• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

9/11 Conspiracy

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Ok supposing it was an inside job, how do you explain recruiting 19 Arab looking men to go on a suicide mission for the good of America? There are videos and pictures of them with senior al qaeda figures ffs ...don't tell me photoshop? Not to mention the money and correspondence that was tracked to Pakistan, or was it just coincidence they picked the same day?
    Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Jawz
      No they didn't. That caught fire when debris hit it one of the planes hit, nothing to do with the towers collapsing.
      1000's of tons of rubble landed on the roof of No'7 it wasn’t designed for that, simple.
      Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

      Comment


        #63
        This is more painful that arguing about global warming.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Jawz
          No they didn't. That caught fire when debris hit it one of the planes hit, nothing to do with the towers collapsing.
          Go look at the fooking pictures.
          They fell in a tight space, but not in their own footprint.
          The whole plaza between them and around them is full of debris.
          Quite simply the ground they were standing on (including their basements) is not physically big enough to hold all the material. It had to go somewhere.
          Both towers went sideways as they cam down. Not much, but sideways.
          I am not qualified to give the above advice!

          The original point and click interface by
          Smith and Wesson.

          Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
            Go look at the fooking pictures.
            They fell in a tight space, but not in their own footprint.
            The whole plaza between them and around them is full of debris.
            Quite simply the ground they were standing on (including their basements) is not physically big enough to hold all the material. It had to go somewhere.
            Both towers went sideways as they cam down. Not much, but sideways.
            Yup you're right.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by sasguru
              I'm disappointed with you Bogey. Here's why it wasn't internal:

              1. There are better ways of feigning an attack (as an excuse for war) than blowing up 2 of your prime commercial buildings + the elite of your business community.
              2. Look at George Bush's speeches prior to 9/11. There's not a single foreign-policy focussed one. He was a purely internal facing president till then.
              3. We have never before seen tall buildings collapse in that way. How do we know how they are going to collapse? As someone has mentioned, the construction was such that the support was through the external walls. The building was not designed for lateral pressure other than strong wind.
              4. The conspiracy theorists have tons of detail, plenty of which can be explained in a myriad of ways.
              Likewise dissapointed in you SG for presuming that I think the US government did it. I never said that.

              However, as an hypothesis, let's say the Neocons did it.

              They had the means:
              political control, unimaginable amounts of money and politcal power.

              They had the method:
              Cause a 'War on Terror' to panic the US population into accepting draconian controls and loss of freedoms by scaring the sh1t out of them.

              They had the motives:

              1) Keeps the rich and influential US Zionist lobby on-side

              2) Huge revenues for Halliburton and ADPs (All Daddies pals) rebuilding Iraq or wherever they bomb into democracy next.

              3) Allows the US (and allies) to control and secure oil supplies in the Middle East by installing client governments and installing a permanent military presence.

              Maybe it was Reverend Black in the library with a candlestick wot dun it, but I doubt it.

              You've come right out the other side of the forest of irony and ended up in the desert of wrong.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by sasguru
                I'm disappointed with you Bogey. Here's why it wasn't internal:

                1. There are better ways of feigning an attack (as an excuse for war) than blowing up 2 of your prime commercial buildings + the elite of your business community.
                2. Look at George Bush's speeches prior to 9/11. There's not a single foreign-policy focussed one. He was a purely internal facing president till then.
                3. We have never before seen tall buildings collapse in that way. How do we know how they are going to collapse? As someone has mentioned, the construction was such that the support was through the external walls. The building was not designed for lateral pressure other than strong wind.
                4. The conspiracy theorists have tons of detail, plenty of which can be explained in a myriad of ways.
                Brilliant - having a debate with you is like having a fist fight with a parrot - here goes:
                1. The buildings were a white elephant - they were making a loss, difficult to work in, heat, plumb, air condition, losing tenancies, they were poorly designed inside, and were costing the owner millions. Some prime real-estate in downtown NYC is much more valuable, especially after you've claimed on your insurance policy (twice) after adding a clause about terrorist activities and the mayor has kindly cleared all the rubble away for you.
                2. Georges Bush's speeches? What? When have they ever been anything other than badly executed soundbites about whatever his advisors have spelt out to the frikkin monkey to placate the hordes?
                3. And earthquakes and fires and steel to a specification that included fire damage and a structure, like all others built since a previous air crash, built to withstand an aeroplane collision - although given, not one as heavy and fast as this. Your strongest point.
                4. Doesn't everybody, on all sides? This is where ownership of the media and the louder voice it provides, comes into play.

                Last edited by realityhack; 22 February 2007, 14:39.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Why fly planes into the buildings? What a complicated and convoluted plot. Why not do a McVie and park a carbomb outside? There are so many easier ways to achieve what they wanted to do if it was an inside job.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Jawz
                    Why fly planes into the buildings? What a complicated and convoluted plot. Why not do a McVie and park a carbomb outside? There are so many easier ways to achieve what they wanted to do if it was an inside job.
                    Because nobody would have bought it!

                    A van packed with explosives in the underground car park bringing down the tallest buildings in Manhatten?

                    I was done before, and even though there was huge superfical damage, the structure of the towers wasn't affected at all.

                    You've come right out the other side of the forest of irony and ended up in the desert of wrong.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by bogeyman
                      Because nobody would have bought it!

                      A van packed with explosives in the underground car park bringing down the tallest buildings in Manhatten?

                      I was done before, and even though there was huge superfical damage, the structure of the towers wasn't affected at all.
                      Who flew the planes then? Or was it radio control?
                      Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X