No, it's not.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, its essentially the same thing
yes, it is.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, it's not.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, its essentially the same thing
It's always fun to be bascially called an idiot because you don't believe a relatively poor conspiracy theory.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
FFS!M.O.A.B wrote:
So the government came up with the '93 plan of renting a Ryder van, parking it in the underground car pack and blowing it up?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
This is where I think many peoples critical thinking goes wrong.
They may ask themselves "is it plausable?" and "what reasons would there be?" and they either come back with "no reason" or they "can see reasons".
Now, once you start to accept that there is indeed reasons why one might want to put in place a plan to demolish the towers in a controlled manner after such an event, the mind then starts reeling - "would our government sacrifice the lives of thousands of people like that????".
Yes, it would, and it does.
No. Obviously I'm not saying that.
Just like I'm not saying that the us government planned an orchestrated the flying of the planes into the towers.
That doesn't mean they didn't plan orchestrate the controlled demolition of the towers though.
A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION being something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to a terrorist attack.Because that's what it looks like? or because your mind is (understandably) incapable of accepting that the us government could or would do such a thing?M.O.A.B wrote:
Whenever I look at any videos of those towers coming down I see nothing other than a building that has given out under its own weight.
I truly wish my mind wouldn't accept that all governments in all countries are capable of things that make me reel in horror.
But that is the reality of the world we live in.
Should we search every building in Manhatten for explosives then? Chrysler? Empire State maybe? Or did they run up and plant explosives after the planes hit to bring them down with people still inside?
Please read what I wrote again.M.O.A.B wrote:
It's always fun to be bascially called an idiot because you don't believe a relatively poor conspiracy theory.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
FFS!M.O.A.B wrote:
So the government came up with the '93 plan of renting a Ryder van, parking it in the underground car pack and blowing it up?
No. Obviously I'm not saying that.
Just like I'm not saying that the us government planned an orchestrated the flying of the planes into the towers.
That doesn't mean they didn't plan orchestrate the controlled demolition of the towers though.
A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION being something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to a terrorist attack.Because that's what it looks like? or because your mind is (understandably) incapable of accepting that the us government could or would do such a thing?M.O.A.B wrote:
Whenever I look at any videos of those towers coming down I see nothing other than a building that has given out under its own weight.
I truly wish my mind wouldn't accept that all governments in all countries are capable of things that make me reel in horror.
But that is the reality of the world we live in.
I am not calling you an idiot.
Just that you may be incapable of accepting something horrendous.
Just like some people will deny to themselves that a loved one has died.
Or some people deny to themselves that they have a drug or alcohol problem.
It's not a matter of intelligence.
there are teams of operatives in black vans next to every skyscraper in the country for the off chance that a plane would crash into them and they could set explosive charges in a collapsing building.M.O.A.B wrote:
It's always fun to be bascially called an idiot because you don't believe a relatively poor conspiracy theory.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
FFS!M.O.A.B wrote:
So the government came up with the '93 plan of renting a Ryder van, parking it in the underground car pack and blowing it up?
No. Obviously I'm not saying that.
Just like I'm not saying that the us government planned an orchestrated the flying of the planes into the towers.
That doesn't mean they didn't plan orchestrate the controlled demolition of the towers though.
A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION being something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to a terrorist attack.Because that's what it looks like? or because your mind is (understandably) incapable of accepting that the us government could or would do such a thing?M.O.A.B wrote:
Whenever I look at any videos of those towers coming down I see nothing other than a building that has given out under its own weight.
I truly wish my mind wouldn't accept that all governments in all countries are capable of things that make me reel in horror.
But that is the reality of the world we live in.
Should we search every building in Manhatten for explosives then? Chrysler? Empire State maybe? Or did they run up and plant explosives after the planes hit to bring them down with people still inside?
Again, that is not what I am saying.God Save the Queen wrote:
there are teams of operatives in black vans next to every skyscraper in the country for the off chance that a plane would crash into them and they could set explosive charges in a collapsing building.M.O.A.B wrote:
It's always fun to be bascially called an idiot because you don't believe a relatively poor conspiracy theory.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
FFS!M.O.A.B wrote:
So the government came up with the '93 plan of renting a Ryder van, parking it in the underground car pack and blowing it up?
No. Obviously I'm not saying that.
Just like I'm not saying that the us government planned an orchestrated the flying of the planes into the towers.
That doesn't mean they didn't plan orchestrate the controlled demolition of the towers though.
A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION being something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to a terrorist attack.
Because that's what it looks like? or because your mind is (understandably) incapable of accepting that the us government could or would do such a thing?
I truly wish my mind wouldn't accept that all governments in all countries are capable of things that make me reel in horror.
But that is the reality of the world we live in.
Should we search every building in Manhatten for explosives then? Chrysler? Empire State maybe? Or did they run up and plant explosives after the planes hit to bring them down with people still inside?
If you have anything sensible to say, please say it, otherwise please shut up.
you shut up. dont like freedom of speech much do we?
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-26 09:07:46)
Scorpion, you are confusing the possible with the probable.
While it's entirely possible that the US (or any other government) could do such a thing, the probability of any government doing this (particularly the US government)--setting the hundreds of shaped charges and detonators required with not a single soul in one of the busiest buildings in the world noticing--is far lower than the probability that it happened as described.
While it's entirely possible that the US (or any other government) could do such a thing, the probability of any government doing this (particularly the US government)--setting the hundreds of shaped charges and detonators required with not a single soul in one of the busiest buildings in the world noticing--is far lower than the probability that it happened as described.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I am not forcing you to stop. But I am asking you to. You are free to continue.God Save the Queen wrote:
you shut up. dont like freedom of speech much do we?
But, if you do not stop making ridiculous false claims about my opinions, I will just stop listening.
If you wish to have a sensible discussion about the plausibility of the various possible scenarios, then please continue in that manner.
For now, I am going to go make tea, but will return to see whether you wish to behave like a grown-up or an adolescent.
If anyone is making ridiculous false claims about anything, it is you. Just reading the posts since my last one shows that you are a condescending jerk arguing for arguments sake. I have a feeling that you enjoy carrying this on just for your kicks because anyone that presents anything to you is obviously below your level of thought....or so you think.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I am not forcing you to stop. But I am asking you to. You are free to continue.God Save the Queen wrote:
you shut up. dont like freedom of speech much do we?
But, if you do not stop making ridiculous false claims about my opinions, I will just stop listening.
If you wish to have a sensible discussion about the plausibility of the various possible scenarios, then please continue in that manner.
For now, I am going to go make tea, but will return to see whether you wish to behave like a grown-up or an adolescent.
You state many times that it is plausible for this to be controlled demo and yet I tell you now that it is IMPOSSIBLE. You still do not grasp the immense task it would have taken to set something up like that. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE TALLEST BUILDING EVER DEMOED WAS 32 STORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, for God's sake, go and visit a demo company, ask a demo expert yourself instead of relying on the internet for your info. I have 20+ years in this field and there is not one shred of evidence that points to anything explosive and to believe that 3 buildings larger than the largest demo happened in one day without any knowledge is a total fantasy.
You keep talking about mass...blah, blah, blah and what would it matter if the building was taken down by shape charges or collapsed by physical damage or fire.....they would still fall with the same amount of debris and destruction either way...so what the hell are you arguing about. So you argue about how much concrete or steel is left? What would it matter in any scenario? Your argument falls apart because regardless of how the towers came down, you would still have the same material falling to the same area....again, what are you arguing about?
This is a statement from you:
"The point about the steel is it doesn't disintegrate like concrete does. So, yeah, however the towers came down, there should be a fuck-load of steel all over the place, but it should still be relatively intact - remember when the towers were built, the steel structure went up first and was pretty much free standing. But in the aftermath of the towers it's looks like someone went in and systematically chopped the steel up into nice manageable chunks - again, just as you would do in a controlled demolition."
This clearly shows me (an architect for over 20 years) that you have no idea what you are talking about. The towers were not built with the steel going up first and freestanding!!!!!!!!!!! Again, do a LITTLE research and you will see how they were actually built. A floor at a time, outer and inner supports built, floor trusses spanning a large distance to each and then concrete filled in. If you apply any common sense you would understand why a jet plane loaded as it was took out half of the building, 6 stories tall at the collision point then it doesn't take a genius to understand why it couldn't hold up the weights and pressures above the damage point. Look at the construction, look at the path of damage the planes caused and understand that EACH FLOOR is designed to ONLY hold the live and dead loads of THAT FLOOR then you might clear the clouds in your head.
You probably know more about what you have studied in your line of work than I do and I am telling you from my line of work as an architect that it didn't take explosive charges or some out of this world conspiracy to take these towers down. Take out any main supports below a floor on ANY BUILDING, ANY HOUSE (even one story with a crawlspace) and you have a chance for collapse....PERIOD!!!
People have showed you pictures of the tons of steel and debris left and people have showed you how the towers were built and the damage they took, people with much more experience and understanding of construction, demolition and engineering have tried to help you understand why these buildings couldn't stand and yet you blow each and everyone of them off.....yes you do and you do it with little cheap shots "children" and threatening posters here to shut up or posting "duly reported" and you want people to have a sensible discussion with you? Sorry, but you sir are coming off as a close minded, conspiracy nut job and simply won't or can't think with even the slightest common sense unless it involves conspiracy. You even said that you were the ONLY one who came up with a plausible scenario to fit everything.....Look everyone it's Al Gore, the man who invented the internet!!
it's absolutely ridiculous to think that anyone blew up building 7... but say they did.
Why? What reason would they have to blow up one more building... The planes crashing into buildings and fields by terrorists wasn't enough... ?
common sense is in short supply for some folks...
Why? What reason would they have to blow up one more building... The planes crashing into buildings and fields by terrorists wasn't enough... ?
common sense is in short supply for some folks...
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-07-26 10:04:51)
Love is the answer
1. GSTQ is coming up with ridiculous false accusations of my opinions. And that was to whom that comment was directed. I am not accusing everyone of this.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
If anyone is making ridiculous false claims about anything, it is you. Just reading the posts since my last one shows that you are a condescending jerk arguing for arguments sake. I have a feeling that you enjoy carrying this on just for your kicks because anyone that presents anything to you is obviously below your level of thought....or so you think.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I am not forcing you to stop. But I am asking you to. You are free to continue.God Save the Queen wrote:
you shut up. dont like freedom of speech much do we?
But, if you do not stop making ridiculous false claims about my opinions, I will just stop listening.
If you wish to have a sensible discussion about the plausibility of the various possible scenarios, then please continue in that manner.
For now, I am going to go make tea, but will return to see whether you wish to behave like a grown-up or an adolescent.
You state many times that it is plausible for this to be controlled demo and yet I tell you now that it is IMPOSSIBLE. You still do not grasp the immense task it would have taken to set something up like that. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE TALLEST BUILDING EVER DEMOED WAS 32 STORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, for God's sake, go and visit a demo company, ask a demo expert yourself instead of relying on the internet for your info. I have 20+ years in this field and there is not one shred of evidence that points to anything explosive and to believe that 3 buildings larger than the largest demo happened in one day without any knowledge is a total fantasy.
You keep talking about mass...blah, blah, blah and what would it matter if the building was taken down by shape charges or collapsed by physical damage or fire.....they would still fall with the same amount of debris and destruction either way...so what the hell are you arguing about. So you argue about how much concrete or steel is left? What would it matter in any scenario? Your argument falls apart because regardless of how the towers came down, you would still have the same material falling to the same area....again, what are you arguing about?
This is a statement from you:
"The point about the steel is it doesn't disintegrate like concrete does. So, yeah, however the towers came down, there should be a fuck-load of steel all over the place, but it should still be relatively intact - remember when the towers were built, the steel structure went up first and was pretty much free standing. But in the aftermath of the towers it's looks like someone went in and systematically chopped the steel up into nice manageable chunks - again, just as you would do in a controlled demolition."
This clearly shows me (an architect for over 20 years) that you have no idea what you are talking about. The towers were not built with the steel going up first and freestanding!!!!!!!!!!! Again, do a LITTLE research and you will see how they were actually built. A floor at a time, outer and inner supports built, floor trusses spanning a large distance to each and then concrete filled in. If you apply any common sense you would understand why a jet plane loaded as it was took out half of the building, 6 stories tall at the collision point then it doesn't take a genius to understand why it couldn't hold up the weights and pressures above the damage point. Look at the construction, look at the path of damage the planes caused and understand that EACH FLOOR is designed to ONLY hold the live and dead loads of THAT FLOOR then you might clear the clouds in your head.
You probably know more about what you have studied in your line of work than I do and I am telling you from my line of work as an architect that it didn't take explosive charges or some out of this world conspiracy to take these towers down. Take out any main supports below a floor on ANY BUILDING, ANY HOUSE (even one story with a crawlspace) and you have a chance for collapse....PERIOD!!!
People have showed you pictures of the tons of steel and debris left and people have showed you how the towers were built and the damage they took, people with much more experience and understanding of construction, demolition and engineering have tried to help you understand why these buildings couldn't stand and yet you blow each and everyone of them off.....yes you do and you do it with little cheap shots "children" and threatening posters here to shut up or posting "duly reported" and you want people to have a sensible discussion with you? Sorry, but you sir are coming off as a close minded, conspiracy nut job and simply won't or can't think with even the slightest common sense unless it involves conspiracy. You even said that you were the ONLY one who came up with a plausible scenario to fit everything.....Look everyone it's Al Gore, the man who invented the internet!!
2. Yes, in a sense I am 'arguing for arguments sake' - but in my opinion argument exists for only one reason - to explore a problem space with the view of gaining greater understanding - anything else is just masturbation.
3. "they were actually built. A floor at a time, outer and inner supports built, floor trusses spanning a large distance to each and then concrete filled in" - there - you even state it yourself - as each floor was built, the steel framework was first erected and the concrete was added. I said nothing about all the steel for all the floors being errected - just that the steel framework comes first and the concrete is added. I kinda thought the fact you build a skyscraper a floor at a time, is pretty darn self-evident.
4. I am not questioning your expertise.
5. The relative mass of concrete and steel and what happened to it is utterly important - for a structure to collapse under it's own weight (mass) then the rigid-mass-bodies involved must by definition be enough to impart the required kinetic energy to cause that collapse.
6. If ad-hominen attacks are directed towards me then, sorry, I have a tendency to defend in kind. So shoot me.
7. I have never stated that I have the only plausible scenario, just that it is plausible.
well some scientist somewhere can prolly prove it is possible for an elephant to balance on its nose while shuffling cards, but common sense has to be the rule sometimes.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
7. I have never stated that I have the only plausible scenario, just that it is plausible.
Just a thought here, if explosives were used, demo charges, det cord and so on, they would have found traces of it amongst the rubble, and the same folks clearing that rubble would be the rescue teams and construction workers, not CIA operatives or anything.
No they probably wouldn't and probable couldn't. The site was cleaned & most of the steel was recycled. The investigation didn't begin until about a year and half later - after the persistence of some New Jersey housewives (I think).M.O.A.B wrote:
Just a thought here, if explosives were used, demo charges, det cord and so on, they would have found traces of it amongst the rubble, and the same folks clearing that rubble would be the rescue teams and construction workers, not CIA operatives or anything.
+
Any thermite/thermate found could easily be traces related to the rubble removal (it is a cutting agent used by demolition crews, I think).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 10:40:43)
You know I didn't know that.topal63 wrote:
No they probably wouldn't and probable couldn't. The site was cleaned & most of the steel was recycled. The investigation didn't begin until about a year and half later - after the persistence of some New Jersey housewives (I think).M.O.A.B wrote:
Just a thought here, if explosives were used, demo charges, det cord and so on, they would have found traces of it amongst the rubble, and the same folks clearing that rubble would be the rescue teams and construction workers, not CIA operatives or anything.
+
Any thermite/thermate found could easily be traces related to the rubble removal (it is a cutting agent used by demolition crews, I think).
And we're meant to take the official investigation seriously?
I see, so the investigation was balanced, unbiased, and totally based on physical evidence then.topal63 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls
(do I need ?)
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-26 11:03:20)
There is a documentary called "9-11 Press for truth" that documents their quest to force an investigation (I believe some of it is based upon "9-11 Timeline"?).
I shall have to seek it out.
I'm sure that by now, the vast majority of the forum thinks that I'm some liberal nutcase, and while that's true to an extent I only argue for all of these conspiracy theories because I think that they're interesting. Chances are, Middle Eastern extremists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the Pentagon and WTCs, I'm no idiot but I've always like to toy with the alternate possibilities, no matter how fucking out there they may be.
However... last night I was looking through some old pictures and came across a coupe from a trip that I took to New York a couple of years ago:
Whether it was either domestic political terrorists or middle eastern terrorists, it's sad, but it makes no difference. The real tragedy is the fact that we're often too busy pointing fingers that we forget the loss of life and the incredible pain it brings because events like these are still an integral part of human nature.
However... last night I was looking through some old pictures and came across a coupe from a trip that I took to New York a couple of years ago:
Whether it was either domestic political terrorists or middle eastern terrorists, it's sad, but it makes no difference. The real tragedy is the fact that we're often too busy pointing fingers that we forget the loss of life and the incredible pain it brings because events like these are still an integral part of human nature.
CC, we wouldn't be arguing these points if it weren't for the thousands of lives lost and millions of lives affected by the tragedy. I don't think any of us have forgotten.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The amount of US crap just gets higher and higher. And few Americans do anything.
If You want the truth see: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ and http://www.outtheretv.com/
You won't be disappointed.
If You want the truth see: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ and http://www.outtheretv.com/
You won't be disappointed.
Or you're Galileo.If you're right and everyone else is wrong...chances are better than even that you're wrong.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!