911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
marshalla said:
WinstonWolf said:
Can we just deal with this one first?
Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?
s'obvious, innit? They put the stuff there when they were building it. This was all planned years ago.Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?
So which is it scherzkeks. That, ninjas, or do you have a better explanation?
I reckon I'd notice blokes in ACME vans outside for weeks.
WinstonWolf said:
Can we just deal with this one first?
Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?
Disclaimer: I don't believe it myself but...Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?
Would it not be possible to pre rig every beam on one of the floors (basement even) during some form of renovation works, or that pre stuffing this building from the start with explosives to use incase there was ever an attempted occupation and they could destroy all their Intel in one swoop? It could all be hidden by concrete and what not and just remotely detonated from somewhere.
Then the original contractors suddenly dissappear in fatal "car accidents".
Holy s
t I best stop that is real nutjob territory.Edited by dazwalsh on Thursday 25th August 15:12
I have no truck with the conspiuracy nuts, but I have always wondered why the terrorists used commercial flights that had to be hijacked,with the risk of being caught on boarding,or resistance like Flight 93,when,with all their backing money they could have hired planes , either biz jets packed with bombs,or larger cargo jets, and just used them. They could have co ordinated all 4 attacks at 1 go then,hit all targets at once for even greater effect
kowalski655 said:
I have no truck with the conspiuracy nuts, but I have always wondered why the terrorists used commercial flights that had to be hijacked,with the risk of being caught on boarding,or resistance like Flight 93,when,with all their backing money they could have hired planes , either biz jets packed with bombs,or larger cargo jets, and just used them. They could have co ordinated all 4 attacks at 1 go then,hit all targets at once for even greater effect
It's all about creating fear and causing disruption. By using commercial flights, they created a situation where it's perceived that anyone on a commercial flight *could* be one of them - so they cause disruption and inconvenience to all passengers, and increase the general level of fear and mistrust amongst air passengers - and also send a message that they can strike whenever and wherever they want, without warning.
kowalski655 said:
I have no truck with the conspiuracy nuts, but I have always wondered why the terrorists used commercial flights that had to be hijacked,with the risk of being caught on boarding,or resistance like Flight 93,when,with all their backing money they could have hired planes , either biz jets packed with bombs,or larger cargo jets, and just used them. They could have co ordinated all 4 attacks at 1 go then,hit all targets at once for even greater effect
Its not that easy to rent planes of that size. They would have had to do a lot more flight training and actually pass exams to be allowed to even move it. That takes a lot more time and background checks and may have alerted the authorities.Also, hijacking causes a lot more social disruption (which is really what they are after).
kowalski655 said:
I have no truck with the conspiuracy nuts, but I have always wondered why the terrorists used commercial flights that had to be hijacked,with the risk of being caught on boarding,or resistance like Flight 93,when,with all their backing money they could have hired planes , either biz jets packed with bombs,or larger cargo jets, and just used them. They could have co ordinated all 4 attacks at 1 go then,hit all targets at once for even greater effect
Up until then, plane was hijacked, landed somewhere, talk to the hijackers, send them pizza, air demands and get the passengers off by fair means or foul. Security was non existent.smifffymoto said:
Firstly,I'm not a conspiracy theory nutjob but there are many things in the twin towers story that don't add up.I watched "9/11 Follow the money" the other night and that raises many questions that need answering.
I'm also not particularly interested in conspiracy. There are many, many things that don't add up. And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.scherzkeks said:
And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable
fking hell.The towers collapse started at the point of plane impact.
The collapse continued down in a 'pancake'.
Are you suggesting that every single floor was wired with explosives in order to instigate the start of the collapse at the exact impact point the plane hit and continue down?
Or did the plane hit the pre-arranged point?
And this complex wiring and explosive system was riddled with multiple redundancy to survive the impact and massive fire the ensued?
And no one noticed the installation of this massive system of wires and explosives?
Not to mention the freefall nonsense is totally f
king irrelevant.And that the towers didnt fall at freefall speed.
But even if they did you seem to have no grasp of static versus dynamic load so I wont bother trying to explain to you cos you will just f
king ignore and/or point a link on the AE truther site.Talking of which, architects no f
k all about engineering, that's not an insult to archtitects, I work with many very good ones. But they do architecture, I do the engineering. So we can ignore the architects.
And then there is some of the so-called engineers, last I checked there seemed to be a hell of a lot of technicians, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and photocopier engineers added their engineer 'title' to the list. The rest I'll put down to a few crackpots or people trying to drum up work from the nutter brigade.
At last check the Institute of Structural engineers had 27000 members worldwide, yet to hear of one who has supported the conspiracy theory. The Institute of Civil Engineers has 80000 members, they havent published any papers supporting the conspiracy theory either.
A lot of people seem to have been paid off to keep quiet on this. Wondering where my f
king cheque is actually...scherzkeks said:
And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.
NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded. The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff