Houdini Logic Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 The US will happily jump into any country for any reason - staging a disaster at the cost of £100 billion is not even worthy of a conspiracy theory for anyone with half a brain a cell in their brain.
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Questioning what you read should extend beyond professional news outlets and official political voices, otherwise you're just a braindead hypocrite. They only question what they don't want to hear. He's not a building structure expert, so he has basically taken what a conspiracy theorist has said at face value, and dismissed another scientist saying it is possible.
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Show us all a steel structured building falling down due to fire within an hour and i'll accept that the conspiracy theory is based on dodgy science ( even sosban is accepting that explosives were a possibility in a roundabout ambiguous way ) There must be hundreds of steel framed towers around the world awaiting demolition , why can't they indulge us with a little practical demonstration of fire bringing one down . Surely it would be more cost effective way of bringing down buildings without the need for explosives and expert demolition teams ? Sorry, but when scientists claim to prove things , i like to see a practical demonstration whenever it's possible .And I can't see any obstacles as to why they do not recreate this effect for all to see and put the issue to bed once and for all You seem to be forgetting any damage caused by a great big frigging plane smashing into it at 400mph. NOBODY can say for certain what was damaged by the plane on it's entry into the building. There was as sure as shit a lot of damage to it before any fire took hold. How could anyone possibly recreate something like that? It's bonkers to even suggest it.
shen Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 They only question what they don't want to hear. He's not a building structure expert, so he has basically taken what a conspiracy theorist has said at face value, and dismissed another scientist saying it is possible. The American authorities certainly didn't help themselves in this regard by swiftly removing the debris and destroying it. Surely the idea that a plane could crash into the WTC wasn't that far out, so why did the authorities not take appropriate steps to secure the evidence at Ground Zero and study it in order to work out why it could cause the collapse of those buildings? It was a missed opportunity and an illogical one as well and I don't blame people for reacting to it. I agree that evidence of something sinister is questionable at best, but the incompetence of the relevant authorities has done nothing to dispel such claims.
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 The American authorities certainly didn't help themselves in this regard by swiftly removing the debris and destroying it. Surely the idea that a plane could crash into the WTC wasn't that far out, so why did the authorities not take appropriate steps to secure the evidence at Ground Zero and study it in order to work out why it could cause the collapse of those buildings? It was a missed opportunity and an illogical one as well and I don't blame people for reacting to it. I agree that evidence of something sinister is questionable at best, but the incompetence of the relevant authorities has done nothing to dispel such claims. So the evidence points to them being incompetent rather than them masterminding a plot that would have taken 1000's to accomplish. Now that I can believe, there is plenty of evidence of incompetence from officials out there.
shen Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 So the evidence points to them being incompetent rather than them masterminding a plot that would have taken 1000's to accomplish. Now that I can believe, there is plenty of evidence of incompetence from officials out there. Yes, but that evidence could (or should) be just as damaging as wild conspiracy theories. The incidents at Fort Hood two years ago showed very clearly that the American authorities can't even spot a terrorist among their own military ranks! How bad would it look in the public if it got out that terrorists easily infiltrated American security agencies? I'm not saying that actually happened, but it wouldn't surprise me the least if it was the case...
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Yes, but that evidence could (or should) be just as damaging as wild conspiracy theories. The incidents at Fort Hood two years ago showed very clearly that the American authorities can't even spot a terrorist among their own military ranks! How bad would it look in the public if it got out that terrorists easily infiltrated American security agencies? I'm not saying that actually happened, but it wouldn't surprise me the least if it was the case... I would the say the probability is high of there being someone with sympathy towards their cause in the security agencies. The probability of them actually being in a position to plan that and get others in the agency to help them, highly, highly, highly highly (repeat x 100) unlikely.
shen Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 I would the say the probability is high of there being someone with sympathy towards their cause in the security agencies. The probability of them actually being in a position to plan that and get others in the agency to help them, highly, highly, highly highly (repeat x 100) unlikely. Who said they needed many within the security agencies? My claim of incompetence suggests that the agencies didn't spot anything before it was too late. However, if such a security failure became public it would seriously weaken the top authorities within the government.
MPH Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 The American authorities certainly didn't help themselves in this regard by swiftly removing the debris and destroying it. Surely the idea that a plane could crash into the WTC wasn't that far out, so why did the authorities not take appropriate steps to secure the evidence at Ground Zero and study it in order to work out why it could cause the collapse of those buildings? It was a missed opportunity and an illogical one as well and I don't blame people for reacting to it. I agree that evidence of something sinister is questionable at best, but the incompetence of the relevant authorities has done nothing to dispel such claims. If there is one thing about america.. its a very proud nation. The attack will of dented their pride and their ability/ speed with which they dealt with it would of been one way to regain some of that pride... Seeing that place cleared up would be much more important to them than anything else. Any why should they care one bit about conspiracy theories?
Houdini Logic Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 If there is one thing about america.. its a very proud nation. The attack will of dented their pride and their ability/ speed with which they dealt with it would of been one way to regain some of that pride... Seeing that place cleared up would be much more important to them than anything else. Any why should they care one bit about conspiracy theories? Exactly. Probably more interested in clearing away people's limbs and getting the city/country back up and running, than thinking about whether the collapse had anything to do with anything other than a 160 ton plane.
shen Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 If there is one thing about america.. its a very proud nation. The attack will of dented their pride and their ability/ speed with which they dealt with it would of been one way to regain some of that pride... Seeing that place cleared up would be much more important to them than anything else. Any why should they care one bit about conspiracy theories? There wasn't any worry about conspiration theories at the time (nor is there now most likely). But they were wrong to dispose of such crucial evidence as the rubble was. As I mentioned, the thought of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers is by no means a new or unrealistic one. It's happened before. The purpose of keeping and studying the rubble would have been to pinpoint the cause of the collapse and thus identify potential flaws and weaknesses in those types of constructions. Id would've had the sole aim of taking appropriate measures with existing and future buildings of the sort. This did not happen and it's perfectly valid to ask why.
Houdini Logic Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 There wasn't any worry about conspiration theories at the time (nor is there now most likely). But they were wrong to dispose of such crucial evidence as the rubble was. As I mentioned, the thought of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers is by no means a new or unrealistic one. It's happened before. The purpose of keeping and studying the rubble would have been to pinpoint the cause of the collapse and thus identify potential flaws and weaknesses in those types of constructions. Id would've had the sole aim of taking appropriate measures with existing and future buildings of the sort. This did not happen and it's perfectly valid to ask why. I'm pretty sure the 'flaw' in the construction was that some twat flew a plane into it. And even if they kept some rubble (I'm not even sure what that would tell them to be honest) and made it 'plane proof', all the idiots are going to do is fly more planes or bigger planes or quicker planes into the building. If that doesn't work they'll revert to bombs.
Zingari Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 The US will happily jump into any country for any reason - staging a disaster at the cost of £100 billion is not even worthy of a conspiracy theory for anyone with half a brain a cell in their brain. it always helps if you have a 911 , Pearl Harbour, gulf of tonkin USS Maddox, threat of Iraqi WMDs or a Lusitania as an excuse , though .to steel the resolve of the population and push through a few laws such as homeland security and patriot acts just as a back up excuse like
MPH Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 There wasn't any worry about conspiration theories at the time (nor is there now most likely). But they were wrong to dispose of such crucial evidence as the rubble was. As I mentioned, the thought of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers is by no means a new or unrealistic one. It's happened before. The purpose of keeping and studying the rubble would have been to pinpoint the cause of the collapse and thus identify potential flaws and weaknesses in those types of constructions. Id would've had the sole aim of taking appropriate measures with existing and future buildings of the sort. This did not happen and it's perfectly valid to ask why. I would estimate that it would of taken a good few years to work out which peice of rubble came from which side of which building ( several buildings were destroyed in that area) Are you REALLY suggesting that should of been done? i mean seriously....
BoneDog Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 El Empty, how does molten steel burn? You've mentioned it twice now from your 9/11 conspiracies, that it burnt for weeks. I'm interested as to how molten steel can alight into flames. Also, you then mention that this molten steel continued to burn for weeks? Again, how exactly? For molten steel to remain molten implies that there was a constant flow of energy in the form of heat to keep the metal above its melting point. This would require a lot of melting equipment, which I don't remember anybody mentioning. I didn't mean that it burst into flames, I worded it wrong. To me, molten steel is like fire, that's all I meant! I was just trying to point out that there were tons of molten steel in the basement and it was there for a couple of weeks. What caused the steel to melt? It certainly wasn't the fire or the jet fuel. I've not been home long and I'm busy until about 6.30 but I will be back to try and answer any replies to my earlier posts in more detail. Just thought I'd pop in and see how this thread is going As for the videos about WT7 collapsing like that due to a bit of structural damgae, HA, havin a larf! But I can see that some folk are willing to lap up the liars words and let them carry on with their bad deeds for EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR. There were demolition charges in that building. Another quick point about people saying that the plane impacts caused the big towers to collapse in on themselves - much smaller and weaker buildings have been hit by planes and missiles and not collapsed. Yet these two buildings that were designed to withstand plane impacts did collapse! Both of them. COME ONNNNN. Some people will believe anything. And your attitudes are going to be the downfall of most of mankind. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME. No offence
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Sorry but this i'll continue to believe this is absolute laughable crap unless someone does this to a building using only uncontrolled random fires anyone out there wish to take up up the challenge ? now don't all rush at once please , The majority of people here believe that the universe occured by random chance, why not this?
Zingari Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 I would estimate that it would of taken a good few years to work out which peice of rubble came from which side of which building ( several buildings were destroyed in that area) Are you REALLY suggesting that should of been done? i mean seriously.... they might have got a few clues from what happened to these steel girders http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/911evidenceofthermitecutcolumn-1
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 they might have got a few clues from what happened to these steel girders http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/911evidenceofthermitecutcolumn-1 They were too busy making Irn Bru though.
Fox You Forest Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 I thought Babs put that to bed the last time a 9/11 thread came up.
zubi Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 The American authorities certainly didn't help themselves in this regard by swiftly removing the debris and destroying it. Surely the idea that a plane could crash into the WTC wasn't that far out, so why did the authorities not take appropriate steps to secure the evidence at Ground Zero and study it in order to work out why it could cause the collapse of those buildings? It was a missed opportunity and an illogical one as well and I don't blame people for reacting to it. I agree that evidence of something sinister is questionable at best, but the incompetence of the relevant authorities has done nothing to dispel such claims. True, and there was never any information regarding the finding of these very helpful objects or were there Black Box Cover up
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 I thought Babs put that to bed the last time a 9/11 thread came up. I did. He used the exact same bloody photo of those bits of steel as well, not worthy of another second. You could have a hand written, video taped, signed in blood confession from Bin Laden that it was all down to him and the government had nothing to do with it... they would just say it was all faked.
Babylon Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 they might have got a few clues from what happened to these steel girders http://911scholars.ning.com/photo/911evidenceofthermitecutcolumn-1
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.