Jump to content

9/11 Controlled demolition.


Parky

How do people think these buildings came down?  

182 members have voted

  1. 1. How do people think these buildings came down?

    • Two jets and jet fuel and impact velocity.
    • As above but also the buildings were quite old and not that well made.
    • The jets and a descision by someone 'to pull' the them.
    • They would never have collapsed like that without explosives weakening them.
    • Morrisey did it.


Recommended Posts

The towers should have never falled in their own footprints, its only possible through controlled explosions.

 

Did the jet fuel spread evenly throughout the building, weakening the structure in the exact same places at the exact same time, once for tower 1, and again for 2.

 

More chance of winning the lottery on a Sunday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an interview with one of the original engineers of the WTC he revealed that the buildings were designed to take hits from jets and he was astounded that they came down. He was later fired. Going to try and find the story for you.

 

You dont need to i have read and seen the interview.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't see the point in getting worked up about it. However it happened, the fact remains - it happened. Even if you can categorically prove it was all part of some elaborate American New Rightist plot, what the fuck does it achieve?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all." Blau

 

.....And what is your evidence that this is true?

 

Why was the steel not allowed to be examined by independant teams or even the FCC as is usually the case?

Why was the steel shipped to Hong Kong pretty sharpish for disposal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all." Blau

 

.....And what is your evidence that this is true?

 

That it happened and that I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise, even in the hours and horus of conflicting conpiracy videos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

To be fair, it was "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" that started it all.  It's the geeky students that are fucking it up, by claiming things as facts, when they're not.  Loose Change, for instance, is the greatest mistake of the whole "truth" movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

 

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

 

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

 

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

 

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

 

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

 

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

 

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing."

 

 

So how about WT7? Not hit by planes and with a much smaller subsidiary fire...How did that come down? Seriously how did it?

 

Shoddy bulding work, controlled explosion because they wanted to make it safe, vibration from the catastrophic explosions that had happened nearby and which no-one had expected when building it.  None of which would mean that they pointlessly put bombs in a building that was going to be totalled by an airliner anyway.  All these idiotic theories do nothing but aid the cause of neo-cons who want to paint people who disagree with their kamakazi foreign policy as subnormal and gullible fruitloops.

Similar to George Galloway's view on this and I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty for me is, I can't argue with any of this MIT guys points. I've got no idea what smoke from a burning building looks like, I dont know how steel columbs behave in heat, how am I supposed to know if anything this guy is saying is wrong? Its too technical. I can't decide if it was a setup or not from technobabble. Granted I've heard a lot more evidence as to why it couldn't have been the planes but thats not the reason I think Bush is responsible. I wouldn't be able to argue with anyone and convice them it was Bush. I just have a gut feeling that he did "what had to be done" to start his oil war. I hope that when a new adminstration takes over the Oval Office, the truth comes out, by whatever means, to whatever end.

 

0.02$.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some experts want to re-open a new 9/11 enquiry as momentum gathers against the official story.

 

Watch a few min of video and discuss.

 

Parky

 

FFS just give us the link to the last time we had this arguement and save us all a lot of time

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

 

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

 

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

 

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

 

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking shit.

 

 

 

 

 

4.5 - 5 billion years TBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you count as "academic" - Go on creationist websites and you will see cite after cite of supposedly qualified people's work which supposedly backs young earth theory.  People who are equally qualified in their field can have completely polarized views on many issues.  if I show you a qualified phycist saying that the towers WOULD have collapsed like that, would you stop believing in the youtube-conspiracy-theory-of-the-week, Parky?

 

And yes,  I fully believe that an entire plane full of fuel burning quickly in a confined space and coupled with the impact could do that.  I have no problem believing it at all.  If all the things you believe are true, then it must have been the most badly planned mass conspiracy ever, bearing in mind every geeky student with a blog has worked it out and proved it beyond doubt.

 

academic = qualified to discuss the age of the earth, not a creationist website run by someone who may have letters after their name.

 

The point being that they have not put together a ceationist argument that stands up to academic scrutiny, where as the paper by these physics boys does. I agree there are polarised views but you are missing my point here.

 

Are there people who ARE qualified in their field (whatever that might be) who you disagree with?

 

Yes it would work like this for example - there is geological evidence that points to the earth being (eg) 120 billion years old but another piece of geological research points to it being only 100 billion years old. I believe the first and therefore disagree by 20 Billion years.

 

If i ignore all this evidence, dont address it and say nah, it appeared out of nowhere 600 years ago, i am not in the academic debate, i am talking shit.

 

 

 

 

 

4.5 - 5 billion years TBC

 

Nicely corrected but I was just being hypothetical.

 

I started to read Bill Bryson's History of Everything but left it on a train in Switzerland. Bit gutted as it was very well written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...