Babylon Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Then you could not blame Arab terrorists Why's that then? If the Irish can bomb England, why can't Arabs bomb America. After all they already planted a bomb in the car park in 1993... or was that the government?
Ford Super Sunday Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Why's that then? If the Irish can bomb England, why can't Arabs bomb America. After all they already planted a bomb in the car park in 1993... or was that the government? No no, that wasn't big enough to make a 'conspiracy' fuss of, so that was the Arabs
Babylon Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 No no, that wasn't big enough to make a 'conspiracy' fuss of, so that was the Arabs I'm sure we'll get an answer once wikipedia and youtube have been consulted.
Zingari Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 sorry but everyone keeps veering off from the central theme ,, i don't know why it was done, who did it, and how or why it was done in a particular way , i just want to concentrate on the fact that the official explanation is very unsatisfactory , anything else i put forward really would be "conspiracy theory " e.g. i have watched magicians put women into boxes , cut them in half , pull the boxes apart with the 2 halves of the women separated by a few feet of space . do i really believe that was what i've seen , ? no ! can i explain how they do it ? no do i have to accept that a woman really was cut in half and put back together because i can't explain ? no! why if something does not make sense is the onus on the doubter to provide a full and all explaining answer ? i've said before , i don't know the answers , i just know the facts don't add up
Zingari Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. sorry only just noticed this , and i feel a bit under siege if you really believe that then you really haven't grasped the full concept of the JFK assasination , and i'm not going to get involved in that now if more than one gunman was involved then there must have been some very high up people involved in the cover up , most notably in the FBI nd CIA , but there is an enormous amount of good solid investigative journalism relating to this , and i'd advise anyone to just look into this affair and just how deep the conspiracy must have been , it really is most fascinating
Daggers Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 e.g.i have watched magicians put women into boxes , cut them in half , pull the boxes apart with the 2 halves of the women separated by a few feet of space . do i really believe that was what i've seen , ? no ! can i explain how they do it ? no do i have to accept that a woman really was cut in half and put back together because i can't explain ? no! why if something does not make sense is the onus on the doubter to provide a full and all explaining answer ? i've said before , i don't know the answers , i just know the facts don't add up Reductio ad absurdum. I offer you Occam's Razor by riposte: a) the events happened as claimed by various governments, agencies and the terrorist organisations. or b) Hundreds of people across multiple nations conspired to enact a conspiracy and not one single person has broken ranks, and nor has a trail of unexplained accidents silenced all of those involved. The razor says the former.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Oh my I'm sending foxestalk an invoice for compensation for the last 5 minutes of my life I've just wasted
Zingari Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Reductio ad absurdum.I offer you Occam's Razor by riposte: a) the events happened as claimed by various governments, agencies and the terrorist organisations. or b) Hundreds of people across multiple nations conspired to enact a conspiracy and not one single person has broken ranks, and nor has a trail of unexplained accidents silenced all of those involved. The razor says the former. if you were involved ,, why would you break ranks ? you would be damning yourself ( how many nazis blew the whistle on themselves as to what was happening in the concentration camps ?) they followed orders if you did , you would only be part of the compartmentalised conspiracy with limited access to enough of the facts , (you may not have even known you were even part of the conspiracy) you would probably be completely discredited by the media ,if indeed they bothered to give airing to what you knew and if anyone did disappear , how would the unknowing public know if they were involved in the conspiracy in first place ? , they'd just be unknown "john does" anyway i think i've exhausted my points now and i'm going round in circles
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. The heroin trade (which has increased dramatically since we invaded. The Taliban had cut the heroin trade down to 10% of what it used to be. Then we invaded and now the massive opium fields are fully protected and the trade is bigger than it EVER was. It's a multi Billion dollar trade. Also the US did needed an oil pipeline safely running through Afghanistan and they now have it. Why's that then? If the Irish can bomb England, why can't Arabs bomb America. After all they already planted a bomb in the car park in 1993... or was that the government? The 1993 bomb was suspicious and was a CIA/Mossad job as was the Oklahoma bomb. If there were all these foreign nutters trying to blow us up do you not think that bombs would be going off regular in our cities? I do. I can get hold of hand grenades or big guns if I want them (and I suspect that many of the lads on here can if they want to) so you can guarantee that these so called terrorists can get them too. No no, that wasn't big enough to make a 'conspiracy' fuss of, so that was the Arabs It was and still is made a fuss out of. You won't hear about it on the BBC or Sky News though.
Webbo Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 The heroin trade (which has increased dramatically since we invaded. The Taliban had cut the heroin trade down to 10% of what it used to be. Then we invaded and now the massive opium fields are fully protected and the trade is bigger than it EVER was. It's a multi Billion dollar trade.Also the US did needed an oil pipeline safely running through Afghanistan and they now have it. None of that makes any sense. Why does America want heroin to get through and at the same time ban it and fight against it? There's a much safer oil pipeline going through Turkey, not that it or any other pipeline runs all the way to America. The money the war in Afghanistan is costing outweighs any benefit any pipeline could provide.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 I'm sure we'll get an answer once wikipedia and youtube have been consulted. Are you saying that people who believe that the 19 arabs (some of whom are still alive) didn't commit 911 get their info from Youtube and Wiki?!! Cos you're wrong if that's what you think. Think on.....some of the people who the 911 commision tell you hijacked the planes ARE STILL ALIVE ! That one fact alone should make something click surely a) the events happened as claimed by various governments, agencies and the terrorist organisations. Obviously not. You've got to be quite stupid or just not interested in reading the facts of the day and the investigation to believe this story. Or you are a member of the Lodge and refuse to believe it for obvious reasons!or b) Hundreds of people across multiple nations conspired to enact a conspiracy and not one single person has broken ranks, and nor has a trail of unexplained accidents silenced all of those involved. Correct. Have you not seen how the FAA and NORAD didn't do their routine job on that morning? Have you not seen how no jets were scrambled to intercept any of the planes? The ONLY day in American history where a hijacked or off course plane has not had a fighter jet sent up. The only day EVER. Even after the first attack, and the second attack, they still didn't send a plane up to intercept the plane that was heading for Washington! It's not hard to work out that people were ordered not to do their ROUTINE jobs. And the same people who messed up and let this happen all got promoted in their jobs straight after. Not one person was reprimanded for their massive supposed fuck ups.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 None of that makes any sense. Why does America want heroin to get through and at the same time ban it and fight against it?There's a much safer oil pipeline going through Turkey, not that it or any other pipeline runs all the way to America. The money the war in Afghanistan is costing outweighs any benefit any pipeline could provide. Well it does make sense. The CIA are well known to sell cocaine, heroin and weed. They have to pretend they are fighting drugs though so they have some good normal people in the agencies who know nothing of the corruption who are trying to fight it. Don't you think that the money grabbing bastards would want to control this multi billion dollar industry? EDIT : How do you explain the heroin trade becoming bigger than ever in Afghanistan when the US has planes constantly flying over these areas that have massive fields of the stuff? They also have enough troops to burn down the fields easily. The fact is that the fields are now protected and the only reason I can see for that is that someone high up is making shitloads of money from this trade. As for the pipeline in Afghanistan, it is very much essential to the oil barons (who are mostly involved in the US administration). I'd suggest that you don't listen to BBC or Sky News on this subject. Why not read what people like Chomsky, Pallast, Pilger and Seymour Hersh have to say about these subjects. They are real journalists/commentators and there aren't many of them left.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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 ? 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 ? You make plenty of good points. The steel was immediatley shipped to China I think it was, to be melted down and re-used. The serious investigators were furious at this obvious cover-up of major evidnece. And those French engineers and scientists are not alone. Thousands of them all over Europe and America have spoke out about how the NIST report is not trustworthy. So I'm not surprised that they could find no-one credible to defend it on TV. I bet they could of found hundreds of top architects, engineers and scientists in France to speak out against it though!
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 1. an argument rumbling since 2001, dreamed up by Americans who refuse to acknowledge that their own security was at fault for the terror attack, and find a scapegoat in the Government, because nothing 'as small' as Al Qaeda can pentrate the great USA.2. And anyone who believes 7/7 was an inside job is a fvcking igneramous, sorry. 1. Yeah the US security was at fault that day, you are correct. In fact, it is the ONLY day in history the FAA and NORAD have switched off. The day that 3 planes managed to hit 3 of the most important buildings in the world. How you cannot see that the planes were allowed to do what they did really is beyond me. Not one plane has managed to fly around freely for more than 4-6 minutes EVER. But on this day 3 or 4 planes could roam around the airspace for a very long time. And one of them managed to penetrate Washington DC!!!! Probably the most protected airspace in the world!! Seriously, get a grip man. 2. Well, sorry, but if you believe that those 4 guys did 7/7 then you are the ignaramous. But you're not alone so don't fret. Just a quiz : Which picture is real? No wonder we've got a terror threat in this country, people believe anything their government tells them!
Daggers Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Empty, I don't bother responding to your posts because, for the most part, they are full of unsubstantiated bullshit and ignorant commentary. No offence, like.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. Wow, you must be a very trusting guy. Do you think that both of those men care about the citizens of their countries then? I've never seen any evidence to say so. Bush and Blair are a pair of fooking mentalists and I can't see how anyone would think they have a conscience And the war is not about winning, it is about installing warlords and murderers into power in every town in the countries they invade and thus controlling the cashflow of the billion dollar industries in those countries. When they have the right people in control over there then we will withdraw. I've heard that the Baathists will soon be back in power in Iraq, they already run the police and intelligence/terror systems in that country. We were supposed to be liberating Iraqis from the Baathist regime but we just gave most of the worst ones their jobs back and they now subjugate their citizens much more than they did when Saddam was the boss.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. But many people have spoke out and if people want to find out then the books and interviews are out there. Even ex CIA have spoken out.
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. Have you been reading 'The 911 Commission' and 'The NIST Report'? 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. There are many more excellent scientists who dismiss the claims of these government scientists. I personally prefer to listen to the ones who don't mould their facts to fit the official story. The scientists who spout the official story are in the minority. It really sounds like you two haven't noticed how small the fires were. They were dying out and were starved of oxygen. They may have caused slight damage to very few of the columns but hardly any of them. The buildings was in no danger of collapse, but yet in around 1 hour they did collapse. Fact of the matter is that the buildings would still be standing without the use of explosives (the ones they put in in the weeks running up to 911, you know, those unprecedented clear outs of the towers, and the unprecedented power shut downs of the towers that turned off all security cameras in the towers for a weekend. Oh, and the sniffer dogs that were trained to sniff out explosives in the towers were also given the week off. Just coincidence though I suppose. Who was boss of the WTC security by the way? Anyone know? Cos I'm sure one of Bush's brothers owns the company who was running things and ordered the dogs out and the power shutdowns etc. They weren't planning oat though)
easilee Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 If America is responsible (and i don't know if they are or not, though it wouldn't surprise me), what next? As far as i can see, since the dawn of 'civilisation' countries and peoples have become powers and empires. nothing has changed. Countries, religions, and empires still exist today and are going to do what they naturally do, which is wrestle and go to war for dominance in one form or another. This inherantly breeds ways of waging wars which are increasingly strange and scary, especially when it comes to propaganda techniques, infiltration of organisations, religions and manipulation of a nations thoughts through media and even new technologies. Believe me folks, if a shadowy secret elite are running the world for their own gain... 1. Wouldn't surprise me in the least 2. They built the system we live in and can easily counteract any revolution that the people may try to bring about. I think what i'm tryin to say is, Love your kids and family as much as you can, tell the missus at least once a day all the good things about her, have lots of sex and orgasms, win the lottery and watch plenty of football. And hope for the fackin best
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Weren't you listening it was only aluminium, that would do any damage..... even if it was travelling at 400mph. Weren't you listening? Even a cruise missile (that is packed with explosives and travels faster than the speed of sound) would not of brought the towers down. Unless it hit the base obviously.
Daggers Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 I can't believe I'm doing this...it's basic chemistry Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 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. The laws of physics also show how the building would of withstood the damage to the top floors I believe. Sorry about too many posts in this thread but I think that these events are on the subject of 'Terror Threat'
BoneDog Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 Empty,I don't bother responding to your posts because, for the most part, they are full of unsubstantiated bullshit and ignorant commentary. No offence, like. Non taken, reading posts by someone with a superiority complex such as yourself only entertains me
Daggers Posted 28 January 2010 Posted 28 January 2010 The laws of physics also show how the building would of withstood the damage to the top floors I believe. Arghhhh... Which laws of Physics would they be? Newton's gravity thing? The relationship between acceleration of an object and the cumulative forces acting upon it? Thermodynamics or the law of general fucking relativity? What scientific qualifications do you hold?
Houdini Logic Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Arghhhh...Which laws of Physics would they be? Newton's gravity thing? The relationship between acceleration of an object and the cumulative forces acting upon it? Thermodynamics or the law of general fucking relativity? What scientific qualifications do you hold? I think he's referring to the general law of entropy (within all of the above posts)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.