Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 No the resulting war will make billions in profits for the armaments and oil industries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicos Papavasiliou Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc. Swings and roundabouts. I remember incorrectly, only $250Bn http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 Still, more than the insurance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Your all crazy Constructing mad-arsed conspiracy theories rather than accept the simple facts that 13 nutters hijacked 4 planes and crashed them - If you wanted a "conspircay" why hi-jack 4 planes? One would have been enough................................. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 "Mentalist"...You have no idea. :rofl: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Oh come on, it's not Hollywood! I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too. The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing. Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process. It's hardly a controlled experiment is it? I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down. I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell. The Power Of Nightmares. Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though. Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened. All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc. Why bring the towers down? Because they made millions, if not billions off it. But the resulting war cost $700Bn so far iirc. Swings and roundabouts. Yes, but it wasn't the Government that took these insurances policies out, but the people that 'owned' the buildings. People that had shares in United airlines etc. Many people profitted, whilst the Government got their reason to invade Afghanistan. And subsequently Iraq, who Bush did try to implicate in the whole thing. It created the war on terror. What America has been craving since the end of the Cold War. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 There are two buildings for a start Rob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Your all crazy Constructing mad-arsed conspiracy theories rather than accept the simple facts that 13 nutters hijacked 4 planes and crashed them - If you wanted a "conspircay" why hi-jack 4 planes? One would have been enough................................. One would be enough to bring down 2 towers? I don't follow. The whole point was they were coming down, both had to be hit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Oh come on, it's not Hollywood! I'm amazed that you're suggesting not only that they were involved somehow in bringing the buildings down in the first place, but that they wanted to make sure it looked spectacular too. The fact that the second tower fell quicker than the first proves nothing. Maybe the centre of the explosion, and therefore the hottest part of the fire was placed closer to the steel structures than in the first tower, expediting the melting process. It's hardly a controlled experiment is it? I just don't find it unreasonable at all to believe that flying a plane into a building could do enough damage to bring it down. I remember watching it live on telly that morning and thinking at the time that it was only a matter of time before the buildings fell. The Power Of Nightmares. Haven't they influenced their nation well since it happened though. Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened. All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc. Why bring the towers down? Because they made millions, if not billions off it. but if the towers stayed up they wouldn't have got a dime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 What is this pendantic up/down stuff anyway. Next you'll be saying: What if it was raining? :icon_joker: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 There are two buildings for a start Rob. Take out the Empire State Building - its more iconic TBH - tho it does occasionaly have a large simian on top swatting aeroplanes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Parky, where did you get your info on the temperatures etc. as well? Have someone in there with a thermometer, did you? bluebigrazz.gif It's impossible for anyone to know what temperatures would have been reached with that level of explosion in that confined a space - I'm sure if you tip jet fuel on the floor and light it, it's fairly easy to predict what temperature and for how long it might burn - again, flying it into a building is hardly a controlled experiment. It's also impossible to design a building that can categorically, no doubts whatsoever withstand having a 747 fully-laden with fuel flying into it - where did they test their design exactly? You keep believing your experts though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Mate I fully understand where you're coming from....It is totally unbeleivable on many levels. But that's the beauty of the big 'lie' as people are more inclined to belive it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth The towers needed dismantling. It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build. The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel. The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Alex, The main reason is that the amount of explosive and the care and time it would take to wire up the infrastructure to bring that kind of building with high grade reinforced steel box design DOWN, would make it laughable that terrorists would NOT have the time and knowledge to bring such a building down. It takes a team of experts with full access to building often a day to wire them up for demolition. No one would beleive that terrorists would have that kind of unhampered access. Simple really if you think about it for more than even a minute. Yes, that's what you would need for a controlled demoltion with the building falling down exactly the way you want it to without damaging the surrounding area. In this case, whoever was involved would only have been concerned with bringing those buildings down. I'm pretty confident that is a much simpler undertaking. I've read the car bomb on the WTC in 1993 could well have brought a tower down were in not for the fact that it wasn't detonated on the bottom lower ground floor, thus allowing for the explosion to be absorbed in part by the floor below. Not that I actually believe bombs were planted on 9/11. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicos Papavasiliou Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Nit, look into all the goings on before it happened. All the insurance policies taken out on the buildings etc. Why bring the towers down? Because they made millions, if not billions off it. But the attack itself was enough to start the war. You're saying they hammered in policies to make money out of it? Do you think the building wasn't previously insured? And that that insurance didn't get renewed regularly? So what if renewels were made a day, week, month or months earlier. It was always covered or H&S wouldn't let the place be rented out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One conspiracy theory I do see as being possible is that 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike by the Taliban. I.e. the Americans had plans to invade Afghanistan as the cheapest way to get oil from the old Soviet states like Tajikistan (sp?) and the like would be via a pipeline through Afghanistan. It might sound a bit outlandish but Dubya had members of the Taliban visit his ranch in Texas before he was President with this in mind. They weren't willing to play ball so moves may have been afoot to replace them as the Afghan Government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Gemill, The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I admit that it doesn't all make sense. Why would the US blow up two of its biggest buildings killing so many people and scarring families and devestating America just to go to war. On the other hand however everything is not as it seems. This is all too easy and the towers collapsed too easy. American government is involved someway but since they have banned it being discussed in America, the chances are we will never know the real truth The towers needed dismantling. It would cost them £500m to do so, bearing in mind the towers cosr £15m to build. The towers had to come down (apparently) within 5 years, because of age, poor design and faults in the steel. The Towers were insured for £1billion, but only one tower was insured, they wouln't allow both to be insured together for some reason. Can you confirm any of this is true? I've never heard that before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Correct Alex.................. Also a 767 travelling at 450 mph and with a load of fuel onboard packs a hell of a lot of energy - they weigh between 200,000 and 300,000 lb on takeoff and the kinetic energy alone is = mass x vel squared = 108.9 billion ft lbs = 147.7 million Kw - all disapated in a second or so - its about equivalent to a 70,000 ton wrecking ball then the fuel went off as well...................................................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 What would that king of pre-emptive strike acheive on the part of the Taliban, but just hasten their demise? Don't follow. They did visit Bush that is right, but soon after they started to lose their grip on Afghanistan. But that is another thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Gemill, The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt. According to the program I saw about it on the Discovery Channel (not suggesting this is the only/definitive explanation btw), they coatings on the steel structure that were supposed to insulate the steel superstructure against fire were blown off by the explosion on impact. Not necessarily true but feasible in my book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicos Papavasiliou Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Gemill, The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt. The Channel 4 dispatches programme reported that the building was designed to withstand the impact, and that the structure was strong enough to withstand the heat of a fire, but not both. The superstrong lattice structure required to keep a building that tall up was knackered by the impact, the flames just finished a job. Set fire to a tree, it'll burn for ages without falling, take an axe halfway through it and set a fire at that point and it'll go over a lot quicker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 What would that king of pre-emptive strike acheive on the part of the Taliban, but just hasten their demise? Don't follow. They did visit Bush that is right, but soon after they started to lose their grip on Afghanistan. But that is another thread. It's just a theory, but if the war was coming anyway, why not get in first? Anyway, it's a lot less crazy than some of the conspiracy theories I've heard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Those buildings could have been hit by planes all day and not collapse in that 'pattern'. The primary giveaway is the style of the collapse and many structuralists in NY and experts have commented on that. Some lost their jobs soon after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Gemill, The experts are reports from the people who made the building. Interestingly in America this kind of building is known as a grade 'A' structure has since the 70's to meet the highest standards of building regulation, actually some of the most stringent in the world. They have to withstand hurricanes, planes, water and fire damage to the enth degree. Independent reports about the behaviour and burn residue of jet fuel (kerosene)is all over the internet if you look. People think Jet fuel is some hyoer sensitive, highly destructive stuff well it isn't. It burns red and takes time to reach very high temperatures. In many jet crashes hardly any of the bodies are even synged never mind burnt. Jet fuel doesn't even singe??? As I've said to you before, no one has ever conducted an experiment on this scale, with these exact circumstances so no independent report really matters in this instance. Nobody really knew what would happen if a plane was flown into the WTC. We do now. As for the company that built the place saying that it shouldn't have fell down, no vested interest there then, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts