA into the Vietnam War on a complete fabrication

And the very fact that so many are still talking about it and demanding answers , shows that after 10 years it still not gone away and it's not remained uncovered , they just have all the powers to add weight to the denials

Anyway I suppose we ain't going to agree about it soon and I really hope the theories are complete bullshit , so all the best

[Babylon]

which, naturally, was blown away when the plane hit the impact area.

Weren't you listening it was only aluminium, that would do any damage..... even if it was travelling at 400mph.

[Zingari]

Weren't you listening it was only aluminium, that would do any damage..... even if it was travelling at 400mph.

perhaps you weren't listening ,

WTC7 was not , i repeat not, hit by an aeroplane or anything else other than flying debris

all the other buildings in the area were damaged just as badly , but remained completely stable .

the only difference being that these buildings were not owned by the same person as owned buildings 1 2 and 7

[breadandcheese]

perhaps you weren't listening ,

WTC7 was not , i repeat not, hit by an aeroplane or anything else other than flying debris

all the other buildings in the area were damaged just as badly , but remained completely stable .

the only difference being that these buildings were not owned by the same person as owned buildings 1 2 and 7

So is the issue here WTC 7 or the twin towers hit by the planes? Does this mean you find it conceivable that the twin towers could have collapsed from the planes but you're just sceptical about WTC 7?

[breadandcheese]

Thank you... I was just about to post all of this after i'd had my lunch. I was even busy flicking through my physics books to quote the actual equations.

I was in two minds whether I could be bothered to post it or not, but if I saved you the trouble, then job done. I mean, you can't let an abuse of physics stand like that.

[Zingari]

So is the issue here WTC 7 or the twin towers hit by the planes? Does this mean you find it conceivable that the twin towers could have collapsed from the planes but you're just sceptical about WTC 7?

not really ,,

if WTC 7 was proven to be brought down by a controlled explosion ,, it must have been pre planned weeks /months before .

therefore if WTC7 was prewired for demolition before the attack ,, then why not buildings 1 and 2

[Babylon]

perhaps you weren't listening ,

WTC7 was not , i repeat not, hit by an aeroplane or anything else other than flying debris

all the other buildings in the area were damaged just as badly , but remained completely stable .

the only difference being that these buildings were not owned by the same person as owned buildings 1 2 and 7

Errrrrr.....

El Empty said:

"A 737 made out of aluminium would not harm a building made out of 300 vertical steel columns very much at all. The aluminium plane would disappear before much damage was done to the steel columns. The planes engines would do a little bit of damage though."

The laws of physics say other wise. He made no mention of WT7.

[Zingari]

Errrrrr.....

El Empty said:

"A 737 made out of aluminium would not harm a building made out of 300 vertical steel columns very much at all. The aluminium plane would disappear before much damage was done to the steel columns. The planes engines would do a little bit of damage though."

The laws of physics say other wise. He made no mention of WT7.

errr yes he did in post 56

[Babylon]

errr yes he did in post 56

Errrr... It has nothing to do with what he was saying in that quote though as a plane didn't hit WT7.

His point is that a plane hitting a building wouldn't do damage because of what it's made of.... whether its WT1, WT2 or WT7 doesn't matter. Quite simply a plane travelling at that velocity and of that mass, WOULD damage the building considerably.

[Zingari]

Errrr... It has nothing to do with what he was saying in that quote though as a plane didn't hit WT7.

His point is that a plane hitting a building wouldn't do damage because of what it's made of.... whether its WT1, WT2 or WT7 doesn't matter. Quite simply a plane travelling at that velocity and of that mass, WOULD damage the building considerably.

ok once again

WTC 1 and 2 were obviously hit by planes , and were badly damaged by fires and for whatever reason they collapsed , the explanation given was that the collapse was due to the combination of the strike and the fires .

many did not accept this and said it was impossible . but of course in this situation there would obviously be many unknowns because the interior damage could never really be ascertained because of the collapse , and the debris was quickly taken away so no thorough examination could ever be undertaken

WTC7 is a completely different case , it was not hit by anything other than flying debris and stood for 5 hours after the attack with small fires randomly scattered around the building

it then collapsed dramatically into a neat pile in less than 10 seconds , giving the appearance of a controlled demolition .( just watch the film footage of it collapsing and make up your own mind what it looks like )

it was also announced on tv that it was going to collapse , how did they know ?

Many experts around the world say controlled demolition is the only explanation and there is plenty of evidence of explosions just prior ,

now , if the WTC7 collapse can be proven to be a controlled demolition job ( the owner admitted to " pulling it" on tv )then it must have been planned weeks or months before the actual attack ,which must give anyone the suspicion that maybe the other 2 buildings were part of the same operation

i'm not saying i believe it or disbelieve it , but to dismiss it so easily is , i believe a great folly .

anyhow , i'll leave it to El Empty to explain from hereon

[ozleicester]

Zeitgeist... has anyone else seen it? It's the most comprehensive case against the claims made by the government for 9/11 and many other events and beliefs.

In fact I even recall it putting forward a very convincing case for the 7/11 attacks here being government planned...

quite enjoyed that but not too sure about mixing up modern conspiracies with the origins of religion theme , it's looks a bit new age hippy cultish , but yes still enjoyable .

i preferred "in plane sight" and "ripple effect" by dave von kliest and "painful deceptions" by eric hufschmidt, which concentrate more on the 911 events themselves , without trying to tie them into a grand scheme ( even if there may be truth in it )

this

[Webbo]

Just to repeat my point why did the towers have to come down. Flying a plane into a building is plenty big enough to cause outrage.

Second point what does America or anyone else get out of invading Afghanistan? It's a shit hole in the middle of now where with no oil or any other mineral wealth.

[Zingari]

Just to repeat my point why did the towers have to come down. Flying a plane into a building is plenty big enough to cause outrage.

Second point what does America or anyone else get out of invading Afghanistan? It's a shit hole in the middle of now where with no oil or any other mineral wealth.

sorry i thought i'd explained last time, but can see why this is not clear to you.

right , the theory is , that the planes that flew into the towers were not commercial 767 s , but military fly-by-wire drones fitted with explosive pods and various other equipment , and it would immediately be obvious to any investigators that the plane's wreckage would be inconsistent with commercial aeroplanes .

therefore only a massive collapse that completely destroyed the evidence would cover up this anomaly,

add to this , the wreckage and steel from the whole area was quickly removed and sold abroad so that no investigation could ever take place ( suspicious is it not ? )

One would have thought that structural engineers would learn a lot from this wreckage. after all if steel structured buildings really can fall down due to low temp hydrocarbon fires it puts a whole new emphasis on the future design , does it not ?

ok i'm going further now than i really want to , but it is stated that the original commercial planes disappeared off the radar for some hours over Ohio and somehow the switch took place , the drones then reappeared in their place and skilfully navigated back to the targets , ( something that the partially trained pilots were almost certainly not capable of doing )

but i've already strayed too far into conspiracy theory territory,

it's almost impossible for me to explain how, why and who pulled the whole thing off ,, but it seems incredulous to believe the official version ( just like the JFK assassination, i don't know who killed him, but i'm pretty sure it was not Oswald )

I'd just like to add , though i can't find the article at the mo. , but French TV were going to do a debate with Thierry Meyssan ( i believe but not sure ), regarding the WTC collapses , but this was cancelled as no credible French engineer or scientist was willing to defend the NIST version and report of the events , is this not very strange ?

[Babylon]

Why bother with planes? Why not just plant a bomb big enough to blow out the base and rig the rest of it to collapse.

A damn site easier than switching planes, remote controlled fecking drones with bombs on board.

JFK conspiracy I can just about live with, one man and a gun can do that. What you suggest would have taken 100's of people to orchestrate and pull off.

Far more likely that a few nutters hijacked a plane and flew it into the buildings. History is littered with nutters doing acts of "terrorism", these were just a bit more adventurous.

[Zingari]

Why bother with planes? Why not just plant a bomb big enough to blow out the base and rig the rest of it to collapse.

A damn site easier than switching planes, remote controlled fecking drones with bombs on board.

Then you could not blame Arab terrorists

[Webbo]

Then you could not blame Arab terrorists

I don't see why not. BTW didn't Bin Laden (or the CIA) try to do just that a few years earlier?