ann_a Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The second link doesn't appear to be working.So,google video,"Donna Marsh O'Connor at the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I have just been thinking about the controlled demolition nonsense. It seems to me that, if there really were hidden explosive charges in the building, then they must have been hidden either on the floor where the aircraft hit or close to it. If they were several floors either side then it would have been obvious that there was a secondary explosion in a different place. This means that, aside from all the issues about hiding the explosives and all the cables, we have to assume that the aircraft had to hit specific floors. There are two major flaws with this, aside from the obvious one that it would be virtually impossible to install and hide such explosives and all the cables. Firstly, the same crackpots who believe in controlled explosions also like telling us that the pilots had a few hours in a Cessna. Even though I have explained that this is nonesense and that such pilots could (and did) hit the building, I am rather more sceptical about whether they could hit a specific floor. This is because is it far easier to go left and right than it is to go up and down in an aircraft, particularly when it is moving very fast. Moving vertically needs considerable forces and it takes quite a time. This leads me to assume that they will have aimed for a rough area of the towers and couldn't really aim for a floor where there might have been explosives. You will obviously know that aircraft when landing aim for a specific point in space (the numbers) and do this accurately. However, the aircraft that hit the towers were travelling very fast and not making a controlled approach at a downward andgle at low speed as a landing aircraft would. Secondly, if there were explosives then there will also have been cables. Both the explosives themselves and the cables would be vunerable to fire. It is likely that a considerable part of the cables and much of the explosive would be consumed in the fire which would result from crashing an aircraft into a building. Takeing this information into account along with evidence from structural engineers who explain how the collapse happened then there is no doubt that the crash and resulting fire brought down the buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Quick reply. Ken H,I'm sure our experts would be only too happy to answer questions..would love to appear on mainstream tv and radio,but find it rather difficult with the stranglehold there is on the same. "Stranglehold"? More like quality control (ie don't give airtime to fruitcakes) - which is how they became mainstream in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Longcol..then please explain why,when I read a daily newspaper,listen to radio 4,watch tele...I wasn't even aware there was any controversy about 9/11?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Longcol..then please explain why,when I read a daily newspaper,listen to radio 4,watch tele...I wasn't even aware there was any controversy about 9/11?! That is because there isn't except amongst a few deluded people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally Posted by ann_a Longcol..then please explain why,when I read a daily newspaper,listen to radio 4,watch tele...I wasn't even aware there was any controversy about 9/11?! That is because there isn't except amongst a few deluded people.Deluded is a very kind way to describe them. I'd be interested to hear what a psychologist has to say about the minds of people who think they're surrounded by 'big brother' government-level conspiracies. Mon landings, 9/11, Diana . . I'm sure they're as mad as frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The only one's mentioning moon landings Diana,oh,and don't forget,..lizards:D appear to be you ...er..what's the word....Leave that to you:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally Posted by ann_a 5 min, 9/11 Truth:Explosive Force&Volcano-StylePyroclastic Flow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qDB4...related&search ann_a, I actually watched this one all the way through; you're suggesting it proves what exactly? The alleged 'squibs', for example. If that's what they really were, would anyone have been no-brained enough to plant them in one or two isolated places where they'd produce no harm at all? Bizarre. The pyroclastic flow stuff seemed a total irrelevance. If you were going to bring down the towerswith controlled demolition why bother to fly fuel-laden aircraft into them? Goodness, I'm agreeing with Halibut again. The 'squibs' aren't evidence of explosions at all. They're the result of overpressure being channelled down liftshafts, which I tried to explain to the hard-of-understanding conspiracy fruits months ago. They simply won't believe the truth becasue it isn't as mysteriously exciting as the loony version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipine Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I'd be interested to hear what a psychologist has to say about the minds of people who think they're surrounded by 'big brother' government-level conspiracies. Mon landings, 9/11, Diana . . I'm sure they're as mad as frogs. Er no.. I'm quite sane thanks. just got an open mind. Since our beloved governments have a tendancy to lie, cover up and manipulate the facts rather alot, especially when it relates to war or when big bucks and/or oil is involved.. I think its important to be aware that there might be an alternative explaination that doesn't necessarily follow the official line. "Only the madman is absolutely sure" - Robert Anton Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 And you never addressed the question..if Building 7 was "extensively" damaged,(your words,not mine,)why did it fall down so symmetrically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.