Geoff Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 Originally posted by poppins Goeff, you should be writing for a RAG magazine. Poppins, you should remember that I hardly have enough time to visit this site, let alone write something that long. It's a copy and paste (which I don't even remember doing!) and this thread was started almost 2 years ago... ...and as the 2nd line suggests, it's by 'William Bunch'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulip Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 There are a lot of unanswered questions but we will never, ever find out the truth. Governments have been covering things up since ..... well since governments began. 9/11 has been used as an excuse to make wars, raise taxes, fingerprint innocent tourists etc, etc. The USA has a very uncomfortable feel about it but I want to stress it has nothing to do with general population of North American who are as confused as the rest of us. You can theorize and question all you like but it's a waste of your energy to do so. They are still going on about who shot JFK and that happened over 40 years ago - we still don't know the truth. Princess Diana's death will also be brought up an re-examined over and over again long after we are all six feet under. Worry about those things you can change and not the ones you can do nothing about. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaroleK Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 '"The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings. "More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC.' http://www.rense.com/general67/huge.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Originally posted by CaroleK Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings. Well that and expert opinion from the buildings design engineer and the teensy fact that we all saw two planes crash into the towers. Try reading a few truly independent papers, instead of single issue conspiracy websites... http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf http://architecture.about.com/library/blworldtrade.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaroleK Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it came downexactly the same way! But then it was later confirmed that demolition explosives had been placed on it after the two towers had fell. They tried to deny it for a while till the owner of the towers said he heard them say:'pull it' at the time. Meaning to use demo explosives as someone deemed it to be unsafe. The similarity of the way all three towers fell indicates that explosives were also used to take the first two down. The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control. Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first. Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along. As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down. We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd. Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwhatref Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Originally posted by CaroleK The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control. Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first. Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along. As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down. I dont know where you get this stuff from. If i thought like you i'd be on the first plane out of here! Pilots cant make that manouvre? How the hell do they get it on a runway then? How have pilots flew a large plane with no fuel over 300 mile. Another load of tosh! BTW i admire your quest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 WTC 7 fell because of the impact of thousands of tonnes of rubble from the twin towers that had taken out the foundations! Regarding the towers, the explosives would have to be extremely resilient to fire as the towers both started to collapse at the point the planes made impact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Originally posted by CaroleK We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd. Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. I raised this issue in a reply to the last conspiracy thread you started. It is entirely possible that 'demolition charges', if in fact they existed, could have been placed in WTC 1&2 by terrorists and the purpose of the suppression of the firefighter's evidence was to hide the failure of the security system and whoever was responsible for it, - in the final analysis the US govt. and it's agencies. More likely to have been a cover-up than a convoluted conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miniminch Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Originally posted by CaroleK WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, yet it came downexactly the same way! But then it was later confirmed that demolition explosives had been placed on it after the two towers had fell. They tried to deny it for a while till the owner of the towers said he heard them say:'pull it' at the time. Meaning to use demo explosives as someone deemed it to be unsafe. The similarity of the way all three towers fell indicates that explosives were also used to take the first two down. The aeroplanes crashing into the towers were just the distraction. I think by remote control. Pilots later discussing the event said that even with 'terrorists' pointing guns at their heads there was no way they would have put the plane into the towers - certainly none of the experienced pilots considered themselves capable of the high skill plane manoeuver that finally crashed the planes into them, let alone unskilled AQ pilots who had only a few flying lessons between them - they all agreed that they would have plunged it into the water first. Its the way the planes breaknecked their flightpath into the towers that yells remote control. The technology exists. It was developed to counter-act all the plane hi-jackings that were going on back along. As for the buildings design engineers. they had built the towers to withstand such a crash by aircraft. I'm sure they would have taken into account any on-board fuel. They were convinced it would withstand such an incident. Which is why extra pre-planted explosives would have been necessary to bring them down. We all saw two planes crash into the towers, yes, but we didn't hear, and wasn't told of, any accompanying non-fuel related explosions. Like the firemen and other witnesses heard. This is why they were legally STFU'd. Try reading thro the single conspiracy sites rather than a few not really independent newspapers. After reading this I think Bush is my new Hero. Thanks for turning me from a card carrying socialist into a 'hardliner' with your crackpot theories. Vote Bush! This is an adaptaion from another post adressed to you. I feel it may be relevant here.. This is how all conspiricy theories work by making out that the people that don't buy it are the blindfolded puppet masses. But here is my response. a. If you know that to be true don't tell us on the sheffield forum. Go to the Washington post. This is another Watergate. but I suspect your evidence has come from a fellow student theorist who has spent too long in his bedroom making up stuff. b. why Shouldnt he earn a few quid? because what he write is garbage and he's exploiting people who don't know any better; the way Oliver Stone did in JFK. If you can't see both sides to a arguament it invalidates the case no matter how compelling it is. Oliver Stone's account of the assassination of JFK is as fictional as it gets, ignoring the crushing fact is that Oswald probably was acting alone. Horrible I know because we were all wanting CIA involvement. And anyway, if they were involved which we suspect they were; again the conspiricy theorist went overboard and made the case against the conspiricy seem more plausible than the conspiricy itself. This is what you are doing. C. We have a healthy tradition of vigorous journalism in this country. Remember the recent difficulties the BBC got in to over a report on the Today Programme on radio 4. It nearly brought the government down. The outcome may have been disappointing but the fact that that process occured at all should hint at a fairly free press. Ok if you are talking about the low quality newspapers may be you have a point. d. You can't make the judgement that he speaks the truth. Surely that is impossible to know. The truth is subjective to the point that anything can be said about anything. Ergo the truth does not exist (in a sense) and I'm afraid to say that it's not 'out there.' we can only rely on rigours evidence none of which you produce. (where is your evidence -and don't just say 'they found this....etc (proof, proof,proof) Otherwise what you say is invalid and not woth mentioning. He speaks the truth for you because you believe it but that does not make it right. He has a type of low quality phraseology that you might expect from a first year uni student who has half heard this form someones website. Sorry, I don't mean to do down uni students but it has a quality of someone who hasn't really got to grips with the type of linguistic rigours expected in years 2 and 3. The whole thing smacks of a unabomber manefesto for the 21st century. if you don't remember; unabomber manifesto There will always be these people who try to sell these lies to us and in some ways they are no better than the governments who also peddle fear to its docile consumers. However, conspiricy theories keep people afraid and as a result spellbound. You only have to look in any of Murdocks papers to read these exact same theories. All of which, you could argue, are designed to keep people in fear of the panoptic gaze of an all seeing power. Research shows that frightened people consume more - buy more papers - coinsidence? Anyway, I don't want to rubbish your theory by setting up another one of my own. My point is; there are bad, bad people out there - this I think we are in agreement on. But all you can do is be as honest as you possibly can to the people that you love and who matter to you. Don't worry about this **** because you don't know and you sure can't get to the bottom of it. May be there isn't a bottom. Learn to love the things you can reach and stop projecting your anger on to the darkness of the unfathomerable other. Investigate: yes. Question: sure. But don't present us with your truth because that is all it is your truth. And that can be as off putting as that Born again christian telling me it is not good enough to believ in god I must convert to his religion. (BTW I only told him I was a believer in the hope he would leave me alone) Well, best of luck to you mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Another Pearl Harbour perhaps? Easier to pay some hothead terrorist outfit to execute the events of 9/11 than to try and fake it after all. Occams Razor. The 'dumbass' conspiracy is just the outer layer on the onion. There's no truth, just more layers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4135400.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.