9/11 conspiracy theories

[venger]

great stuff, thanks for the comments lads.

 

ill post the links later to the engineers at MIT and the others who raised these questions, perhaps they know as little as me?

 

and bartfast, the sarkyness just makes you look like a bit of a tool.

 

cheers:)

 

Ask them too have a word with Noam Chomsky while your at it, he still lectures there and has his own questions about 9/11 and American Imperialism.

[venger]

So how's about you show me the error of my ways on the other answers I gave, rather than just number 6?

 

The number 6 must have been copied by mistake, appologies.

 

When are people gonna answer some of the points I have raised is how I feel also chap.

 

I have posted parts of official documents several times and I am still apparently making all of this up

[Bartfarst]

great stuff, thanks for the comments lads.

ill post the links later to the engineers at MIT and the others who raised these questions, perhaps they know as little as me?

and bartfast, the sarkyness just makes you look like a bit of a tool.

 

cheers:)

 

I regret that the level of numptyness that's being posted on here drives me to sarcasm - I'm only human.

 

I do not believe, for example, that engineers at MIT fail to understand the hollow tube design of these buildings. they will most certainly understand the collapse mechanism and 'pankake theory'. At least, a real engineer, genuinely from MIT should.

 

In fact, I cannot accept that they asked any of the 6 questions you posted.

 

Is giving you answers to questions that you claim we can't answer the thing that 'makes me look a tool'? Or would I better achieve that status by refusing to accept the laws of physics when they're put under my nose?

[Bartfarst]

The number 6 must have been copied by mistake, appologies.

 

When are people gonna answer some of the points I have raised is how I feel also chap.

 

I have posted parts of official documents several times and I am still apparently making all of this up

 

Tony and I have answered everything that appeared on the last couple of pages as I see it - without trawling through the whole thread, what official documents have you posted that remain unanswered?

[venger]

If I didn't have such respect for the well-considered questions raised on this subject, I'd ask if this a special thread for people with learning difficulties.

 

1. Watch some other demolition footage, and see how quickly buildings come down - when only the ground floor supports are blown. None of those buildings will be anything like the size of the Twin Towers. The first few floors collapse relatively slowly, but as the growing momentum of the collapsed floors above hits each successive floor below, it so vastly exceeds the structures strength that the floor might as well be a shoebox – it will not offer even token resistance to the momentum of the falling floors from above.

My dog probably understands that, and although he’s quite good playing dead and opening doors I really don’t consider him to be very bright.

Think of it like this, you can stand carefully on a biscuit tin, but what happens when you jump onto it? Don’t underestimate momentum and kinetic energy, they generate loads that are orders of magnitude greater than the floors below are designed to support which is why they pancaked so quickly. If the floors were blasted there would be high speed shock visible – and there isn’t.

 

There would also be tons upon tons of explosives being tripped over throughout the building and miles upon miles of det cord filling the place like spaghetti. Whatever some people might think after watching Mission Impossible on tv, you can’t bring a building down with small hidden radio-initiated charges, and you can’t hide the huge amounts of explosive, or the drilling, disruption and months of work it would have taken to rig the towers. Ask a professional, don’t base your ‘knowledge’ on tv fiction and loony American conspiracy websites.

 

The building in the video below is only a few stories high, the explosives are placed only on the ground floor but you can see how the collapse is accelerating as it continues (this ‘little’ job required 7,242 holes in supporting elements, 1,825 lb of explosives, 8,640 blasting caps and 37,200 ft of detonating cord: Obviously, it would be a doddle to rig something like this for the twin towers when the cleaner wasn’t looking).

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7

 

 

While I would imagine a wireless system of detonations, it is a fact that security was relieved and blacked out prior to the attacks ordered by one of Bush's relatives, there is footage people hearing repeated explosions gong off from 7 storeys in the basement upwards, some survived many did not.

 

I understand how difficult a concept this is but I am looking at as much evidence as I can find as time goes on and it stinks!

[venger]

Tony and I have answered everything that appeared on the last couple of pages as I see it - without trawling through the whole thread, what official documents have you posted that remain unanswered?

 

Now the facts behind this will be really interesting.

 

Did you get it from the lab rats?

 

 

 

 

 

Most lab rats have a greater grasp of reality than conspiracy theorists

 

 

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/transcript.php#mary

 

Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the FAA (from a formal statement at a June 10, 2002 press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington)

 

She is involved in one of several civil suits that have been filed against the US gov over 9/11.

 

Here is one on the previous page alone.

[venger]

Oh no ?

 

 

 

Look below, took me a while to find it though

 

"The first hijacking was suspected at no later than 8:20 am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews Air Force base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane hit the Penatgon at 9:38 am. Why not ? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement tat once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate."

 

Former British Environmental Minister and MP Michael Meacher "The War on Terrorism is Bogus", The Guardian, September 6, 2003

 

And another a page or so back.

[venger]

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it."

 

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"

 

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," ~ Osama Bin Laden

 

Page 24 but there is loads more, but thats not even close to what else is available, all checkable I might add.

[venger]

While you're working out where that load of nonsense came from let's deal with the other 'unanswerable questions'

 

The forth paragraph in, but all what she has too say is quite interesting you might agree.

 

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/transcript.php#mary

 

Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the FAA (from a formal statement at a June 10, 2002 press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington)

 

She is involved in one of several civil suits that have been filed against the US gov over 9/11.

[Bartfarst]

The forth paragraph in, but all what she has too say is quite interesting you might agree.

 

That's just a quote from a transcript of an interview, it's not an offical document.

 

I can't accept the figure of 59 shoot downs - less, perhaps, than you can accept that an aircraft with the kinetic energy greater than four 1000lb bombs going off, and 50 tons of incendiary bomb on top, can destroy a building.