World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

[chumpit]

Your jumping to a conclusion without covering the middle ground - are you really saying its literally impossible for the structure to be weakened enough to collapse with a controlled mechanism but still strong enough to survive the impact? personally I don't think we have conclusive evidence that this can't be engineered even if it seems unlikely on the face of it.

i would have to agree with acid, due to the capablities of vibration and resance (cant spell that word to day) Most building have to be otherly strong to conteract the chaninges in load that happen from the smallest of things air pressure humidity.

the towers we hit by a plane, the moment of the force on the aircraft was so great that it caused the concrete to split and twisted the metal structural supports. then the explosion of aircraft fuel striped the concrete from the supports results in a flexible material that cannot stand compression holding up the rest of the tower, gravity kick in and exploits weakness, towers fall, everyone without basic physics knowledge blames the government and gets tin hats.

 

[Rroff]

and you're asking people to blindly believe the most unlikely and overly complicated just because you want to be special and different and disbelieve the most likley/official conclusion?

I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything, only questioning the acecptance of the official statements and records as we can't verify the validity of all the information thats put forward.

Sure we can read what they tell us was on teh black box, that doesn't mean it wasn't tampered with, etc.

People are reading too many absolutes into what I'm saying.

 

[chumpit]

and you're asking people to blindly believe the most unlikely and overly complicated just because you want to be special and different and disbelieve the most likley/official conclusion?

Occam's razor The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
I reckon peopel should have a minimum a level in physics before commenting on this subject as all the actions in this are covered in those two years> moments, compression etc etc

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything, only questioning the acecptance of the official statements and records as we can't verify the validity of all the information thats put forward.

Sure we can read what they tell us was on teh black box, that doesn't mean it wasn't tampered with, etc.

People are reading too many absolutes into what I'm saying.

but you are saying stuff which is pointless. either you are putting alternative theorys forward that can be tested or your wasting everyones time.

So planes remote controlled

A) how and when where the palnes substantially modified.
B) how where the modifications not found, weither by crew or engineers/
Or
B1) if the planes where swapped and no pilots on board what happened to the headreads of passengers.

so and and so forth up to Z99 and beyound.

 

[Rroff]

but you are saying stuff which is pointless. either you are putting alternative theorys forward that can be tested or your wasting everyones time.

So planes remote controlled

A) how and when where the palnes substantially modified.
B) how where the modifications not found, weither by crew or engineers/
Or
B1) if the planes where swapped and no pilots on board what happened to the headreads of passengers.

so and and so forth up to Z99 and beyound.

Yeah your right I should quit wasting my time, I have no vested interested in either outcome domestic or terrorist, I don't disagree that the official statement is plausible and backed up by solid evidence, but neither do I feel that it excludes alternative explanations, of which there are a myraid of possibilities, beyond my scope to test.

As in your points above, its beyond my capabilities, if we assume for sake of argument that the planes were rigged, to account for the movement of each plane through the hours, days or even weeks prior and conclude if there was or wasn't opportunity for them to have been rigged at a prior point and I don't think anyone else can either.

 

[chumpit]

but you are saying stuff which is pointless. either you are putting alternative theorys forward that can be tested or your wasting everyones time.

So planes remote controlled

A) how and when where the palnes substantially modified.
B) how where the modifications not found, weither by crew or engineers/
Or
B1) if the planes where swapped and no pilots on board what happened to the headreads of passengers.

so and and so forth up to Z99 and beyound.

game, set, match acid...

 

[Rroff]

game, set, match acid...

Since when was this a competition?

I value acid's input on this as he has a fine factual reasoning which is counter to my more intuitive reaction to events.

 

[deuse]

game, set, match acid...

Oh dear

 

[RDM]

Since when was this a competition?

It is a debate, and quite often in debates there is a winner and a loser. Mostly, you are losing.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What evidence do you have for this? not even CT people come up with this. .

But don't forget this little gem -

For obvious reasons I can't go into detail but as someone who formely worked in R&D for companies like SCRDE, etc. I'm aware of plenty of technology and techniques that are years ahead of public domain, leading me to believe that many things potentially could have happened that day that would be outside of the experience of the general public to imagine.

Basically we are not clever enough.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for these examples Rfoff

 

[Rroff]

It is a debate, and quite often in debates there is a winner and a loser. Mostly, you are losing.

Theres only winners and losers if people have a reason to hold onto one view point or another for their own interests. Personally I'm open minded on this subject and not fighting a corner, which seems to be a misconception by many people in this thread.

 

[Rroff]

But don't forget this little gem -



Basically we are not clever enough.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for these examples Rfoff

Whats the got to do with clever enough or not? I happen to have experience of something that not everyone does, I happened to be in a time and place.

 

[Glaucus]

Theres only winners and losers if people have a reason to hold onto one view point or another for their own interests. Personally I'm open minded on this subject and not fighting a corner, which seems to be a misconception by many people in this thread.

It's just bloody annoying

Are you keeping an open mind about my alien attack? you can't prove it as wrong. So i hope you are giving it equal thought.

 

[Rroff]

It's just bloody annoying

Are you keeping an open mind about my alien attack? you can't prove it as wrong. So i hope you are giving it equal thought.

I can't see any reason aliens would be involved in WTC, if such exist I'd have thought they'd have had plenty of other things to busy their time with... but I won't completely rule them out even tho that seems outlandishly unlikely.

On the face of it I'd find it more plausible that aliens were involved than they somehow found trained, suicidal air crews to fly the planes that day

 

[Glaucus]

I can't see any reason aliens would be involved in WTC, if such exist I'd have thought they'd have had plenty of other things to busy their time with... but I won't completely rule them out even tho that seems outlandishly unlikely.

On the face of it I'd find it more plausible that aliens were involved than they somehow found trained, suicidal air crews to fly the planes that day

and there we go, end debate. You obviously can't follow simple logic and rule out that, which is so ridiculously unlikely. Therefore it is pointless discussing it.

 

[Rroff]

What you have evidence aliens don't exist?

Sure its orders of magnitude less likely even than most of the CTs. But I don't see the logic that rules out theres no possible way "they" were involved.

 

[*Moangroan*]

Something being ridiculously unlikely does not make it unlikely fool....lol j/k.

 

[chumpit]

What you have evidence aliens don't exist?

Sure its orders of magnitude less likely even than most of the CTs. But I don't see the logic that rules out theres no possible way "they" were involved.

about the same as your evidence that they do exist and have figured out how to break the laws of physics and travel faster than the speed of light

 

[Glaucus]

What you have evidence aliens don't exist?

Sure its orders of magnitude less likely even than most of the CTs. But I don't see the logic that rules out theres no possible way "they" were involved.

As I said with your "logic" there is no point debating and you are trolling.

 

[Rroff]

You were the one that threw aliens into the mix don't blame me lol