W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I have and you are 100% wrong.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I have and you are 100% wrong.
manctheknife
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 1,993
I was reasonably interested in your dummies guide to tall building structural behaviour, until you said the magic words....Controlled demolition. If I could be arsed I would ask several questions on the logistics of such....but really...is that all ya got?But your nonsense is based on a beam being displaced horizontal to allow the floor to drop, tied in both sides of the beam the force could have effected only one side of the floor showing as a partial collapse and warping to the outer wall, not seen on the footage, nor was ANY time delay because that would show as acceleration instead of zero to free-fall.
80 beams tied in with cross beams and 4000 shear studs locking off horizontal movement can not all give up the ghost at the exact same moment, yet you want to give credence to a spread out office furniture fire produced enough heat to have everything fail structurally at the exact same instant ?.
It was a controlled demolition
Last edited:
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Definitely did.No chance that building went down from fires.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
I think he's referring to the well known practice of installing explosive bolts into the fabric of the building incase a situation like this arises :-)I was reasonably interested in your dummies guide to tall building structural behaviour, until you said the magic words....Controlled demolition. If I could be arsed I would ask several questions on the logistics of such....but really...is that all ya got?
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
Pinkie promise?Definitely did.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Yeah. Pretty sure.Pinkie promise?
purplenose
Well-Known Member
Right I will throw some thoughts into this one. Do I believe 9/11 was all as reported...not one bit of it.
I cannot comment on the twin towers in so much as whether two airliners could bring them down or not or whether there is any sensible explaination as to why the other building went down, However I can raise some questions regarding the other two aircraft.
Firstly the the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Apart from the obvious eye brow raisers, ie a missile shaped hole in wall through which a fuselage would not fit, no sign of two extremely hefty engines going through or indeed any debris from these engines or indeed anything recognisable from the airliner. An agent carrying what did appear to be a part from a cruise type missile engine might also lead to suspicion. Add to that not one piece of footage showing the airliner anywhere near the place....this is the worlds most secured military building. Even the footage of the explosion released from the security camera would point to something hitting that wall alot faster than an airliner being flown 10ft max from the ground.
The pilot ? Well given he had nothing more than a few hours on a cessna it was exeptional flying!! I am not a pilot myself but suffice to say I have some knowledge of aviation matters, and once brought this very subject up with a pilot who knows a bit about flying. He flew Tornadoes in the gulf, had previously flown Victors, and know flies Dreamliners, this pilot some on here may have seen in action flying the Vulcan at airshows, indeed the one who had a penchant for turning it upside much to the delight of us on the ground and to the horror of the of the boss. Whilst clearly not keen to discuss the matter at great length its fair to say he indicated that he himself would not fancy his chances of doing what the pilot did. He actually said its laughable to suggest a bloke with a few hours on a cessna could have done it.
What makes even less sense is why either the pilot or the people who planned the attack would even attempt to hit the outer and therefore most protected part of the building....it would have been far easier to dive into the middle and would have caused far more damage....Its like being given the choice of having a goal kick or a penalty.
It also seems strange and perhaps over coincidental that the aircraft bound for the Whitehouse was the one that never made it and was brought down by heroic passengers making the ultimate sacrifice. It was to like a Hollywood movie, you could almost hear "proud to be an American" belting out at the end. Once again the crash site shown raised more warranted suspicion.
At the time we all know Bush wanted an excuse to go and finish the job his pop had started in Iraq and that 9/11 gave him it...and his nations backing.
My own theory is that the intelligence agencies got wind of the plot to do this and let it roll, just intervening at the end with the aircraft bound for the Pentagon and Whitehouse.
It wouldnt be the first time governments have been perfectly happy to sacrifice civilian lives to get their own way, after all Thatcher had no problem with sending a Jumbo full of civilians to Kuwait City minutes before the Iraqi air force bombed the runway. Why ? In order to get a few gents formerly residing in Hereford on the ground amid Saddams invasion force. Those civies became the human shields of course....they were very lucky not to be shot down on approach to Kuwait. Naturally those passengers have been compensated and thier silence has been bought.
There is evidence that Pearl Harbour may not have been a surprise to all....Both Churchill and Roosvelt wanted America in WW2, it is clear one if not both knew what was coming as a RAF Catalina of the far eastern command clocked the Japanese fleet and reported where it was and what direction it was heading, this a couple of days before the attack.
I might be wrong on 9/11 and talking bollocks but alot doesnt add up....it certainly wasnt exactly as on the tin...to what degree who knows.
I cannot comment on the twin towers in so much as whether two airliners could bring them down or not or whether there is any sensible explaination as to why the other building went down, However I can raise some questions regarding the other two aircraft.
Firstly the the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Apart from the obvious eye brow raisers, ie a missile shaped hole in wall through which a fuselage would not fit, no sign of two extremely hefty engines going through or indeed any debris from these engines or indeed anything recognisable from the airliner. An agent carrying what did appear to be a part from a cruise type missile engine might also lead to suspicion. Add to that not one piece of footage showing the airliner anywhere near the place....this is the worlds most secured military building. Even the footage of the explosion released from the security camera would point to something hitting that wall alot faster than an airliner being flown 10ft max from the ground.
The pilot ? Well given he had nothing more than a few hours on a cessna it was exeptional flying!! I am not a pilot myself but suffice to say I have some knowledge of aviation matters, and once brought this very subject up with a pilot who knows a bit about flying. He flew Tornadoes in the gulf, had previously flown Victors, and know flies Dreamliners, this pilot some on here may have seen in action flying the Vulcan at airshows, indeed the one who had a penchant for turning it upside much to the delight of us on the ground and to the horror of the of the boss. Whilst clearly not keen to discuss the matter at great length its fair to say he indicated that he himself would not fancy his chances of doing what the pilot did. He actually said its laughable to suggest a bloke with a few hours on a cessna could have done it.
What makes even less sense is why either the pilot or the people who planned the attack would even attempt to hit the outer and therefore most protected part of the building....it would have been far easier to dive into the middle and would have caused far more damage....Its like being given the choice of having a goal kick or a penalty.
It also seems strange and perhaps over coincidental that the aircraft bound for the Whitehouse was the one that never made it and was brought down by heroic passengers making the ultimate sacrifice. It was to like a Hollywood movie, you could almost hear "proud to be an American" belting out at the end. Once again the crash site shown raised more warranted suspicion.
At the time we all know Bush wanted an excuse to go and finish the job his pop had started in Iraq and that 9/11 gave him it...and his nations backing.
My own theory is that the intelligence agencies got wind of the plot to do this and let it roll, just intervening at the end with the aircraft bound for the Pentagon and Whitehouse.
It wouldnt be the first time governments have been perfectly happy to sacrifice civilian lives to get their own way, after all Thatcher had no problem with sending a Jumbo full of civilians to Kuwait City minutes before the Iraqi air force bombed the runway. Why ? In order to get a few gents formerly residing in Hereford on the ground amid Saddams invasion force. Those civies became the human shields of course....they were very lucky not to be shot down on approach to Kuwait. Naturally those passengers have been compensated and thier silence has been bought.
There is evidence that Pearl Harbour may not have been a surprise to all....Both Churchill and Roosvelt wanted America in WW2, it is clear one if not both knew what was coming as a RAF Catalina of the far eastern command clocked the Japanese fleet and reported where it was and what direction it was heading, this a couple of days before the attack.
I might be wrong on 9/11 and talking bollocks but alot doesnt add up....it certainly wasnt exactly as on the tin...to what degree who knows.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Virtually all you mentioned is taken apart here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
Just one amongst many dodgy 9/11 claims for me was that the Pentagon 'plane' punched through a number of seperarate reinforced concrete walls and left a neat exit hole in the inner ring wall... airliners are incredibly fragile things, especially the nose cone which can easily be severely damaged just by a bird strike, yet somehow the nose cone of this particular airliner was strong enough to punch clean through several reinforced concrete walls.
I'd genuinely welcome someone offering me a rational explanation of how this was possible.
I'd genuinely welcome someone offering me a rational explanation of how this was possible.
purplenose
Well-Known Member
Virtually all you mentioned is taken apart here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
Myths of course can be debunked....facts however cannot, and some aspects of that day present facts that really cannot.