45 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

what's to explain?
you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

[Professor Buzzkill]

Lord Vetinari, on 17 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

Well, we don't have any other test cases do we? Btw, no other steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire, so it is an unusual case that three fell in one day.

[shrooma]

Lord Vetinari, on 17 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

a Death Star?
pleeeaaase can we use a death star? pleasepleasepleasepleasetplease!
:-)

[shrooma]

Professor Buzzkill, on 17 February 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Well, we don't have any other test cases do we? Btw, no other steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to fire, so it is an unusual case that three fell in one day.

probably because no-one else would use the same bolted, modular construction methods on so large a building, but until someone else slams 500t of burning jetplane into a building at 300mph we'll never know, and I for one could wait whole lifetimes for it to never happen again.....

[Coffey]

Lord Vetinari, on 17 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

According to some, that's not enough, and you'd need Thermite demolition charges/directed energy weapons, tactical nuclear weapons, and pretty much anything you like, you name it ..

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

what's to explain?
you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

They where 767's....

The twin towers where engineered to withstand a 707 being flown into them. (Tests conducted backed up this)  If you look up a 707 there isn't much difference between the 707 and 767..

Edited by Sky Scanner, 17 February 2013 - 09:22 PM.
Removed pic due to bad language.

[Professor Buzzkill]

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

probably because no-one else would use the same bolted, modular construction methods on so large a building, but until someone else slams 500t of burning jetplane into a building at 300mph we'll never know, and I for one could wait whole lifetimes for it to never happen again.....

And WTC7 which was not hit by any plane? The official explaination is that it was so poorly designed it collapsed under its own weight durring a fairly small fire compared to other fires in different buildings.

[Wickian]

I'm what you would call a skeptic of 9/11.  Until I'm given a valid reason for building 7 collapsing then I'll never accept the official explanation.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Coffey, on 17 February 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

They where 767's....

The twin towers where engineered to withstand a 707 being flown into them. (Tests conducted backed up this)  If you look up a 707 there isn't much difference between the 707 and 767..

Actually there'd be a pretty considerable difference in mass between a 707, low on fuel, and throttled back, on approach for landing (which was what they had in mind) and a 767, just after takeoff, with full fule load, barrelling in at full throttle, but I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread .....

[Coffey]

Wickian, on 17 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

I'm what you would call a skeptic of 9/11.  Until I'm given a valid reason for building 7 collapsing then I'll never accept the official explanation.

Same here.

Lord Vetinari, on 17 February 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

Actually there'd be a pretty considerable difference in mass between a 707, low on fuel, and throttled back, on approach for landing (which was what they had in mind) and a 767, just after takeoff, with full fule load, barrelling in at full throttle, but I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread .....

The calculations included a full fuel tank.

Also Flight 11, the first to hit was from Boston and was going to LA.... That's not far at all, so it certianly did not have a full tank. Would have been a huge waste to fill it's tank. It was also int he air for 45 minutes after take off, until it's impact.

So no it wasn't full of fuel.

Edited by Coffey, 17 February 2013 - 09:19 PM.

[shrooma]

Professor Buzzkill, on 17 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

And WTC7 which was not hit by any plane? The official explaination is that it was so poorly designed it collapsed under its own weight durring a fairly small fire compared to other fires in different buildings.

a combination of heat weakening the steel, and the rubble damage from the other two towers led to the collapse of WTC7. do you not think the people who worked there would spot something as conspicuous as a controlled demolition team drilling away in their building? and then think it odd that the twin towers fall down a few days later?
the sad fact is, is that this was nothing more than an horrific crime against innocent people, which achieved exactly what it set out to achieve.
terror.

[Professor Buzzkill]

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

a combination of heat weakening the steel, and the rubble damage from the other two towers led to the collapse of WTC7. do you not think the people who worked there would spot something as conspicuous as a controlled demolition team drilling away in their building? and then think it odd that the twin towers fall down a few days later?
the sad fact is, is that this was nothing more than an horrific crime against innocent people, which achieved exactly what it set out to achieve.
terror.

I think everyone agrees. But they differ on who conducted the actions.

[G Donnelly]

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

what's to explain?
you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?


what's to explain?
you fly a fully loaded 747 into a building, and it WILL fall down, I don't see any other explanation being necessary?

But three of them on the same day?
The laws of probabilities won't allow it.
Fire might be a great leveller but not in this case.
The neo- cons just wanted to make it as dramatic as possible.
There might be a plane but who's to say it wasn't  remote- controlled.
The towers could have succumbed to the thermite charges planted willy- nilly.
I'm not trying to sully people's memories but to show cold,hard facts.

Btw this kind of stuff leads to much tension so I'm bowing out.
I'll just leave you with the fact that I'm a truther.
I'll stick with this stance until I actually see the smoking gun.
Until then it's unexplained.

Edited by Medium Brown, 17 February 2013 - 09:29 PM.

[shrooma]

Lord Vetinari, on 17 February 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

I do hope this isn't going to become yet another interminable 9/11 Conspiracy thread .....

I thought it was about a BBC court case, but., well.., y'know.....

[shrooma]

Medium Brown, on 17 February 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Btw this kind of stuff leads to much tension so I'm bowing out.

_
me too, i've never really been a one for beating my head against a wall.

[Professor Buzzkill]

shrooma, on 17 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

I thought it was about a BBC court case, but., well.., y'know.....

And the evidence they will present in court against the BBC and their "biased" programming will be pretty much what we are discussing here. Hopefully with more supporting evidence though.