Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Twin towers conspiracy...
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Food for thought...
-
Message 2
Posted by PJ in Kent (U3065916) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Truly terrifying. And I must admit, the more information that's coming to light about 9/11, it appears more and more likely the whole event was a U.S Government exercise to instil fear in, and gain control over the people, whilst giving the Bush administration a legitimate reason to go to war- firstly on the supposed terrorists responsible, then secondly on Saddam Hussein.
My overriding memory of the event, however, was Bush's response on being told "Mr President, the nation is under attack." The man did not flinch, nor give a flicker of emotion- his demeanor did not change one iota. This leads me to two conclusions:
1) He is an immeasurably stupid man who couldn't comprehend the magnitude of the news he had just been given.
or 2) He already knew it was going to happen, and his aide was simply confirming that a pre-planned operation had taken place.
My greatest fear though, is that Tony Blair seems to be cut from exactly the same cloth as Bush... How far would he go to maintain his grip on power??? -
Message 3
Posted by geezerhello123 (U3260145) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
why would an additional explosive device be necessary to breach the walls of the building ?
it makes no sense -
Message 4
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
PJ, whatever it is your drinking, you've had enough
-
Message 5
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Slim Daddy,
yes, scary on face value, but take several things into account. You are not seeing original film, it'sd very easy to doctor (as the chap said) they even chaged it to show a variance. Seocondly, do you know how unbelievably unrelaible eye witnesses are? No markings that he'd seen, no windonws etc. Do you think if the US goverment was going to do a job that was in public like that they would have taken that into account?
PJ,
In regards to your statements on Bush's reactions... There is no set way as to how someone would react. The judge him on that is pretty silly really. How would you react? Not the same as me and not the same would you be in that situation as you would think now. -
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 18th February 2006
Re: message 1.
Slimdaddy,
have seen the conspiracy theory nearly a week after it happened. It was mainly from Muslim sources and it was taken over sadely by "one" French paper that I occasionally read.
Regards. -
Message 7
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
I am never one to believe the conspiracy theoroes; be it JFK, the moon landings, Elvis faking his own death or whatever. I tend to beliece the most plausible explanation.
I am certainly not advocating that the US Govt. planned and executed the 9/11 outrages. I posted this link because it raised some interesting points some of which could easliy be disputed,some of which required a more technical knowledge (which I certainly do not have) to dispute. I did think this documetary was well made and someone had obviously put a lot of work into it, however I'm sure it it to a large extent a (one sided)work of fiction. -
Message 8
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Nobody notices the major moments in history at the time. It sometimes takes a while for the full picture to grow. The stuff that is happening now (regarding America) is also shrouded in lies and misinformation so it will take longer than in the past for the full horror of what's going on to sink in. By then there won't be options left for peaceful change. The left in America will need to take up arms to save themselves (and their country), this will drive the moderate right into the arms of Bush's extremists and it'll end in a shooting War. The next American civil war.
-
Message 9
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
If the alleged 'Conspiracy theories' i.e. implausible versions of events are easy to refute, then do so. The thing about labelling anything a conspiracy theory is that you close out any possibility of uncovering any kernel of truth they may contain. Some of the things in this film may be questionable, but there seem to be elements, which if true, are startling. Not least of which being the claim that nine of the High Jackers are still alive. Eyewitnesses may be unreliable but the technical aspects of the buildings collapse DID cause debate amongst building experts. The eyewitnesses within the buildings and the testimony of experienced fire fighters (if it is accurate) should not be dismissed until it is tested more rigorously. Rather than simply being ignored.
-
Message 10
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Another aspect of the day (9/11) I find troubling is the fast removal of the steel and other wreckage. Is anyone aware of any official explanation of the need to remove and destroy, without analysis, what was evidence from the scene of a crime?
-
Message 11
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
What struck home with me was the discovery after the plane crashed into one of the towers of the passport of the supposed pilot. A piece of paper flew out of the guys pocket, through the jet fuelled inferno and landed a block away to be discovered and used as evidence, meanwhile the black boxes, made of the most indestructable material known to man were incinerated and their contents will never be known.
-
Message 12
Posted by geezerhello123 (U3260145) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
message 3
-
Message 13
Posted by realist (U3266624) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Crime Scene, what crime scene, it wasn't like they didn't know what happened. There was no debate what brought the plane down. There were a couple of thousand bodies under the rubble and structural damage sustained from the collapse to the slurry wall seriously threated the structural integrity of surrounding buildings. Come on....All you have to do is inform yourself. Another aspect of the day (9/11) I find troubling is the fast removal of the steel and other wreckage. Is anyone aware of any official explanation of the need to remove and destroy, without analysis, what was evidence from the scene of a crime?Ìý
-
Message 14
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
why would an additional explosive device be necessary to breach the walls of the building ?
it makes no senseÌý
no but it would make sure the both of the towers were taken out in their entirety. -
Message 15
Posted by realist (U3266624) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
I haven't heard or seen the doc. or report or wherever you all are getting your info, but just think about it kate....the terrists escape the plane, but NONE of the passengers manage to escape. Come on....commonsense people? Those planes were going SEVERAL HUNDRED miles an hour and for the most part are stopped by the building. A large jet passenger planes traveling 200 miles an hour, comes to a stop in less than 300 feet. I'm not a mathmatician, but I don't think anyone is going to survive that scenerio. Do you? If the alleged 'Conspiracy theories' i.e. implausible versions of events are easy to refute, then do so. The thing about labelling anything a conspiracy theory is that you close out any possibility of uncovering any kernel of truth they may contain. Some of the things in this film may be questionable, but there seem to be elements, which if true, are startling. Not least of which being the claim that nine of the High Jackers are still alive. Eyewitnesses may be unreliable but the technical aspects of the buildings collapse DID cause debate amongst building experts. The eyewitnesses within the buildings and the testimony of experienced fire fighters (if it is accurate) should not be dismissed until it is tested more rigorously. Rather than simply being ignored.Ìý
-
Message 16
Posted by geezerhello123 (U3260145) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
why would it ?
surely an explosive could be fitted on the inside of the plane ?
why would an additional explosive device be necessary to breach the walls of the building ?
it makes no senseÌý
no but it would make sure the both of the towers were taken out in their entirety.Ìý -
Message 17
Posted by realist (U3266624) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
if those planes were low on fuel and an additional bomb could've survived, the buildings probably would still be on the NY skyline. Burning Jet Fuel melted the exoskeletons and caused structural failure in both towers, I haven't heard nor seen any engineer who disputs that. why would an additional explosive device be necessary to breach the walls of the building ?
it makes no senseÌý
no but it would make sure the both of the towers were taken out in their entirety.Ìý -
Message 18
Posted by (( sean )) Free Nordmann (U2053581) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
I haven't heard or seen the doc. or report or wherever you all are getting your info, but just think about it kate....the terrists escape the plane, but NONE of the passengers manage to escape. Come on....commonsense people? Those planes were going SEVERAL HUNDRED miles an hour and for the most part are stopped by the building. A large jet passenger planes traveling 200 miles an hour, comes to a stop in less than 300 feet. I'm not a mathmatician, but I don't think anyone is going to survive that scenerio. Do you? If the alleged 'Conspiracy theories' i.e. implausible versions of events are easy to refute, then do so. The thing about labelling anything a conspiracy theory is that you close out any possibility of uncovering any kernel of truth they may contain. Some of the things in this film may be questionable, but there seem to be elements, which if true, are startling. Not least of which being the claim that nine of the High Jackers are still alive. Eyewitnesses may be unreliable but the technical aspects of the buildings collapse DID cause debate amongst building experts. The eyewitnesses within the buildings and the testimony of experienced fire fighters (if it is accurate) should not be dismissed until it is tested more rigorously. Rather than simply being ignored.Ìý Ìý
whatkateydid is saying si that those named as the highjackers are still alive because they were not infact the highjackers (indeed that there maybe was no terrorist involvement) not that they walked away from the twin towers.
the source she (and everyone else) is speaking about is contained within the origional post. -
Message 19
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Hi sean, Thanks. That's exactly what I meant, If the claim made in the documentary is right and 9 of the Highjackers are still alive, who really flew the planes then?
Realist,
Doesn't that make it a crime scene? Since when have the rules of evidence gathering included throwing away the greater part of it because enough people saw what happened? If that is the approach why bother with any forensic examination of any disaster?
As I stated I am not an engineer. I have been trying to 'inform myself' as you so forthrightly asked me to do. You said :-
"Burning Jet Fuel melted the exoskeletons and caused structural failure in both towers, I haven't heard nor seen any engineer who disputs that..."
The debates that I have read discuss in detail the structure of the twin towers and I believe that the 'exoskeleton' you say melted wasn't actually the main load bearing component. The twin towers were built around Huge Internal Structural Cores and it was the failure of these cores which caused the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. I have read (in my uninformed way) that the exoskelton couldn't have melted as it was impossible for the fire to generate temperatures hot enough for this. This point is also made quite clearly in the film. Here are some people qualified in the field disagreeing with the official version.
Whether or not there was conspiracy is moot,
What is clear is that the US government has acted like it has something to hide and that is stupid. The events of 9/11 plunged the World into a Crisis that will last for decades and nobody knows where it will end. Whether or not you think it is important enough to examine closely doesn't bother me. I think it is and I believe this film raises some worthwhile points. -
Message 20
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
slimdaddy101,
The pasport thing did my box in as well. It's like they put a sign up saying "Badguys were here, LOOK NO FURTHER." It's like a bad Hollywood script. -
Message 21
Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
The video evidence of the collapse of the buldings was rather compelling as well. Explosions on floors well below the impact areas before and during the collapse onyl point to noe conclusion. Explosives were used to bring down the building.
It's a scary thought. If this conspiracy is proved conclusively, it would destroy any credibility the US political system has, and will lead to a lot of unrest within the country, and outside.
Michael -
Message 22
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Not wanting to be written off as a conspiracy buff I need to say that this is just speculation, but What if...
If there was Involvement by US authorities in the attacks of 9/11 what does that mean for America? I found this really interesting document about the 2004 election.
and here:
Combine the possibility of election fraud in 2004 with the thesis of government complicity in 9/11 and you've got a recipe for Civil war in the states.
Would that then spiral outward? I'm being Apochryphal, but...Isn't that part of the point of having these discussions? -
Message 23
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 24
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
How adult of you. Can you do anything other than Hector? Do you have a contrary opinion that you'd like to share? Then do it. But please stop with teenage cracks about people you disagree with.
-
Message 25
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Well, I'll just give my thoughts, based upon viewing the video clip.
The first impact claim of the missile can be explained quite easily by a flash of sunlight.
In the second impact claim there is no trace of a missile fire, i.e. ignition followed by a trace. To fire a missile at this point would need split second timing by a human being or computer controlled.
Eye witnesses, notoriously unreliable, especially when recalling events. I've found first hand accounts that directly contradict in the detail from WW2 (and they were from the same side). Neither person was lying, they truely belived in their account.
Very little "evidence" came from Air Traffic Control. Now, why is that?
Now onto film doctoring, well, I am going to contadict myself here but I do recall seeing "skid marks" from the plane that hit the Pentagon and a plane in the Pentagon. Now I may be suffering from a poor memory, or, one or other of the films could be doctored.
Note that in the video referenced there are no Emergency Services present in the footage presented. If you examine the video then there is also nothing to prove the wreckage portrayed comes from the Pentagon plane aside from the reassuring voice of the narrator.
Lastly, the temperature at something which will burn is not the temperature that substance will heat the surrounding area too. That's physics for you.
Finally the "explosions" that demonstrate the pre prepared charges in the two towers. Sorry, you are seeing materials that are "exploding" under the forces of nature.
Please feel free to pull my scepticism apart, however I think I've just wasted an hour of my life watching this.
Cheers AA. -
Message 26
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Conspiracy theories, rubbish, all you had to do was see it on TV. Certainly the second plane fully penetrated the building. In itself this would have fatally damaged the central core. Stop making this all so complicated, and for some of you, your remarks are tainted with a knee jerk anti-americanism
From a non american. -
Message 27
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 28
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
But then perhaps you're right, Maybe anyone disagreeing with your world view is Mentally ill. Your infallible logic, rapier like wit and gargantuan intellect have won me over.
I am particualy impressed by your clinical refutation of the arguements.
I'll stop asking questions and Take the Thorazine, as Bill Hicks once said...
"Go Back to bed America, your government is in control."
So that's alright then. -
Message 29
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
That’s right Katey. Now do you want to take a nap or play with balloons perhaps? Why don’t you start talking in tongues, you will make more sense....medication time ...medication timeÌý
Buckskinz, there was I, wanting to defend the USA, and you come out with this. (You are right, you could have put it differently).
Cheers AA. -
Message 30
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 31
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
But then perhaps you're right, Maybe anyone disagreeing with your world view is Mentally ill. Your infallible logic, rapier like wit and gargantuan intellect have won me over.
I am particualy impressed by your clinical refutation of the arguements.
I'll stop asking questions and Take the Thorazine, as Bill Hicks once said...
"Go Back to bed America, your government is in control."
So that's alright then.
Ìý
WhatKateydid,
To try to prevent this from degenerating, perhaps you'd like to answer some of my points?
Cheers AA.
(Ignore buckskinz he's just a redneck (and I suspect plays banjo music).) -
Message 32
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Yes Katey, answer Arnalds points, and lets not have this lunacy become undignified. Have you heard Brahms lullaby rendered by Banjo? It made Pavarotti cry. Katey would love it.
-
Message 33
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Like I said in my earlier posts I think there are problems with documentary. I agree with Arnalds explanation of the flashes of light. My problem with the official version of events is that IT SEEMS there are inconsistencies which no one talks about. Again as I have said I am not an engineer so, maybe the Central cores of the buildings were damaged by the planes. The point is there is genuine disagreement amongst building experts, with enough of them putting a reaonable case for controlled demolition to raise doubts about the official story. There could be a dozen explanations for what happened but no-one knows because US investigators were prevented from Analyzing the wreckage by a seemingly expedient clear up that destroyed technical data.
By their inept actions the US govt is acting as if it has something to hide.
As for being Anti-American wyn8126** You clearly know everyone on the board well, better than I thought possible. How is this knee-jerk? The questions raised in the film and the web sites which I have cited are not Anti American, they are by Americans asking legitimate questions.
And again, Bucksfizz, I salute your towering intellect. -
Message 34
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 35
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Buckskin,
I had no intention of being either anti american or insulting. I'm sorry if I have inadvertantly upset you, that wasn't my original intention. I hope you can accept my apology in the spirit that it's meant. The documentary seemed to raise some plausible points amongst some highly improbable assertion, thats all. -
Message 36
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Yes Katey, answer Arnalds points, and lets not have this lunacy become undignified. Have you heard Brahms lullaby rendered by Banjo? It made Pavarotti cry. Katey would love it.
Ìý
Apologies Buckskinz, it was a cheap jibe, I just can't help it.
Regards AA. -
Message 37
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Katey,
I refuse to dignify this nonsense with a serious rebuttal. You are obviously intelligent, I just cant understand this blind hatred however ridicules of all things American.
Cheers. -
Message 38
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
I don't hate all things American, a large part of my family are American. I spent a lot of time there when I was growing up and I love America. It's a shame you don't want to post a serious rebuttal. I keep saying there are gaps in my knowledge - surely the only way to learn is to differ? Doesn't the Bible refer to heated debated as "Steel sharpening steel..." That sounds like a positive thing to me.
K -
Message 39
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Apologies Buckskinz, it was a cheap jibe, I just can't help it.
Regards AA.Ìý
How gracious of you Arnald. Tis I that was being rude, and yourself and Katey in deficet of an apology, but your not getting one. In fact you have an appointment with the dreaded trebuchet at noon tomorrow. The math is complete. You are good for 260 yds.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 40
Posted by snazzyangel (U3243081) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
You have to remember when the towers were built. The builder couldn't even imagine planes destroying them. They towers were built; mainly to top the other skyscapers. They didn't really have to worry about air traffic or planes destroying a building.
-
Message 41
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
How gracious of you Arnald. Tis I that was being rude, and yourself and Katey in deficet of an apology, but your not getting one. In fact you have an appointment with the dreaded trebuchet at noon tomorrow. The math is complete. You are good for 260 yds.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Matt, I think you underestimate my weight, height and so wind resistance. So by my calculations 247 yards is the most you'll get.
Cheers AA. -
Message 42
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Trebuchet? That'll be an average Monday at work then.
-
Message 43
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Buckskin,
I had no intention of being either anti american or insulting. I'm sorry if I have inadvertantly upset you, that wasn't my original intention. I hope you can accept my apology in the spirit that it's meant. The documentary seemed to raise some plausible points amongst some highly improbable assertion, thats all.Ìý
WhateKatydid,
Don't apologise to Buckskinz, he's an ignorant colonial. I'm gratified to see that you recognise there are some inconsistencies in the film.
Every time somone calls anything a definite work of history my hackles rise.
Cheers AA, and fel free to be "spiky" on this board.
Also, as I think someone has pointed out, when the Towers went down there was some interesting subjects about liability for the design.
You may wish to find out who "owned" the Towers. I think you'll find it interesting. The companies who were there rented the floors.
Cheers AA. -
Message 44
Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
I have no idea who owns it actually. Perhaps you would like to elaborate AA?
Michael -
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Re: Message 19.
Katey,
I saw two times the same documentary about why all the floors collapsed one above the other and fell in layers one above the other on the ground, like a pile of pancakes.
The buildings seemed to be constructed for resisting hurricane winds and so were done the tests and the theoretical models resisted.
There was a talk with the chief engineer, who contructed them. And he said that there was no solid core in the middle as around the lift shaft. Each floor was hooked with some triangles (and they showed one such triangle) with bolts or welded to the outside construction. With the extreme heat of the big amount kerosene some of the triangles melted down and one floor felt on the underlaying floor and so on till the bottom.
The engineer said had there been a core in concrete in the middle, as was discussed, this could have never happened. And he had the tears in his eyes when saying that. However these buildings were not constructed to have an impact of a passengerplane full of kerosene.
I heard that even Bin laden had not expected this, while he didn't knew about that particular contstruction. He would have thought that only some floors would have been devastated and the floors above the impact would at fire, but not the collapse of the whole building.
I give it for what it is worth, have no time to do research about it for confirmation. If someone have any remarks please "utter" them.
Kind regards. -
Message 46
Posted by WhatKateydid (U3267391) on Sunday, 19th February 2006
Thanks Arnald,
There are real inconcistencies and quite unjustified leaps of assumption in the film, but there were a couple of parts which raised, for me, some naging questions about the official line. There is a lot of info on the web refuting a lot of the more outlandish claims made in the film. Like the seismographs, they were wrong. The camera wobble in sync with the debris falling off 9 seconds before the collapse - could've been just the wind - Not some final demolition explotion. The so called missiles slung underneath the aircraft that I really couldn't see in the footage, even though it got played half a dozen times. I could go on.
The reason I think it's worth thinking about is the ramifications for all of us. IF there was any official complicity in what happened. Why not release all of the findings and evidence? Why not open it to scrutinity? If nothing else there must be lessons to learn about building safety.
On the question of ownership, I think the buildings were owned by someone called Larry Silverstein at the time of the attacks. Larry is on the record as saying that On the day he in association the Fire dept. made the decision to 'pull' WTC7.
He now disputes what he meant and what other people said the word 'pull' meant in that context. It could mean evacuate but I took it to mean demolish in a controlled way to minimise the risk.
He stood to make 7+billion on the insurance claims so I'm not surprised he got cagey about the meaning of specific words.
The audio is quite interesting. It's available here:
About halfway down the page there is a link to download the file.
I make no claim to say it proves anything as the word pull is a touch ambiguous.
Anyway, back to my point.
We're Now at War in Iraq and Afganistan. A lot of People believe that Congress, Parliament and the public all around the world were lied to to justify the war.
If it is possible that our leaders are being that Machiavellian, why is it so impossible to believe they could do other deceitful things?
A few years ago there was the Clinton/Lewinski debacle which got a presidential impeachment hearing and a Censure. If his sex life merits close examination Then so does every angle of the situation We are Now in. From the begining.
The history of rational films about the WTC attacks is pretty woeful. I'm going to use the M word here, Michael Moores attempt to 'expose' the truth of 9-11 just made it worse. He lied and distorted events so severly that he damaged the credibility of anyone who asks questions about the politics behind the war on terror. We live in interesting times. I think, and again I am just speculating, it is possible the world is on the brink of catastrophe. Wars like the one on terror seem to have a habit of spreading like Flu. I like to think "What if..." and I really don't mean offence. Like the questions about the integrity of the vote in 2004's US election. If there was some fraud (and I stress it's an if) then exactly one half of the American electorate were robbed of their voice. It's a much more serious question than did Monica smoke Bills cigar and deserves to be examined accordingly. IF people in positions of power have decided that it is better to take the uncertainty out of elections then it will end badly for every American and possibly the rest of us. IF.... If not then everything'll be dandy. -
Message 47
Posted by papalazzzaru (U2987739) on Monday, 20th February 2006
Consider it like this. What did our "governments" get out of 9/11?
They got rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, under whom opium production had been cut to almost zero. Afghan opium production now accounts for around 85% of world totals. The USA also got their man, ex-CIA stooge Hamid Karzai into the top job in Afghanistan, thus securing the opium supply.
Don't believe a "democratic" "government" could be THAT cynical? Then look at the US economy; it's within a whisker of the US government having to officially declare the USA bankrupt. Now consider a man who is bankrupt and who has a chance to get some money from dealing drugs. Would YOU do it? Don't you think a country that can get away with it would do it? Because they are doing just that!!!
They got their oil pipeline across Afghanistan, which had been on hold for around 5 years.
They got the USA PATRIOT Act in place (not to be confused with USA Patriot Act, which does not exist! And I suggest people go look up what the USA PATRIOT Act actually stands for, because it has nothing to do with Patriotism).
With a little more creative lying about Iraqs WMD, 9/11 also got us into Iraq. If you dispute this, look at how many times, even today, George Brush invokes 9/11 and Al Qaeda when he talks about Iraq.
And to cap it all, our governments have only to breathe the words "Al Qaeda" and "Osama Bin Laden" and the sheeple in this country and in the USA get down on their knees and BEG our "government" to take more of their civil liberties away in order to protect them.
I have real news for you all! Anyone who believes the honk that is the official line about 9/11 and 7/7 needs their head examined as a matter of some urgency, because I regret to inform you that your brain is missing!!!
Incidentally, to all you "non-believers"; instead of just coming on here and saying "I don't believe you", offer some proof. Some REAL proof. Go on, go against the grain. Be a right-winger with an intellect...!!!! -
Message 48
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 20th February 2006
Hi Katy,
“I believe that the 'exoskeleton' you say melted wasn't actually the main load bearing componentâ€
It’s true that a central column did have load bearing properties, but the exo-skeletal structure of the building was just as significant.
I’ll try to put this in lay-man’s terms, so I apologise If I sound patronising.
If you thing about any conventional building, there has to be an evenly distributed load bearing capacity – For logical, practical and cost reasons.
This can be done in several ways, have many internal columns (Which for example in open plan offices isn’t practical) or you can distribute the load bearing evenly externally, or you can do a combination of the two. In the case of the WTC towers, the later, but rather than lots of internal columns, one large one.
The removal of such a large proportion of the load bearing capacity in conjunction with the load bearing properties of the central column and areas not directly affected by the entry of the plane i.e The damage done by heat proved to be catastrophic.
“the exoskelton couldn't have melted as it was impossible for the fire to generate temperatures hot enough for thisâ€
An important thing to note is that the steel doesn’t need to be melted, it looses about 50% of it’s tensile strength at 500deg C. The heat that it went to is estimated to be somewhat higher.
BTW I am a chartered Engineer. -
Message 49
Posted by papalazzzaru (U2987739) on Monday, 20th February 2006
"
An important thing to note is that the steel doesn’t need to be melted, it looses about 50% of it’s tensile strength at 500deg C. The heat that it went to is estimated to be somewhat higher.
BTW I am a chartered Engineer.
Ìý
Estimated by whom? The Kean Commission?! Don't make me laugh! I WATCHED the Kean Commission at work, and I laughed then too!!!
You'd have thought being a chartered Engineer would mean you know better than to swallow any old honk you're force-fed by the official media... -
Message 50
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 20th February 2006
papalazzzaru
You seem to know everything (Without saying anything) tell me how it can't get to that temp. Otherwise keep your pointless posts to yourself.
"You'd have thought being a chartered Engineer would mean you know better than to swallow any old honk you're force-fed by the official media" No, it just means I know what I'm talking about, can you do that?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.