9/11 - Controlled demolition?

I've watched the video's - there is no information, if these explosions were out of character I want to see demolition and construction engineers explaining why.

I have seen serious documentaries on demolition (no, I don't mean 'when buildings attack') and I can assure you the occupants of the building would have noticed the preperations.

If you can find real journalism try again - even michael moore is better than this mtv inspired tat.
 
IceBus said:
Where exactly would the US economy be as a whole without sources of cheap oil?
Click to expand...

Going to war in Iraq was never going to be the cheapest way to get oil. Never.

That argument does not hold up at all.
 
IceBus said:
I want people to watch the videos and then construct a reasoned argument
Click to expand...
Collapsing upper floors create air pressure that blows dust/debris out of open windows or blows windows out. The internal floors would have been 'pancaking' prior to the external visible structure failing.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?
 
DaveyD said:
these terrorists were capable of such a controlled devastating attack.
Click to expand...
But they're not, and they never were. I don't consider the conspiracy theories as anything other than either wishful or fanciful thinking, but neither do I, for one minute, believe that any terrorist organisation had the intention to bring the buildings down.

In fact, it's the fact that the buildings fell, rather than absorbed the impact, that has given rise to so many theories - It was not the expected outcome of a passenger jet impact.
 
Nelson said:
Collapsing upper floors create air pressure that blows dust/debris out of open windows or blows windows out. The internal floors would have been 'pancaking' prior to the external visible structure failing.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Click to expand...

Read my post about peeing on the toilet floor and you will see :p
 
Borris said:
But they're not, and they never were. I don't consider the conspiracy theories as anything other than either wishful or fanciful thinking, but neither do I, for one minute, believe that any terrorist organisation had the intention to bring the buildings down.

In fact, it's the fact that the buildings fell, rather than absorbed the impact, that has given rise to so many theories - It was not the expected outcome of a passenger jet impact.
Click to expand...

It wasnt the expected out come because know one believed that 2 building couldnt have been taking down like that.

The truth is that the buildings wernt ever designed to take an impact by a plane
 
Stolly said:
That argument does not hold up at all.
Click to expand...
It doesn't - But then, neither do many of the reasons, including the WMD claims (later withdrawn), the regime change claims (later withdrawn), or pre-emptive self-defense claims (later withdrawn).
 
Borris said:
It doesn't - But then, neither do many of the reasons, including the WMD claims (later withdrawn), the regime change claims (later withdrawn), or pre-emptive self-defense claims (later withdrawn).
Click to expand...

They wernt cowardly attacks that came from no where though. The countrys got warning that they were going to be attacked.

Theres a difference you know
 
DaveyD said:
I really can't beleive that that would be controlled explosions, there must be a decent explanation in why those small isolated blowouts happen, it's probably just some sort of support collapsing causing massive amounts of force to be put on thing all around or whatever.

I personally disagree with any of these silly, sad theories, as so many people died tragically, and that people refuse to believe that these terrorists were capable of such a controlled devastating attack.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a second that the terrorists were capable of such an attack, I think that's been proven with co-ordinated attacks elsewhere in the world by much smalled terrorist cells (7/7, Madrid bombings etc.).

I just think there is a lot of questionable data from the events on 9/11 that should be properly analysed and reported on by an independant committee.

I agree that there was a tragic loss of life, but if there's even the remotest possibility that what happened on 9/11 was part of a government sanctioned action, or any government complicity then I don't think anyone should be resting until all material pertaining to the attacks has been made public.

Telescopi - I've seen a lot of documentaries on building demolitions (you should really try when buildings attack tbh ;)) and I know what you mean about preparations, but I don't know enough about the structure of the WTC and whether there were weak points on each floor that would require only small explosive charges that could have been camouflaged as something else. Unfortunately the people who would have been in the offices and could shed some light on this aren't around to tell anyone.

If the building was being 'pulled' would it not be a case of getting the collapse going, then sustaining it through timed explosions so that the weight above the explosions provided the necessary force?

I agree that the providence of these videos is in most cases at best questionable, and at worst ludicrous, but sadly I'm yet to see any major paper/news company stick it's neck out and take these claims into serious consideration.

Stolly - If you could, detail in a paragraph what the primary reason for the war in Iraq was then?
 
Zip said:
The truth is that the buildings wernt ever designed to take an impact by a plane
Click to expand...
Of course they weren't - but it had been considered as an eventuality, and the expected outcome was that they would remain standing - Hence my point about the collapse being a bit of a surprise, and not something that the terrorists could have foreseen.
 
Zip said:
It wasnt the expected out come because know one believed that 2 building couldnt have been taking down like that.

The truth is that the buildings wernt ever designed to take an impact by a plane
Click to expand...

Did the designer of towers one and two not say that they were designed to take multiple aircraft strikes?
 
IceBus said:
theres still a real lack of conclusive evidence about what happened on 9/11 and a lack of disclosure of tapes etc. that could definitively quash any conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Er 2 planes flew into the towers, is that not enough?
 
Telescopi said:
I've watched the video's - there is no information, if these explosions were out of character I want to see demolition and construction engineers explaining why.

I have seen serious documentaries on demolition (no, I don't mean 'when buildings attack') and I can assure you the occupants of the building would have noticed the preperations.

If you can find real journalism try again - even michael moore is better than this mtv inspired tat.
Click to expand...

People did, the loose change 911 conspiracy video documents how all of the workers noticed a lot of strange going ons 2 weeks up to 9/11, lots of strange people walking around, doors locked. Probably secret service agents of the highest level.
 
FFS, won't people get it round their head, IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!

Whats next? UFO's caused the London Bombings?
 
Hamish said:
Er 2 planes flew into the towers, is that not enough?
Click to expand...

Not to cause the catastrophic collapse of two hugley overly engineered buildings. The same goes for Building 7.

Wardie said:
How about NOOOO, you crazy dutch *******.
Click to expand...

I'm not Dutch. Thanks.
 
Zip said:
They wernt cowardly attacks that came from no where though. The countrys got warning that they were going to be attacked.

Theres a difference you know
Click to expand...
You're taking my post entirely out of context, and misrepresenting what I wrote.

But, just for laughs - Yes, the Iraq invasion was cowardly, in that it was illegal, and a sustained aerial bombardment on a country crippled by sanctions is almost risk free for the attackers. I would call that both moral and physical cowardice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom