9/11 Attacks

Soveriegn

elius wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related

Another

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

A good Ct'r ? I couldn't give a sh!te about titles.. :rolleyes:

I would say your real title is controlled demolition expert because you know a controlled demolition when you see one.:rolleyes:

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

I am not stupid enough to think there was a connection. There are many other links made by the government.

Post 9/11 - but that's to justify after an undoubtedly arbitrary decision was made within the administration to invade - who could have expected that in advance of 9/11 - let alone as the identity of the hijackers was uncovered?

Soveriegn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I would say your real title is controlled demolition expert because you know a controlled demolition when you see one.:rolleyes:

Please don't try to drag me into stupid childish arguments.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

Post 9/11 - but that's to justify after an undoubtedly arbitrary decision was made within the administration to invade - who could have expected that in advance of 9/11 - let alone as the identity of the hijackers was uncovered?

We both agreed there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

I have shown you that the US gov tried to make a connection to justify an invasion.

What's the problem here ?

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Try to focus.

There was neither 'melted' nor molten' steel at the wtc.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

Try to focus.

There was neither 'melted' nor molten' steel at the wtc.

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

We both agreed there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

I have shown you that the US gov tried to make a connection to justify an invasion.

What's the problem here ?

The problem is that no-one could expect any Iraqi consequences for a terrorist attack that involved no Iraqis, but rather Saudi activists based in Afghanistan, with no alliance to a secular dictatorship in Iraq. No connection - no perceived construction goldrush.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

sovereign for the love of god look at the video i posted

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

Please don't try to drag me into stupid childish arguments.

Im not being childish. Are you a controlled demolition expert? If you are not then you are not at liberty to be absolotely certain it was one as you have no experience. I am a site engineer and the video posted by elius demonstrates perfectly how the structure was weakened. Its hardly stupid. It isnt the same as most buildings structures so needs to be understood when analyising how it fell.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Lol, yeah my mistake, i forgot.

It was just a melted aeroplane :pac:

Yep - lots of melted aluminium - no-one disputes that - because there's ample evidence to support it. See how that works?

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

The problem is that no-one could expect any Iraqi consequences for a terrorist attack that involved no Iraqis, but rather Saudi activists based in Afghanistan, with no alliance to a secular dictatorship in Iraq. No connection - no perceived construction goldrush.

US firms vie to rebuild Iraq


US firms are lining up to repair bridges and roads

Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war. Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".
Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the contracts could be worth as much as $900m.
Experience
The deal on offer grows out of a 13-page document, "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq", circulated to the five companies and to a small group of White House insiders, the Wall Street Journal reported.
All five firms shortlisted have long experience with infrastructure projects in the Middle East.
Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root, they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All five are US-owned and headquartered.
Kellogg Brown and Root has already landed a Defense Department contract to extinguish any oilwells set alight by retreating Iraqi forces.
As well as the infrastructure deal, the Wall Street Journal said that contracts to run ports, airports, healthcare, schools and power and water were on offer.



http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

elius

Soveriegn wrote: »

stupid video

so, molten steel is not melted steel ?

Regardless! Your the one with the big issue about the subject. Ok it was a controlled demolition!:rolleyes: Controlled buy a 767 hitting a tower at 750 km/h..
It doesn't take a genius to figure that much out. I cant rap my head around how people think it was a controlled demolition! Infact its beyond me:(

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

US firms vie to rebuild Iraq

Once again (sheesh) - who is disputing that there was a construction boom in Iraq? - that's not the point. The point is who could possibly expect any such consequence of Afghan-based Saudis flying planes into New York? You might as well argue that there will be a copper price boom if we only flood Munich.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

All five firms shortlisted have long experience with infrastructure projects in the Middle East.

makes sense i guess to hire people with experience.

as ive said before i dont think anyone will deny that people will benefit from the war but it is not right to assume that because someone is benefiting now that the attack was planned for financial benefit

i know people who went down to new orleans after katrina and made money from rebuilding houses.any disaster will have benefits for someone.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Once again (sheesh) - who is disputing that there was a construction boom in Iraq? - that's not the point. The point is who could possibly expect any such consequence of Afghan-based Saudis flying planes into New York? You might as well argue that there will be a copper price boom if we only flood Munich.

Some bedtime reading for you Alastair
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2008/09/from-911-to-invasion-of-iraq-analysis.html



nighty night.

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

makes sense i guess to hire people with experience.

as ive said before i dont think anyone will deny that people will benefit from the war but it is not right to assume that because someone is benefiting now that the attack was planned for financial benefit
.

And would you then suggest that a war has never been started for financial benefit ?

Of just not the Afghan and Iraq war ?

Soveriegn

Take a look at all these lies...

Would they lie to get into a war because there was no financial benefit ?

What other motive is there ?

Do they just want to see a fight ?

Watch this clip and you have the answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

And would you then suggest that a war has never been started for financial benefit ?

Of just not the Afghan and Iraq war ?

i think invading a country would be financially beneficial for any country.im sure england is still profiting from its global conquests.
of course your alluding to the oil,which is a totally different subject.

im not so adverse to alternative theories that i will say its a legitimate war but we have been talking about the evidence for the explosives theory so far.

start a thread about it and ill fill you in on my views(which arent that insightful if im honest)
but going back to the exlosives theory and your so called expertise in the field of controlled demolitions id genuinely be interested in hearing your views on the evidence presented in the following video concerning the towers collapse being a controlled demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

pablo_escobar

Yes, it's totally preposterous to believe men would plan a war to benefit themselves financially. :rolleyes:

meglome

Soveriegn wrote: »

I don't care about Silverstein, he's only a little annoying twit. Nothing will change the fact that it was an inside job, controlled demolition. I don't have all the facts and I might be wrong on some things, I don't mind admitting it. I know a controlled demolition when I see it.

There's no question that superficially these collapses might look like controlled demolition. What I did was to go look at about 50 controlled demolition videos. They all had a very similar sound of timed explosives going off, every last one. This is completely lacking from the WTC and the seismic record. So unless it was magic explosives there were no explosives used.

So then we have thermite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0szjEPQsUA

This is a CT video supposedly debunking a National Geographic documentary. They used 80kg of thermite on a smaller beam and it didn't do a damn thing to the beam. Even though they had built it into a metal trough lined with clay. The reaction you see with this thermite is exactly why it would never be used in controlled demolition.

His 'debunking' reasons are the beam is the wrong shape, they should have put a lid on the the trough and nano-thermite would work differently.

Okay so let's see. Not only do they need to get a minimum of 80kg's of therrmite, per beam, up into a building with 20 thousand people working in it without anyone seeing it. They then have to spend days/weeks welding steel troughs and lining them with clay which they also have to carry up there. Then they'd need to weld on covers to these troughs. They need to break open walls to get at the steel which one one notices. Then the planes are able to hit exactly where the thermite is planted. But this incredibly flammable substance doesn't go off from the explosions etc etc.

And amusingly one of his 'debunking' reasons is the steel wouldn't need to melt only to get up to 550 degrees C for the column to fail. At that rate the floor plates would fail at a lower temperature from the fire.

But of course we have that magic nano-thermite stuff that no one has ever shown to exist. But are sure the military have in a warehouse somewhere.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Take a look at all these lies...

Would they lie to get into a war because there was no financial benefit ?

What other motive is there ?

Do they just want to see a fight ?

Watch this clip and you have the answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

hey lets stay on topic.you made a wild claim about knowing a controlled demolition when you see it but your steering this off topic

start a thread and im sure youll get the answers you want.

fyi my views on it are more similar to yours than whats mainstream so im not trying to deflect the question

alastair

seannash wrote: »

fyi my views on it are more similar to yours than whats mainstream so im not trying to deflect the question

To be honest - the 'mainstream' view on the motivations for the invasion are pretty far removed from those claimed by the Bush administration.

And once again - it's pretty far removed from what anyone might plausibly extrapolated from the 9/11 attack.

Soveriegn

This in bang on topic. When I joined the conversation the last question asked was "who would benefit", an I answered.

Now I am backing up my claim.

Now Im asking you to watch this (as i watched your clip)

Why would they lie to get into a war. What are the motives other than financial benefit ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

seannash

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Yes, it's totally preposterous to believe men would plan a war to benefit themselves financially. :rolleyes:

im pretty sure most wars are started for profit of some description.
taking over someone elses land will inevitably become finacially beneficial

your points are a lil pedantic

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Now Im asking you to watch this (as i watched your clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

oh you watched my 2 hour clip already,wow man you is some kind of a super internet guy

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

This in bang on topic. When I joined the conversation the last question asked was "who would benefit", an I answered.

Now I am backing up my claim.

No you're not. You're talking about who might benefit from an occupation of Iraq - a subject which had nothing to do with 9/11, or Saudi terrorists, based out of Afghanistan.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

To be honest - the 'mainstream' view on the motivations for the invasion are pretty far removed from those claimed by the Bush administration.

Is that so ? as far as i know the mainstream view on reasons for war were..

1. WMD's
2. Combat Terrorism
3. Promote Democracy

Is that not what the administration also claim ?

pablo_escobar

seannash,

It takes years of planning to invade a country yet the US managed to invade Afghanistan in less than 2 months.

Janes Security published an article in April 2001

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

The US had been planning an invasion for along time...

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

No you're not. You're talking about who might benefit from an occupation of Iraq - a subject which had nothing to do with 9/11, or Saudi terrorists, based out of Afghanistan.

Oh really ?

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

By the way happyman i forgot toask. Who are you thinking would have benifited financially form an inside job?

seannash

alastair wrote: »

To be honest - the 'mainstream' view on the motivations for the invasion are pretty far removed from those claimed by the Bush administration.

And once again - it's pretty far removed from what anyone might plausibly extrapolated from the 9/11 attack.

yeah thats true

sovereign like i said my views on it arent to far removed from yours so your sort of preaching to the choir here.

can we discuss the demolition theory.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Is that so ? as far as i know the mainstream view on reasons for war were..

1. WMD's
2. Combat Terrorism
3. Promote Democracy

Is that not what the administration also claim ?

When did the Bush administration become the mainstream? The mainstream political and social view was well removed from that of Bush - on all three fronts.

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

oh you watched my 2 hour clip already,wow man you is some kind of a super internet guy

I had it on in the BG until now.

seannash

pablo_escobar wrote: »

seannash,

It takes years of planning to invade a country yet the US managed to invade Afghanistan in less than 2 months.

Janes Security published an article in April 2001

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

The US had been planning an invasion for along time...

thanks for that lil fact,eh whats that got to do with this.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Oh really ?

Where's the link between an 'inside job' on 9/11, implicating Saudi terrorists from Afghanistan and occupying Iraq? Wouldn't you opt for, say some Iraqis as the patsy if that was your goal?

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

yeah thats true

sovereign like i said my views on it arent to far removed from yours so your sort of preaching to the choir here.

can we discuss the demolition theory.

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

Where's the link between an 'inside job' on 9/11, implicating Saudi terrorists from Afghanistan and occupying Iraq? Wouldn't you opt for, say some Iraqis as the patsy if that was your goal?

Obviously they didn't need to. They just had to create a fear of terrorism.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

Talk us through it there Sovereign. What are the key characteristics of a controlled demolition?

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Obviously they didn't need to. They just had to create a fear of terrorism.

To occupy a country with no link to terrorism? Nothing obvious about that.

And here's the thing - planes crashing into your cities killing thousands will do that - create a fear of terrorism. It's called a well-founded fear.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

dan rather the news reporter

just a little note from the video you have just watched that i posted:rolleyes:

at 3 seconds in at the left hand side of the building you can see the penthouse collapse.then at 11 seconds the external structure fell.

if you had watched the video i posted you seriously would know that you really need to do better than a new reporter using a descriptive term to describe what he is seeing

btw im pretty sure you didnt look at my video but how and ever

Soveriegn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Talk us through it there Sovereign. What are the key characteristics of a controlled demolition?

No plane
Fire collapsed all the main support columns simultaneously ?
Pancake
Damage from debris but it stood for 7 hours

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

btw im pretty sure you didnt look at my video but how and ever

link me again, ill watch it tomorrow

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

link me again, ill watch it tomorrow

cool ill overlook the blatant lie you just told me above and link it

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#


on a serious note itll answer some of the questions you just asked.

its a pretty good video and it was part of the reason i changed my view of events.
im not looking for you to come back and say that you have been converted but its a good look at how wrong and misinformed some of the CT's have been

elius

Soveriegn wrote: »

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

If the section which was crashed into collapsed how else would the top half of the structure collapse!!! To be honest your hanging onto loose end's. All the evidence points to the fact that it collapsed due to damage made from when the plane's

1 crashed into the building
2 The fire caused the roof supports to bow thus weakening the structure!

If the floors damaged in the initial impact collapsed should the floors undamaged below be able to take the weight of the initial top half collapsing on it?
Or should the top half above the damaged floors simply just fall off????

Soveriegn

elius wrote: »

If the section which was crashed into collapsed how else would the top half of the structure collapse!!! To be honest your hanging onto loose end's. All the evidence points to the fact that it collapsed due to damage made from when the plane's

1 crashed into the building
2 The fire caused the roof supports to bow thus weakening the structure!

If the floors damaged in the initial impact collapsed should the floors undamaged below be able to take the weight of the initial top half collapsing on it?
Or should the top half above the damaged floors simply just fall off????

Ummm a plane didn't hit that building

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Ummm a plane didn't hit that building

ill have to give him that one elius,that vid was wtc 7:D

elius

Soveriegn wrote: »

Ummm a plane didn't hit that building

ummmm I never said it did i'm simply asking your take since your a demolition expert how should they have collapsed ???
I was mearly qouting you!

digme

elius wrote: »

ummmm I never said it did i'm simply asking your take since your a demolition expert how should they have collapsed???

Upwards !

Soveriegn

digme wrote: »

Upwards !

300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were used.

Find me 300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were not used, and you have a case.

pablo_escobar

seannash wrote: »

thanks for that lil fact,eh whats that got to do with this.

It has everything to do with it.

You're arguing the US weren't involved in any pre-planned invasion before 9/11, I'm telling you they were and there's plenty out there to corroborate.

That Jane's Security article is merely 1 piece of evidence.