Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 29732 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #180 –
You're forgetting about a major scientific truism: sheet happens!

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #181 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Which is exactly what the articles said.
It COULD be this.
It COULD be that.
You've taken an uncertainty and morphed it into a certainty......

OK, it wasn't disproven, but it was suggested it was highly unlikely.
You know what else fits that bill? A controlled demolition.

Its funny how you don't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.

So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #182 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?
Ask different people, get different answers.

The most logical one, should you go down that path, is the false flag theory.

eg....We want to invade someone, so lets pin something so disastrous on them that we will get the full backing by our people.
If people are scared, they will do what we tell them to do.
Essentially, its PR spin.....but on the biggest scale.

The father of PR is Edward Burnayse. Look into some of the stuff he could do by spinning a few lies here and there. You may have heard of the banana republic.....look into that. Burnayse was able to literally overthrow a government, simply to sell more bananas.
The Nazis actually credited him directly with showing them the way to use propaganda to get the public onside with them (initially, not by the end of it all obviously).

Who got blamed for 9/11. Where was he from? Who got invaded?

Americas biggest business is war. Getting the public onside with war keeps that country running smoothly and allows them to bully the rest of the world, while making out they are the good guys....they are just fighting terrorists after all. Its got nothing to do with oil....honestly.  :-[

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #183 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?

Alternatively, maybe its not false flag.
Maybe the tower was indeed going to come down. Maybe they did it themselves to ensure minimum casualties.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #184 –
re false flag...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Yes its wikipaedia but it has a picture of the actual document as well as a brief explanation on what its about.

There are others. It does occur.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #185 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Months to clear, steel was on the boat to china within days, and weeks.

I don't care about passenger passports. I'm talking about the hijackers passports. THEY were found....amongst over 200 floors of rubble, looking nice and clean with only the slightest blemishes on them.
So the fire is hot enough to deform metal to the point of collapse....but those passports....THEY are indestructable!!!
So youre suggesting all four passports were found at the WTC? I don't believe that's correct.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #186 –
They found the ringleader's baggage (mohammed atta) in Boston .... it never made it on to the connecting jet.  His passport was inside.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #188 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
So youre suggesting all four passports were found at the WTC? I don't believe that's correct.
No, there was 4 that were found in total. 1 was from flight 11, that hit WTC.

Quote
Passports recovered
According to testimony by Susan Ginsberg, a staff member of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States, in the January 26, 2004, Public Hearing:

Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. These passports were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda.
WTC site
The passport of hijacker Satam al-Suqami was found a few blocks from the World Trade Center.[8][9]

Flight 93
According to the 9/11 Commission, the passports of two of the Flight 93 hijackers were also found intact in the aircraft's debris field.[10]

Oh hey.....you dropped this. It might be important.  :o

Ummm.....sounds legit.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #190 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
There are a few things that bother me about the whole thing.

1. Buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them.
2. Fire has NEVER bought down a skyscraper.
3. Buildings fell down extremely quickly, both in terms of time after they were hit....and once it started.
The claim the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them is a very weak link in your circumstantial case. The inference is that the design was so foolproof that the building couldn't possibly be taken down by a plane. To that I say: the Titanic. When it was launched, the unequivocal claim was made that it was unsinkable. It was designed that way. One of the biggest threats at the time to shipping was icebergs. By implication, the Titanic was designed to withstand a collision with an iceberg. I'm building up the dramatic tension here before the big reveal ...

Interestingly enough, there's another similarity with the collapse of the WTC buildings. One theory is that there had been a fire in one of the Titanic's coal bunkers which continued to smoulder but the owners decided it should set sail anyway on its maiden voyage. The argument goes that this fire may have weakened the metal in the hull, leaving it vulnerable to an iceberg collision. And here we are a century later talking about fires in the WTC buildings weakening the integrity of the metal supports. Spooky, hey?

Another eerie parallel is how quickly the unsinkable Titanic sank, although you'd have to say that the WTC buildings hardly collapsed quickly (unfortunately for the firefighters who went into them).

Marketing hype tends to add "-proof" to products. For instance, bullet-proof glass isn't a real thing. It resists bullets but it isn't completely impenetrable. I guess "bullet-resistant glass" isn't quite as reassuring.

And just why are we saying that the design of the WTC buildings was capable of resisting plane collisions? They opened in 1974 and I think we'd all agree that engineering has come a long way since then. Even with upgrades made from time to time, we're talking about 30 year old buildings when they were destroyed. As others have noted, planes sure became a lot bigger after they were designed. And just how were they tested? Was there some scale model they used. Or did they use 1960s computers to do a worst-case scenario?

An interesting engineering problem occurred with a building of the same vintage: the John Hancock Building. Professors teaching differential equations celebrate this building as it featured an amazing flaw. It just happens that there's a thing called vortex shedding which means that considerable wind forces are applied to tall buildings that are built just so. These forces are sinusoidal, so they move the building back and forth. In this particular building, those forces led to windows popping out and it became known for plywood filling the holes. They had to introduce a tuned mass damper which was a large weight on a near-frictionless surface in one of the upper floors attached to the building by a system of springs. This created a system governed by a 4th order inhomogeneous differential equation which could be adjusted so that the building remained static while the weight, the tuned mass damper, oscillated within it. What a snafu!

The Green Building at MIT, opened in 1964 had similar problems which was a bit embarrassing given it was designed by MIT graduates. Apart from windows popping out and the like, the high winds the building faced prevented anyone from entering or leaving the building by its foyer and they had to use tunnels to escape. 

Fact is, it's pretty hard to design anything that's totally impervious to every eventuality. And real life has a way of throwing up unanticipated challenges. One great example is the sinking of the Bismark. Again, that was a ship that was virtually unsinkable. Its armour-plating was thick as. Indeed, when the British battleships engaged it, it was hardly damaged while HMS Hood blew up when one of the Bismark's shells happened to hit the magazine holding its ammunition. It sank within 3 minutes despite the British public being told it was unsinkable. Even when struck by torpedos dropped by British planes, there was hardly a scratch on the Bismark. Until one torpedo struck the rudder of the Bismark and failed to explode. If it had exploded, the Bismark could have made it to port. But the steering was jammed and the Bismark was condemned to sailing in circles. That enabled forces to muster and bring it down.

Who the hell would ever have thought that would happen? You'd have more chance of winning Tattslotto. But that's the thing. All the best plans of mice and men are oft ripped asunder. And saying that something never happened before doesn't mean it won't ever happen. There's a first time for everything.
 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #191 –
Quote from: kruddler – on

Survived fires that brought down a 110 story building.
What does that mean that is of any relevance? ;D

It's amazing what can survive and what should survive and does.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #192 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Which is exactly what the articles said.
It COULD be this.
It COULD be that.
You've taken an uncertainty and morphed it into a certainty......

OK, it wasn't disproven, but it was suggested it was highly unlikely.
You know what else fits that bill? A controlled demolition.

Its funny how you don't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.
Most of us here are quite use to be dragged into your rhetoric, especially after we lose a game, you do it so predictably trying to reflect everything and launch baseless accusations with nothing supporting them, very Trumpesque, very passé!

You like to light fires from your own growing pile of rubbish, .............................. are you Thermite Man?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #193 –
I suspect what is being exposed says more about some of those individuals debating than the facts or conspiracies, which leaves most of us unsure where to head. I almost suspect the forum should ban non-football related subject matter, but that would do a community disservice, because leaving this type of information misdirection unchallenged ultimately breeds a generation of recruits for organisations like Daesh.

Like the COVID thread, it possible to resort to Popper's question and invert the burden of proof onto the conspiracists. But when those debating resort to Trump like tactics it's hard because nothing they write really exists so it can't be debated. So immature is this Trump like tactic, that they might as well post that terrorist fairies lit their farts in the foyer and blew the joint to pieces! There is no debate to be had when conspiracists invent facts along the way, and even if that action gets exposed they just resort to the Trump defence of no it didn't?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #194 –
I don't think either position is implausible or untenable. We are far removed from those in the know, and as such these things are debated / discussed as abstractions - it's exactly the same with football discussions. None of us are really close to the action - none of us have access to team meetings, what happens at board meetings etc. All we can do is enjoy the discussions for what they are. There's a spectrum of opinion that seems reasonable, and that's really the best we can hope for IMO.

Enjoy the debates, enjoy the theorising, enjoy the discussions, but don't take them for something they aren't, and never can be.