[ziggy]

SireJoe SireJoe:

You know, for the amount of swearing you "dont" do, why dont you just say the bloody word? Why asterick it off? Who are you trying to fool?

I just did it to,must be the beams.

[SireJoe]

DAMN BEAMS! I knew it couldnt be the will of the individual......I'm betting its those borg folks out there...they never did like the swears!

[twister]

$1:

Something you may not know, is these fighters can be off the ground in minutes after a scramble order, and be flying side-by-side with the hijacked aircraft in less than 10 minutes.... even if its 100's of miles away. Look it up. You obviously have little knowledge regarding military protocol. There was over an hour in-between the first tower crash and the Pentagon event. To suggest that this was just massive incompetance is what they want you to think... and it's rather naive to think that

In a combat Air Patrol zone you have aircraft flying in a defensive box providing air coverage.. This was not the case. In the US navy they have 2 f -14 on thier deck in Ready position with crews ready to lauch to protect the carrier group from threats. They can be lauched at a moments notice. These f-16's would not have been US airforce interceptor aircraft that were scrambled. These were aircraft of the AIR NATIONAL GUARD.. you know that prestigious group that bush went AWOL from in the 1970's (thats AWOL not being in the white house isn't AWOL dipshit) well Okay these Air National guard are not in Ready position.. awaiting launch command. These are men who are on station recieve the call prep thier aircraft ( as any good pilot knows has to be done otherwise your going to be sans 1 aircraft pretty quick if you don't do your checks. Missles would have had to have been acquired and loaded.. this isn't a video game partner planes don't sit on runways fully armed and with full tanks during PEACE TIME we weren't at war with anyone yet. No perceived threats.. The scramble order is given then can launch but with no missles... what are they supposed to do chew apart the passengers with 30 mm cannon shells...
.

[twister]

SireJoe SireJoe:

You know, for the amount of swearing you "dont" do, why dont you just say the bloody word? Why asterick it off? Who are you trying to fool?

Sorry just a habit i guess.. well Fuck that I suppose eh

[ridenrain]

[web]http://www.thereceptiondesk.com/warmonger/art/missing_laden.jpg[/web]

Proof, I tells ya.

[twister]

ziggy ziggy:

Get your AFDB here and put it on before the mind control beams start fuc*ing with your thoughts.

Ziggy if that Calgary123 has the one with the aeriel then I fear to say we are all fucked my friend...

[Hardy]

ziggy ziggy:

Seriously though,it's been rehashed here before,easier for you to go search for it then me to retype it.

Yeeeah, I was pretty sure that I'd read them already, but just did a search to be sure. I didn't find any empirically-based arguments against it being a controlled explosion. Since you claimed some expertise in the subject, I was hoping that you might have some.

(Just For The Record: My position at the moment is at neither extreme, I think that the US government had plenty of reason to know that 9/11 was on the way, and took no effective actions to stop it. Given sufficient evidence one way or the other, I might come to believe otherwise. So far, I don't feel that the pro-conspiracy side has a solid case, but I also don't see the anti-conspiracy side desling effectively with issues like the building collapses.

When building suffer from some sort of structural failure, they usually fall over.

A collapsed building in Manila


A collapsed building in Mumbai


Sometimes they fall down after a major fire, and do end up leaving a mess similar to the 9/11 piles of rubble. But I haven't found any examples where the fires were small, they tended to look more like this before they collapsed.


I've heard all the arguments about "how could controlled demolitions be set up and carried out without someone talking?" Those are fine, but they don't address the issue, which is that, to an unbiased eye, the 9/11 collpases did look just like the demolition of the Mayfair Hotel. Until someone can come up with even one example of small fires making a steel-reinforced concrete building fall straight down in a few seconds, I don't think this topic is going to die.)

[SireJoe]

MUCH better fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck! Dont that feel better? Say it with me now! FUCK A LICIOUS! Oh...sorry, thinking os something else...

[SprCForr]

The steel beams were heated by the fire to a failure point, not melting point. Once the beams fail the load on the remaining steel will cause them to shear. The building you see in the picture falling over doesn't have the necessary mass, the WTC did. Gravity working on that load just pulls it straight down. The wasn't enough energy being released from the steel failure to overcome the inertia of the building. No where to go but down.

You can't have a controlled demolition of that scale set up without people knowing it, especially the people on the floors where it supposedly took place.

"Hmmm, why can't I get to my desk with all these cables all over the place? What are those large things attached all around the central core? Etc, etc..."

[Jaime_Souviens]

Calgary123 Calgary123:

A very weak argument. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the 911 commission had promised to answer some of these key questions... (this being one of them) from the families of those lost on 911. To this day, they can't explain it, and refuse to. This is one of the hundreds of issues ignored by the "whitewash" commission.

I guess you probably think that fire caused building 7 to collapse like deck of cards as well. If you actually believe that, then you are all the way into denial my friend. An "over engineered" building folds in like a tent, and drops straight to the ground in a tidy heap in 6.7 seconds... with only a few small fires. Watch the video... it's classic controlled demolition.

Except for the fact that there's no blast.

No shock wave shattering windows for a block.

No clouds of smoke.

Nothing.

Oops!

[Hardy]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Except for the fact that there's no blast.

No shock wave shattering windows for a block.

No clouds of smoke.

Nothing.

Oops!

If you look at the page I mentioned earlier, ( http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm ), you'll notice that controlled demolitions can be carried out with no obvious blast. The example I cited, the Mayfair Hotel (top row, second from the right) is a very good example of that. It just falls down. No shock wave, no clouds of smoke, nothing.

[ziggy]

Hardy Hardy:

ziggy ziggy:

Seriously though,it's been rehashed here before,easier for you to go search for it then me to retype it.

Yeeeah, I was pretty sure that I'd read them already, but just did a search to be sure. I didn't find any empirically-based arguments against it being a controlled explosion. Since you claimed some expertise in the subject, I was hoping that you might have some.

(Just For The Record: My position at the moment is at neither extreme, I think that the US government had plenty of reason to know that 9/11 was on the way, and took no effective actions to stop it. Given sufficient evidence one way or the other, I might come to believe otherwise. So far, I don't feel that the pro-conspiracy side has a solid case, but I also don't see the anti-conspiracy side desling effectively with issues like the building collapses.

When building suffer from some sort of structural failure, they usually fall over.

A collapsed building in Manila


A collapsed building in Mumbai


Sometimes they fall down after a major fire, and do end up leaving a mess similar to the 9/11 piles of rubble. But I haven't found any examples where the fires were small, they tended to look more like this before they collapsed.


I've heard all the arguments about "how could controlled demolitions be set up and carried out without someone talking?" Those are fine, but they don't address the issue, which is that, to an unbiased eye, the 9/11 collpases did look just like the demolition of the Mayfair Hotel. Until someone can come up with even one example of small fires making a steel-reinforced concrete building fall straight down in a few seconds, I don't think this topic is going to die.)

You have to remember the building codes in those pics are from countries that have lax ones,and I dont claim to have expertise but did work 22 years with the blasting crew,built thousands of drill pads and got to pull the pin on a few also. It takes weeks to set up a blast,lots involved,no way could you conceal it. They would have to have miles of shock tube set up to the delays(non electric blasting) and primers and boosters and then the charge or the hundreds of them,it couldn't be radio controlled either as then a mobile 2 way radio or cel phone could set it off.
Any one with a blasting ticket reading this would prolly just shake their head right now. Det caps,delays,primers,shock tube and boosters cant just be bought over the counter either. Somewhere on this forum I have a vid of a blast I took at work,2 weeks work for a 6 second explosion far more powerfull then what you saw in Oklahoma. Cant believe how many doctored vids of the "implosion" there is on the net right now. Kinda funny though the way the USA haters grab on to this as a last resort for a slam.

You really should change the name of this topic,it has nothing to do with Canadian troops in Afghanistan and you only used it to get some hits to champion your 9-11 conspiracy theory.

I have a few friends over there and find it disgusting that you are useing the conflict over there to further your nut brained theories.

[Blue_Nose]

What on earth gives you the impression that you can say "it looks like a demolition" and think that's good enough of an argument to convince anyone? Just because the videos and pictures you saw on the internet look a certain way doesn't make you, or anyone who bases their opinion on videos and pictures, an expert.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Hardy Hardy:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Except for the fact that there's no blast.

No shock wave shattering windows for a block.

No clouds of smoke.

Nothing.

Oops!

If you look at the page I mentioned earlier, ( http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm ), you'll notice that controlled demolitions can be carried out with no obvious blast. The example I cited, the Mayfair Hotel (top row, second from the right) is a very good example of that. It just falls down. No shock wave, no clouds of smoke, nothing.

Hardy, I didn't know you were an idiot. I thought you were fairly intelligent.

Oh, well...

[Bodah]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

What on earth gives you the impression that you can say "it looks like a demolition" and think that's good enough of an argument to convince anyone? Just because the videos and pictures you saw on the internet look a certain way doesn't make you, or anyone who bases their opinion on videos and pictures, an expert.

Agreed,
Some of these arguements come right out of a cartoon world it suprises the hell out of me what people put forward.

Why people expect the towers to topple like trees is beyond me. Their not trees for christ sake. Comparing them to other buildings is ridiculous as well. They are definitely not like other buildings.

People seem to forget other factors involved, they mention theres no way airline fuel can get that hot to melt steel. They've obvioulsy forgotten that this is an office environment. Lots of paper, wood and plastic. Thats more fuel.

I think also asbestos wasnt used in the construction of the towers

Another example of cartoon logic is the perfect hole in the pentagon, again they expect to see a bugs-bunny type out line of a plane in the side of the building.