If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may 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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et, Jonathan wrote: Al Dykes wrote: In article et, Jonathan wrote: Al Dykes wrote: In article , wrote: In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote: I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it. There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the towers on 9/11. No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were plenty of people that said they heard explosions from down below. Now go ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and they really didn't hear anything fool. In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a single thing. No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting charge. In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up to the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing at the location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition explosions were heard immediatly preceeding the collapse. There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People that were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a dumb one aren't you? There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe anything but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your YouTube BS means squat. Get back to your video games and dream on little broomstick cowboy. There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any tower collapse. Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower. There is no proof of anything Al. The real truth will never be known. You can believe any BS stories you choose to Al. If you choose to swallow the official story then that is your problem. The truth is that the US government failed to protect against the attacks and continues the cover up. There was plenty of time and opportunity to plan and plant any amount of charges that could have been used to take down buildings that were also struck by airliners or missiles. There is no way you can prove this was impossible and there is no need for any proof that is did occur either. There is plenty of proof that the government fought the investigations and plenty of proof of cover up and failures. Plenty of reason for suspicion and that is all there is needed. Poor Al just has no clue and he never will. You are a sad case little Al. Very sad indeed. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article et, Jonathan wrote: No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss. Time to adjust your tinfoil. Wahahaha.........This is all you have? This is where you leave now I see. Man you are one loser bigtime. Wahahahaha....... |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Terryc wrote: wrote: I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. In established buildings maybe. In a new building just occupied a few weeks, a thief did wallets and purses on four floors before I asked him WTF are you doing. "Testing power points" was the reply that satisfied my co-workers. I ignored my boss and rang security before anything was done. Bingo. Is your example intended to show that strangers almost always get caught? And besides, the WTC complex WAS and "established" complex, with folks working in the same office for years, eager to break the monotomy by talking with workmen. Just like you did. Controlled demolition would require much more than one experienced thief. You have no clue what it would take and no idea how mush time there was. You have nothing. Dream on........ Indeed, it would require a lot of men with wires and explosives, or a fewer number of men for a longer time. Either way, I can't imagine The first thing you got right! that it could be pulled off. but that doesn't alter your point. Yeah - I suspected that we agreed. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. Weekend work? Pillar safety check? It may be possible, but ISTM that the scenario is very unlikely. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Agreed, I'd like to see some kind of scenario posed by supporters of the theory. I can't think of any credible theory of how it is possible. I'd liketo know, from demolition experts, what kind of prep would be involved, the number of man-hours involved, and whether power tools would be necessary to set things up. You are a true dreamer. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Rocinante wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC), wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. To believe this crap, you'd have to believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable. I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Setting up explosives for controlled demolition of two tall buildings is even more complicated than most people realize. You know this just HOW? Miles of cables need to be run across office space in order to pull the beams in the right direction. You are a real pro I see. Also, those support beams have to be cut nearly all the way through in order to help the bombs do their jobs. Again, the bombs have to be planted in the right spots and some would be in plain sight. They just can't be lobbed in hidden crawl spaces when everyone goes home. You would also need to hide giant spools of wiring that would be needed to wire all the bombs. Finally, bombs are not stable. The intense heat caused by those "distracting" planes hitting the towers would have exploded the bombs out of sequence and/or destroyed the connecting wires. You have no clue what-so-ever. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Jonathan wrote:
wrote: On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote: In article et, Jonathan wrote: wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. To believe this crap, you'd have to believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable. I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You really should try to get out more often and get away from the internet once in a while. Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of day without being planned for and with people controlling the space notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993 at the WTC. Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material requires paperwork. There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the towers on 9/11. In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were kept for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories about that process on request. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164-- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they belong. However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could know exactly where the planes would even hit? Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would they? No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works? BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more complicated? Kook! Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any explosives being planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah.... Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires. It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish? No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC and that is what caused the collapse. I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start to finish, what happened that day, according to you. BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken credit for it. Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession. Do it now or go away a total loser. Put up or shut up. This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not, provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes you could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to see a well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what "really" happened that day, from start to finish. Jeff |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Harry K wrote: On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote: snip Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it. So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen? Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is always a possibility that anything could happen and just because there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to create doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that everything is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty lame and to try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that doubt what is fed to them. snip When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the columns, cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord, without anyone noticing then the sane people here will listen. Until then your disbeif is flat kookery. The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have been big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that long to prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo. Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation, you can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff has been removed. But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is possible without being noticed. Harry K Harry K You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job done not me. Given enough time anything can be done and no explanation need be given. How much time was needed? Do you think this might have had to been planned over one weekend? Was every floor occupied and was anyone expecting something to happen and was everyone looking for something suspicious? How was it that 12 terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the planes at the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did all this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that even when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass and did nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the part about placing charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so dumb to think otherwise? This whole 911 even happened and you obsess about some simple thing that could have easily have occurred. Man you are a stupid lot of asshats. If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to occur. Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or flying huge jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would have been the answer? Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied building, you have nothing but kookery going for you. Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one weekend. Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in on the conspiracy. Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work day with noone noticing. Harry K |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote: Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession. Do it now or go away a total loser. Put up or shut up. Gee, you'd think a group clever enough to pull off the greatest conspiracy in history could have planted a few WMDs if they needed to. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Jeff McCann wrote:
Jonathan wrote: wrote: On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote: In article et, Jonathan wrote: wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. To believe this crap, you'd have to believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable. I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You really should try to get out more often and get away from the internet once in a while. Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of day without being planned for and with people controlling the space notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993 at the WTC. Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material requires paperwork. There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the towers on 9/11. In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were kept for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories about that process on request. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164-- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they belong. However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could know exactly where the planes would even hit? Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would they? No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works? BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more complicated? Kook! Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any explosives being planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah.... Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires. It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish? No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC and that is what caused the collapse. I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start to finish, what happened that day, according to you. BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken credit for it. Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession. Do it now or go away a total loser. Put up or shut up. This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not, provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes you could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to see a well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what "really" happened that day, from start to finish. Jeff Wahaha........What established "facts"? BS that some decide to swallow do not make them facts. Bush knew. That is a fact. There are many "facts" that lend to enough suspicions about some internal involvement. I want someone to show me where Bin Laden "confessed" to being involved. There are plenty of people that had posted the same "end of story" BS that Mohammed Ata was the head conspirator until it was proven he was not. There are very little "proven facts" and none that prove beyond doubt that explosives were not involved in the bringing down of building 7. There WAS molten steel and witness that have stated this no matter how much it hurts little Al and his troll boyfriends BDK and Vandar. This administration has more than enough shame to not be trusted and that can not be denied. I would put nothing beyond these mass murders that don't give one iota about the lives of innocent people be they Iraqis or Americans or US troops send off to die for a pack of lies. You expecting a story from "start to finish" has to be one of the lamest things I have ever read on usenet. Are you really this much of a fool? How can you even post such a request when you have just admitted there is no such story anywhere to he told? This is the main tactic of the government to confuse everyone then make a "documentary" and show it on TeeVee. Then there are the Hollywood movies that have been used to twist history so no one ever knows what happened all throughout the past. One thing that will be remembered it that these republicans have helped destroy a way of life that will never exist ever again. All for lies and power. Hail Bush the mass murder and war criminal. He has murdered more than Saddam and OBL combined. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"
Jonathan wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote: Jonathan wrote: wrote: On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote: On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote: In article et, Jonathan wrote: wrote: In misc.survivalism wrote: I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for another day. To believe this crap, you'd have to believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable. I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in secret. Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work? No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You really should try to get out more often and get away from the internet once in a while. Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of day without being planned for and with people controlling the space notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993 at the WTC. Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material requires paperwork. There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the towers on 9/11. In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect. For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were kept for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories about that process on request. http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164-- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they belong. However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could know exactly where the planes would even hit? Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would they? No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works? BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more complicated? Kook! Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any explosives being planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah.... Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires. It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish? No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC and that is what caused the collapse. I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start to finish, what happened that day, according to you. BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken credit for it. Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession. Do it now or go away a total loser. Put up or shut up. This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you not, provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the established facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a conspiracy of some sort beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There are, indeed, many unanswered questions about that day, but very many of the supposed "facts" and arguments advanced by most conspiracy theorists are so full of holes you could fly an airliner or four right through them. I have yet to see a well-reasoned, evidence-based alternate theory explaining what "really" happened that day, from start to finish. Jeff Wahaha........What established "facts"? BS that some decide to swallow do not make them facts. Bush knew. That is a fact. No, it is an allegation and there is no supporting hard evidence for it. I despise what the Bush cabal has done to the nation and the world, but that is based on things we have proof that he is responsible for. I am disinclined to conflate my personal opinions of the man with the credibility of specious allegations against him." There are many "facts" that lend to enough suspicions about some internal involvement. The real conspiracy, in my opinion, is the blunders, general cluelessness, incompetence, neglect of duty, and intentional blindness to the threat and the warnings by senior government officials that allowed the attack to succeed. I want someone to show me where Bin Laden "confessed" to being involved. There are plenty of people that had posted the same "end of story" BS that Mohammed Ata was the head conspirator until it was proven he was not. There are very little "proven facts" and none that prove beyond doubt that explosives were not involved in the bringing down of building 7. There WAS molten steel and witness that have stated this no matter how much it hurts little Al and his troll boyfriends BDK and Vandar. This administration has more than enough shame to not be trusted and that can not be denied. I would put nothing beyond these mass murders that don't give one iota about the lives of innocent people be they Iraqis or Americans or US troops send off to die for a pack of lies. You expecting a story from "start to finish" has to be one of the lamest things I have ever read on usenet. Are you really this much of a fool? Here, you amply demonstrate the main problem with conspiracy nutters, the jumping to extreme conclusions based on scant to no evidence. How can you even post such a request when you have just admitted there is no such story anywhere to he told? I "admitted" no such thing. You are seeing what you want to see, not what is really there, just as you seem to be doing with the events of 9/11/01. This is the main tactic of the government to confuse everyone then make a "documentary" and show it on TeeVee. I don't recall any government-made documentaries on 9/11 shown on TV. What title are you referring to? Then there are the Hollywood movies that have been used to twist history so no one ever knows what happened all throughout the past. One thing that will be remembered it that these republicans have helped destroy a way of life that will never exist ever again. All for lies and power. Hail Bush the mass murder and war criminal. He has murdered more than Saddam and OBL combined. So, is this about what "really" happened on 9/111 or about how much you hate Bush? You sure waste a lot of words to answer a simple question when "I can't" would have been sufficient. Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Video-equivalent of "pitch-shifting." | Radium[_2_] | Digital Photography | 48 | August 28th 07 05:35 PM |
video: Photosynth + Seadragon = "All your photos are belong to us" | AnonGoo | Digital Photography | 10 | June 26th 07 10:36 PM |
Here it is: the "dick in a box" video from Saturday Night Live | Deep into Kristen Wiig | Digital Photography | 3 | December 22nd 06 01:04 AM |
real-time "video out" for digital cameras? | Scott Speck | Digital ZLR Cameras | 8 | May 31st 06 10:42 PM |