TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Thats some powerful gravity.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Thats some powerful gravity.

LOL, yeah, apparently concrete gets puverized into dust by waffles... er pancaking. Hmmm, could explosives do that? Just a thought. Pancacking also causes explosions in the basement before builidings collapse, don't forget that bit . Not to mention it confuses the fuck out of NORAD too.

i love it how instead of engaging the discussion people think posting pics or short vids make up for it

and shaolin, have some fucking commitment to the cause and actually argue building construction with colonel here instead of being a cheeky bastard im really wondering why you think concrete is some super, all-powerful substance, completely immune to the forces around it. and yes mate, demolition explosives certainly could make a building "pan cake", but that certainly wouldnt be possible in a clandestine manner. just ridiculous. i have loved demolitions since i was a kid, and it is fucking obvious when those charges go off! nothing remotely similar in september 2001, for two of the largest fucking buildings ever constructed.

and its wonderful to see you in here again colonel. you're a bright lad

voted yes.
I'm not so sure if they organized it but i'm sure they are not telling the truth

could explosives create the results that were seen on 911, yes..... could the US gov't rig 3 skyscrapers in downtown new york with enough RDX to implode them on their own footprints without anyone noticing some strange behaviour? no chance in hell..... the pentagon cant keep a few photos of soldiers humiliating iraqi detainees from hittin the internet let alone work crews of hundreds strapping RDX to every column in those three buildings. The statement "Elvis Lives" has more credibility than "the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition"

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp could explosives create the results that were seen on 911, yes..... could the US gov't rig 3 skyscrapers in downtown new york with enough RDX to implode them on their own footprints without anyone noticing some strange behaviour? no chance in hell..... the pentagon cant keep a few photos of soldiers humiliating iraqi detainees from hittin the internet let alone work crews of hundreds strapping RDX to every column in those three buildings. The statement "Elvis Lives" has more credibility than "the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition"

LOL, apparetnly a lot of people did notice a lot of "funny" thing about 9-11. You just happen to be one of those in denial.

As I keep pointing out; without the evidence contained in the crater that was WTC, no one can ever find out what exactly brought down the towers.

Given the fact that other buildings had suffered damage from colliding aircraft and/or fire that DID NOT collapse prior to or after 9/11 somehow we are supposed to believe two planes made three skyscrapers fall.

Like I said-- without any solid evidence that was left in ground zero, we will never know the exact truth.

All we have are people from both sides talking out of their faces as experts and non-experts alike from using visual and audible evidence while lacking physical and therefore forensic evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Given the fact that other buildings had suffered damage from colliding aircraft and/or fire that DID NOT collapse prior to or after 9/11 somehow we are supposed to believe two planes made three skyscrapers fall.

I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike.

quote:

I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike.

True in one case you have small fires in WTC7 causing the building to come down controlled demolition style.

On the other hand you have many buildings which burned much hotter and much longer but never came close to collapsing.

Nothing alike correct, only controlled demolitions bring down buildings in that manner.

quote:

only controlled demolitions bring down buildings in that manner

what do you do for a living again?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I honestly don't understand why people keep comparing events as if they are alike.

From an earlier post:

quote:

Anyone here that's pro-Al Qaeda hear the one about the C-130 that crashed into a building in Iran? Fuel stoked fire that DIDN'T cause any collapse from a fuel laden plane. Anyone that could possibly tell us about Iranian building codes will be gladly heard with open minds. Don't let the trolls scare you off. Oh yeah what about the one where a Yankee baseball pitcher flew his little Cirrus into an apartment building on the Upper East Side? Or the B-25 that flew into the Empire State Building in July 1945? EDIT: quote: Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe by Joe Calderone New York Daily News January 4, 2002 A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully-resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor. A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."

But if you want to explain the WTC collapse as an isolated incident then no one can explain sans forensic evidence the reason that the WTC fell the way they did.

If people keep ranting on about what the TV set told them on the evening news then we'll never get anywhere because this same news media told us that Saddam had nukes.

Without any forensic testing for explosives (demolition or military) or combustibles (office equipment, paper, carpets) the argument using news outlets coverage or eyewitness/earwitness accounts are suspect and therefore less convincing than that of admissible evidence for a court of law.

Sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people that claim they heard or saw something alluding to explosions but a court will make you look like you heard or saw what you wanted to see. Kind of like a UFO effect. People see silver orbs in the sky and swear up and down they see spaceships when quite possibly they are looking at mylar balloons. So you get the spaceship crowd jumping on the government cover up of spaceships bandwagon.

I know that previous statement would be interpreted as a bad anology but you have to see this as the mass hysteria that leads people to believe what they want to believe.

I would like to believe that there were no explosives that toppled the WTC but the evidence is convincing (on the visual and audible level but lacking in the physical) to the contrary. I am not wavering on the strong possibility of a deliberate demolition of the WTC but will also add that both sides can benefit from actual evidence from the steel of the WTC for forensic testing.

Some people parrot the official version whilst not taking into account of whats being offered to them as evidence. They take it as prima facie in their argument.

It's similar to the argument that because the police arrest you then you must have done something wrong. If you are innocent then why did they arrest you, etc.

quote:

what do you do for a living again?

I am a sheep herder.

Here's your sign.

LOL

My point being, is if it wasn't the same building design, it's not a valid comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers My point being, is if it wasn't the same building design, it's not a valid comparison.

far too many people don't understand that........

even little differences make a huge difference

quote:

far too many people don't understand that........ even little bombs make a huge difference

watch out for this one he's witty!!!!!!


did it take you long to think that one up?

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp watch out for this one he's witty!!!!!! did it take you long to think that one up?

lol. im sorry you bring your common sense, expertise and experience into this thread only to be ignored by the disingenuous shaolin_z and cretinrot. i greatly enjoy your posts and insight though mate

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp watch out for this one he's witty!!!!!! did it take you long to think that one up?

lol. im sorry you bring your common sense, expertise and experience into this thread only to be ignored by the disingenuous shaolin_z and cretinrot. i greatly enjoy your posts and insight though mate

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I am a sheep herder.

i have just the thing for ewe;

http://www.muttonbone.com/

quote:

lol. im sorry you bring your common sense, expertise and experience into this thread only to be ignored by the disingenuous shaolin_z and cretinrot. i greatly enjoy your posts and insight though mate

Your a loser.

quote:

Originally posted by VAR i have just the thing for ewe; http://www.muttonbone.com/

I have a funny feeling about that link....tell you what you click on it first.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I have a funny feeling about that link....tell you what you click on it first.

ok,
take my hand,
here we go;

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Your a loser.

ahh classic internet come back, complete with bad spelling and all

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, yeah, apparently concrete gets puverized into dust by waffles... er pancaking. Hmmm, could explosives do that? Just a thought. Pancacking also causes explosions in the basement before builidings collapse, don't forget that bit . Not to mention it confuses the fuck out of NORAD too.

This is hilarious to me. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think only explosives would make concrete or more likely cement turn into dust. Did you know that the higher the floor is in a building the more air pockets engineers allow in the mixture to make it lighter. Cement is also a ceramic which does not react well to any kind of sudden shock. It's also made using this interesting dust like material called sand.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.