|
Rollin
2,247 posts
114 months
|
Sorry for being rude. 
|
|
|
Art0ir
3,570 posts
39 months
|
Rollin said: Did their government do any of it? No they didn't. Yes sorry you're absolutely right. JFK didn't sign the dotted line, ergo there is not a chance, ever, not even possible that something similar could ever be considered, planned or executed.  Why are you so sure they're not capable of something like that? They have condemned millions in the middle east to death, what makes you think they would hold the lives of 3000 Americans in higher regard?
|
|
|
rich1231
16,614 posts
129 months
|
Art0ir said: No, it provides evidence that the official enquiry was completely hampered and compromised by the CIA and Senior members of the US Armed Forces. \ That is because, the dropped the ball so to speak, they didnt want to get the blame for not spotting the plot and preventing it.
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,015 posts
153 months
|
Westy Pre-Lit said: jmorgan said: This where they bigged up what they were doing on the day? Hardly an admission of an inside job. So what do you expect a total insider to do, come clean and say I played a part on one of the most horrific attacks and world changing events of modern times. I'm not sure I'd be expecting invites form either camp saying "Come round Saturday night we're having a Barn Dance"  Ha...turn my back for a mo.... Think this has just been answered. Was it wrong? Yep, was it anything to do with the terrorists? No. Unless you have some evidence...
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,015 posts
153 months
|
Art0ir said: I personally find the pilot testimonies the most interesting, especially considering they all come from very experienced pilots with 10's of thousands of hours flight time each.. This is a mine field for the conspiracy. I have watched the debates on pft etc and seen the result of infighting and other malarkey on this. And John Lear is not exactly an unbiased person. He likes a good conspiracy and he is into this one, he also likes many others. If you look hard enough there are many pilots that see nothing wrong with the method, well, hard enough, without the "government did it blinkers". And I think the flight recorder data was decoded by a person and all was not well after a while as the data did not fit with pft? Have to look back at that. There were a few, er, moments I think. Interesting watching it develop. So you see, not as clear cut as you would have it.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,015 posts
153 months
|
Art0ir said: I personally find the pilot testimonies the most interesting, especially considering they all come from very experienced pilots with 10's of thousands of hours flight time each.. Pilot]The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon said: and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives." This one, there was evidence. It was all over the place. This comes back to someones incredulity being proof. Which it is not. What do you expect to get when a thin walled jet airliner at full tilt hits a reinforced object anchored to the ground? Explosion. How many planes has this person seen go this way? Others saw it hit. Later attempts by certain web site warriors to interview and lead the witness would be laughed out of court. I know witness statements have to be looked at carefully though.
|
|
|
MX7
6,543 posts
43 months
|
Art0ir said: as much as any suggestion of the official report being wrong seems to upset you. Grow up.
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,015 posts
153 months
|
Westy Pre-Lit said: Yeah, dig a little deeper. One wonders why none of this has gone to court if it is so certain. I was reading the bio of one of the architects for truth and he had been building houses for many years. Not exactly sky scrapers and not not in the demolition business. I think the issues are still rumbling on if you have an open mind....
|
|
|
Steameh
3,047 posts
79 months
|
JBL930 said: That and the architects saying that the way that building 7 came down was text book demolition. That's the problem with a structural failure of this type, since it has never really occured before, then no one would know how the collapse would look from the outside. Given that it was based around a core structure, the failure would look very different to that of a standard bay structure. I should imagine that a lot of these engineers (I'm not really counting the architects, they just make it look pretty ) may not have seen a structural failure before.
|
|
|
rich1231
16,614 posts
129 months
|
For those of you that think WTC 7 was demolished.. Do you dispute there were fires raging in the building for many hours and the building was damaged by falling debris from the twin towers? If you aleast can acknowledge those facts then there is some hope for you. Think about a building on fire for hours.. you want to believe somehow in that inferno that the carefully prepared but still dangerous explosives and detonation infrastructure were all fine and dandy and ready to go when given the word? You want to believe in the nonsensical b  ks that even half a second of rational thinking would dismiss the ideas that many of TheLoon and his like are believers in more s t that the X files.
|
|
|
Apache
38,242 posts
153 months
|
Here's another thought, why would WTC7 need to be a textbook demolition, this implies a certain amount of finesse. A textbook demolition is one that allows a building to be destroyed in a safe manner, with no risk to any person or other building. I suppose this might have been important, but after flying two airliners into the WTC........I kinda doubt it
|
|
|
jmorgan
17,015 posts
153 months
|
Steameh said: JBL930 said: That and the architects saying that the way that building 7 came down was text book demolition. That's the problem with a structural failure of this type, since it has never really occured before, then no one would know how the collapse would look from the outside. Given that it was based around a core structure, the failure would look very different to that of a standard bay structure. I should imagine that a lot of these engineers (I'm not really counting the architects, they just make it look pretty ) may not have seen a structural failure before. Is there a text book demolition? This is a term I wonder that is used to stamp some sort of assumed authority. Bit like a truther using the word logic. Also look at what the architects are good at, examine what they claim and what their backgrounds are and wonder where the other 800,000 (? think this is right)in the US are. They appear to not endorse this? They rattle on about classic demolition and text book etc but when asked what buildings have suffered the same fate that they can compare with, well, they cannot. Edit. Another thought. Well qualified people are ignored yet other people are sought that fit the conspiracy. For example, NIST got together a set of well qualified people and explained it (for the sake of argument). The truth movement do not like those experts but seek others that fit the conspiracy. The problem is the others can be picked apart and do not fit the evidence.
|
|
|
durbster
3,044 posts
91 months
|
FFS. Before you even begin to think there was a controlled demolition please go and read up on what a long and complicated process a controlled demolition actually is. It takes an enormous amount of time, work and people. For starters you have to empty the building first (launching filing cabinets, tables and chairs out the windows isn't going to be particularly subtle). Then they have to rig up hundreds of metres of fuse wire before several people in high visibility jackets and hard hats wander round double checking everything.  I think somebody may have noticed.
|
|
|
mcdjl
1,605 posts
64 months
|
Being a mechanical engineer my view may be biased. HOwever I'm not overly worried about a very long list of architects being worried about the way the building fell down. Why not?
Well as far as I know (and this knowledge is gained from civil engineers ie builders) architects design a very pretty building. This design then gets given to an engineer who looks at it and generally has to make it stand up. This upsets the architect as it involves making the building less pretty and the loss of some of the design features. This new design then gets given to a builder who looks at it and points out it can't be built anyway, so back it goes until it can be built. Given where the architect sits in this chain you can understand why I'm not overly concerned that a huge list of them don't understand it.
Also given that civil and building engineers like things that don't move (much/at all) and that the simulations were done with 70s technology I do wonder how the same building would look today for the same design criteria (or even had it been built in 2000).
Finally claims that the building unzipped on the floor of impact is evidence of a controlled explosion...really? Not evidence that a huge aircraft has just crashed into one side of it and sent a shock/pressure wave racing through the building. This does have the ability to blow out windows and would look like well, the floor unzipping. This same pressure wave would also get into the stair well. I assume like most fire escapes the fire doors would open into the stair well. This would let the pressure wave into the stair well but not out. Well not unless it had travelled as far through the stair well as it could until it met something hard that it couldn't go through, like say the ground. At which point it might well explode outwards?
Clearly I should work for 'them', I mean all of 2seconds thought has given me a plausible explanation of what people saw so i can discredit so many eye witnesses.
|
|
|
Art0ir
3,570 posts
39 months
|
rich1231 said: That is because, the dropped the ball so to speak, they didnt want to get the blame for not spotting the plot and preventing it. What difference should that make? If it had been allowed to happen (which is all I have suggested so far), either intentionally or not, those responsible should be held accountable and the investigation reopened and completed without interference?
|
|
|
Jimbeaux
25,725 posts
100 months
|
durbster said: FFS. Before you even begin to think there was a controlled demolition please go and read up on what a long and complicated process a controlled demolition actually is. It takes an enormous amount of time, work and people. For starters you have to empty the building first (launching filing cabinets, tables and chairs out the windows isn't going to be particularly subtle). Then they have to rig up hundreds of metres of fuse wire before several people in high visibility jackets and hard hats wander round double checking everything. I think somebody may have noticed.  I love it when a few sentences of common sense wipes out volumes of conspiracy crap.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,490 posts
40 months
|
Jimbeaux said: I love it when a few sentences of common sense wipes out volumes of conspiracy crap. Never did understand why certain Saudi individuals were allowed to fly back immediately after 9/11 whilst all flights were grounded.  Any suggestions Jim?
|
|
|
rich1231
16,614 posts
129 months
|
Art0ir said: What difference should that make? If it had been allowed to happen (which is all I have suggested so far), either intentionally or not, those responsible should be held accountable and the investigation reopened and completed without interference? Oh dear, you are beyond hope.
|
|
|
MX7
6,543 posts
43 months
|
Mermaid said: Never did understand why certain Saudi individuals were allowed to fly back immediately after 9/11 whilst all flights were grounded. Any suggestions Jim? ? Apparently there was no flight until September 13th., after the airspace had been reopened.
|
|
|
Rollin
2,247 posts
114 months
|
Mermaid said: Jimbeaux said: I love it when a few sentences of common sense wipes out volumes of conspiracy crap. Never did understand why certain Saudi individuals were allowed to fly back immediately after 9/11 whilst all flights were grounded. Any suggestions Jim? The flight was on 20th September. Flights were not grounded then.
|
|
