Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Attacks

Options
1…2223252728…36

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #723
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #724
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #725
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #726
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #728
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #729
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #730
    pablo_escobar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭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...


  • Options
    #731
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #733
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #734
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #735
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #736
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #737
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #738
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #739
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #740
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #741
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #743
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    seannash wrote: »

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


    link me again, ill watch it tomorrow


  • Options
    #744
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #745
    elius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭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????


  • Options
    #746
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #747
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #748
    elius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #749
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭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 !


  • Options
    #750
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    pablo_escobar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement