Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,833
- Location
- Welsh Wales
I didn't see this link in the thread : http://www.loosechange911.com/. Make of it what you will. (click on the link a 3rd down the page to view the vid)
9/11 - Controlled demolition?
- Thread starter IceBus
- Start date
IceBus said:
different argument altogether
the argument ive quoted from you is whether the US used the 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with iraq
the argument that started at the beginning of the thread was whether the twin towers could possibly have been brought down by the planes. The conspiracy theory was that explosives had to have been used to bring down the towers. Which of course is complete and utter nonsense. As posted above, the towers fell because the designers never considered that a fire like that could start. What fires usually start in office buildings ? the odd electrical fire, maybe a wastepaper bin or so. Not a huge fireball engulfing several floors. A fire that big, once started couldnt be stopped. Because the designers never imagined it getting that big. The idea was that the sprinklers would stop the fire before it got that big. But of course a few sprinklers were useless against a 747 flying bomb.
And of course the eyewitness' reported a bomb, the plane exploded on impact !!
as for whether the US used this an excuse to go to war with a made up WMD threat, that i think may hold some truth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Gman said:
I have heard in the past and i dont know if it is BS, but aparently because of the speed at which the mobile is moving from mast to mast, causes billing problems for the provider.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 2,403
Gman said:
The funny thing is, that most of these type of statements are completely unsubstanciated. The only reference I can find of this story is, wait for it....The Daily Mail!!!.....In other words, completely made up to try strengthen an argument based on total crap to try and draw attention to themselves...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,649
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Bony Maloney said:
Oh God.
This and its earlier sibling have been done to death.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
AcidHell2 said:
Its more to do with if you drop a phone the damage could create a spark, thus being an ignition source.
For those who've said that explosions were the plane hitting the tower, can you please explain the multiple explosions heard in this video:-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 2,403
IceBus said:
I would if the video wasn't 1hour 44mins long!!!! Which bit are you on about ffs?????
if the US govt can't successfully cover up the fact that they are shipping people around the world to secret CIA centres how do people reckon they can cover up blowing up the a huge building and killing a few thousand of their own people?
it would simply have too many people involved...in fact in a conspiracy if more than 1 person knows about stuff you are shafted anyway...as soon as more than 1 person knows whats going on it becomes harder to keep it quiet and the more you have involved, the greater the risks..
but my point still stands..if they cant hide a few people away without folks getting wind of it how could they blow up 3 thousand people and a huge landmark and people wont find out
it would simply have too many people involved...in fact in a conspiracy if more than 1 person knows about stuff you are shafted anyway...as soon as more than 1 person knows whats going on it becomes harder to keep it quiet and the more you have involved, the greater the risks..
but my point still stands..if they cant hide a few people away without folks getting wind of it how could they blow up 3 thousand people and a huge landmark and people wont find out
FTM said:
I only agree with this argument if you think the towers were destroyed by explosives and a missile hit the pentagon etc etc. To simply allow the attacks to happen would take a lot less people and this is what all the real evidence points to.
You had no idea the stelth bomber had been built until they unvailed it, so secets can be kept.
MookJong said:
Well first of all it severly calls into doubt the assertion that the tower collapse was caused by fire weakening the structure. The towers only started going down after the explosions.
It's even more obvious for Tower 1 - 44mins into the video.
Means - demolition explosives planted at structural weak points.
Motive - Carte blanche for a war on terror.
FTM said:
As I've said before, compartmentalisation worked fine for the Manhattan Project which was arguably even more significant.
It makes no sense, how would they know the planes wouldn't bring the towers down anyway? and if the planes couldn't have brought the towers down then doesn't it look a bit odd that they fell?IceBus said:
People always say that the fire couldn't have brought the towers down which I agree with, and that fire has never brought down a steel building etc etc but what they fail to notice is the plane ripping right into the building like a knife totally weakening the structure.
MookJong said:
How would they know? They'd have the blueprints and a lot of researcher power to analyse likely scenarios for a plane impact.
I agree, it does look odd.
MookJong said:
How did Building 7 fall then? No planes hit it, and it's the first ever recorded incident of a steel building collapsing due to fire.