[cite]Posted By: Folev the red[/cite]DRAddick
"Why did a news station anounce the collapse of one of the buildings a long tine before it did collapse?"
could you explain please.
BBC World News (had to google it as couldn't remember who off hand) reported live on air that "Building 7" had collapsed about 20 minutes before it actually did.
They were wrong then, weren't they?
Maybe someone had said that it "looked like collapsing" and before you know it some reporter had jumped the gun?
And that's the "proof" is it. As said before, the work involved in demolishing a building like that would take months and months to plan and execute - and I'm sure someone would've noticed. Hang on, unless they put the explosive charges in when they built it - and the twin towers - just so they could blow them all up if some nut nuts ever decided to fly a plane or two into them. That must be it.
[cite]Posted By: Folev the red[/cite]DRAddick
"Why did a news station anounce the collapse of one of the buildings a long tine before it did collapse?"
could you explain please.
Means nothing. Fcuk me, news stations get things wrong all the time. If you watched any news bulletin today I guarantee you would be able to pull it apart this time next week for the "facts" that they got wrong with the benefit of hindsight. Except none of us will bother because todays news bulletins wont be gone over ad nauseum by the world and his nutty brother trying to "prove" some old tosh to fulfill their own agenda.
For example. Just after the Japanese earthquake hit the BBC were interviewing someone in Japan who was saying that there didn't appear to be much damage and thankfully it didn't all seem as bad as the New Zealand earthquake. That statement looks a bit silly now, doesn't it? But if I really wanted to I could come up with a theory that the Japanese government took the opportunity to use the earthquake as a cover for their wiping out a few thousand people for god knows what reason. It must be true because not 30 minutes after the quake struck someone was on my telly telling me it "wasn't bad". They MUST be right and everyone else is lying.
I know it means nothing on it's own, Can also be seen as circumstancial evidence, is there other stuff that can be questioned alongside it or it's just one little thing on it's own? Read everything i've written, i'm not pro or anti. I'm saying that nothing's just "fact" and it's down to interpretation, personal view and who/what you choose to believe more.
Sure...I will discuss this thread...biggest pile of absolute bullshit I have ever known in my life...the discussion should be is there a more dumb ass conspiracy theory out there than this one?
Not a big one for conspiracy theories...like them but don't believe all of them. I do however think there is more to it than meets the eye re 9/11.
Based purely on the fact that I dont trust anything much the government or media say particularly the US government and media.
The US apparently had absolutely no knowledge of the Lockerbie bomber's release either. The UK gov denied it to and put it all at the door of the Scots until being recently exposed for fibbing about it.
Doctor David Kelly too is a little bit suspect.
If the yanks had no idea about Al- Mehgrahi then I'm an 18th century Salford mill owner.
There are countless documentaries on the whole terrible episode. Some are good, some are not so good. Some were made by "recognised" serious documentary makers and some weren't - not that that makes them good or bad.
There are certain facts that cannot be disputed. Planes flew into the buildings and the buildings eventualy collapsed. I'd say the two things were linked - in fact I would say it's a 99.999999999.% certainty that the two were linked. But yep, they might have just fallen down anyway or been "zapped" by aliens. I mean, it happened in that "Independence Day" documentary I watched the other day, so it just might be true.
[cite]Posted By: Friend Or Defoe[/cite]The way the towers collapsed was interesting. Surely they would topple to one side?
Nope. This is one of the 'strange' things that conspiracy nutjobs always point to. Anyone with even a basic grasp of structural engineering (which, of course, counts those same conspiracy nutjobs out) can tell you that buildings do not topple to one side when they fall over. They collapse in on themselves. This is exactly what happened with the trade centre towers.
To collapse on themselves they need all of their supports to be weakened. All demolitions will need explosives around the perimeter and not one on side for this reason. The melting point of structure steel is over 1500 degrees, perhaps possible with all of the aeroplane fuel burning? The temperature must have reached a point when the steel on all sides was sufficiently weak enough for it to collapse, this didn't happen after the initial impact so it temperature had to increase. Looking at the footage the supports must have reached this point at the same time. As I said, interesting and strange how it didn't lean to one side.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I don't like giving the notion credence of any sort but why would the Americans want to do it.
To sway public opinion into their favour, giving them a green light to go into Iraq and secure the oil.
And just how many people would need to be party to this infamous act Could it be guaranteed that none of them would ever speak out ? If proved it would throw the whole idea of democracy into question. Sorry but I just don't buy into it.
[cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]BBC World News (had to google it as couldn't remember who off hand) reported live on air that "Building 7" had collapsed about 20 minutes before it actually did.
They were wrong then, weren't they?
Maybe someone had said that it "looked like collapsing" and before you know it some reporter had jumped the gun?
Or given that there were several different buildings on the site, the reporter mixed up the name of one that had already collapsed with one that hadn't yet, but did later.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I don't like giving the notion credence of any sort but why would the Americans want to do it.
To sway public opinion into their favour, giving them a green light to go into Iraq and secure the oil.
And just how many people would need to be party to this infamous act Could it be guaranteed that none of them would ever speak out ? If proved it would throw the whole idea of democracy into question. Sorry but I just don't buy into it.
Yeh thats the flaw in most of the theories out there.
[cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]So, at the moment only Threadkiller has provided any "evidence" that it really happened.
What? It "really happened" alright. Just ask the families of the people who died?
Or do you think they got Spielberg in to direct the special effects?
Sorry Off it, I worded that badly. I meant provided evidence that it was carried out by terrorists and not by the USA.
And what proof is there that the US government did it then?
My friend has sent me loads of you tube stuff previously, evidence of people working in the twin towers, who said they heard explosions before the building was hit, footage showing "explosives" going off at lower levels to where the plane hit, structural engineers saying that there's no way the towers would have collapsed like that, how come these hijackers actually got through, they were doing an exact mock up of this in training, when it actually happened, that at least one of the pilots is still alive.
Forgive me if what I've said isn't spot on, because I'm trying to recall what he sent me months ago.
As I say I don't believe it, but he had the "evidence" and all I had was that I thought it was a load of b******s & I didn't have the inclination to prove otherwise.
He also feels that the press & TV are let's say manipulated by the government and therefore you can only truly believe in the internet as this can't be controlled by let's say governments.
So a government that is prepared to kill thousands of it's own people and manage to keep a lid on their action are not capable of approaching You Tube and having half a dozen videos removed and threaten the You Tube owners not to speak ?
Amazing how those extremists learnt to fly complex passenger aircraft with such pinpoint accuracy after just a few lessons in a cropduster. They managed to get the aircraft square-on for impact at exactly the right height etc - remarkable.
Also, intriguing how the crash at the Pentagon wasn't captured on any cctv and never left any wreckage.
Not to mention the building near to the twin towers that "collapsed" despite not being involved in any impact, or falling debris.
But what sort of track record do the USA have when it comes to "dirty tricks" and such ?
Adding to the pentagon theory early on in the thread.
I was told that the hole left by the 'plane' that hit the pentagon wasn't big enough for the supposed commercial plane that was hijacked. There's all these things on the internet about it. Apparently.
I'm not saying its true or that the government was behind it. Wouldn't be bothered to go into all this research about it tbh. Was Just a terrible thing to ever happen in the first place.
Adding to the pentagon theory early on in the thread.
I was told that the hole left by the 'plane' that hit the pentagon wasn't big enough for the supposed commercial plane that was hijacked. There's all these things on the internet about it. Apparently.
I'm not saying its true or that the government was behind it. Wouldn't be bothered to go into all this research about it tbh. Was Just a terrible thing to ever happen in the first place.
For a conspiracy to work you only need a perfect execution of the most logically brilliant kind. When people see something they believe only a bit unlikely, they'd rather believe the rants and soundbites of a crack maddened loon. I'm with Charlie Sheen on this, and all the looney American Fred Dibnah types out there.
Structural strength in the steel exo-skeleton you say? Still everyone heard the blast from the controlled demolition.
Can someone explain why the USA would kill thousands of its own citizens for this?
Even if you believe that the ultimate aim was to invade Iraq, why did they bother with Afghanistan? Why, even, did they blame al-Qaeda, invade Afghan to get rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then blatantly lie about nonexistent links between al-Qaeda and Saddam as an excuse to invade Iraq?
Would it not have been easier just to blame Saddam, invade Iraq and take the oil, rather than fight the far more difficult war in Afghanistan first?
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Can someone explain why the USA would kill thousands of its own citizens for this?
Even if you believe that the ultimate aim was to invade Iraq, why did they bother with Afghanistan? Why, even, did they blame al-Qaeda, invade Afghan to get rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then blatantly lie about nonexistent links between al-Qaeda and Saddam as an excuse to invade Iraq?
Would it not have been easier just to blame Saddam, invade Iraq and take the oil, rather than fight the far more difficult war in Afghanistan first?
To make it seem unlikely that it was a conspiracy!
I'm open minded to the whole thing and I'm not sure what the truth is, although I'm more on the side that it was terrorism. It's been nine and a half years since the disaster and they still haven't caught Bin Laden? That's very feeeeeeeshy!
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Can someone explain why the USA would kill thousands of its own citizens for this?
Even if you believe that the ultimate aim was to invade Iraq, why did they bother with Afghanistan? Why, even, did they blame al-Qaeda, invade Afghan to get rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then blatantly lie about nonexistent links between al-Qaeda and Saddam as an excuse to invade Iraq?
Would it not have been easier just to blame Saddam, invade Iraq and take the oil, rather than fight the far more difficult war in Afghanistan first?
To make it seem unlikely that it was a conspiracy!
I'm open minded to the whole thing and I'm not sure what the truth is, although I'm more on the side that itwasterrorism. It's been nine and a half years since the disaster and they still haven't caught Bin Laden? That's very feeeeeeeshy!
Hahaha, yeah that's why.
Bin Laden was seriouly ill at the time of the Afghanistan invasion iirc. I'd say he's been dead for several years now. He probably died a year or two before they stopped sending videos of him to Al Jazeera, which would be 2002/2003/2004.
Again, I can't see any reason why America would deliberately not catch bin Laden or release him after catching him. Sure, there's the links to the Saudi royal family, but I don't think the Saudis appreciated bin Laden's brand of politics/religion.
Comments
They were wrong then, weren't they?
Maybe someone had said that it "looked like collapsing" and before you know it some reporter had jumped the gun?
And that's the "proof" is it. As said before, the work involved in demolishing a building like that would take months and months to plan and execute - and I'm sure someone would've noticed. Hang on, unless they put the explosive charges in when they built it - and the twin towers - just so they could blow them all up if some nut nuts ever decided to fly a plane or two into them. That must be it.
And what proof is there that the US government did it then?
I know it means nothing on it's own, Can also be seen as circumstancial evidence, is there other stuff that can be questioned alongside it or it's just one little thing on it's own? Read everything i've written, i'm not pro or anti. I'm saying that nothing's just "fact" and it's down to interpretation, personal view and who/what you choose to believe more.
To sway public opinion into their favour, giving them a green light to go into Iraq and secure the oil.
Based purely on the fact that I dont trust anything much the government or media say particularly the US government and media.
The US apparently had absolutely no knowledge of the Lockerbie bomber's release either. The UK gov denied it to and put it all at the door of the Scots until being recently exposed for fibbing about it.
Doctor David Kelly too is a little bit suspect.
If the yanks had no idea about Al- Mehgrahi then I'm an 18th century Salford mill owner.
There are certain facts that cannot be disputed. Planes flew into the buildings and the buildings eventualy collapsed. I'd say the two things were linked - in fact I would say it's a 99.999999999.% certainty that the two were linked. But yep, they might have just fallen down anyway or been "zapped" by aliens. I mean, it happened in that "Independence Day" documentary I watched the other day, so it just might be true.
And just how many people would need to be party to this infamous act Could it be guaranteed that none of them would ever speak out ? If proved it would throw the whole idea of democracy into question. Sorry but I just don't buy into it.
Yeh thats the flaw in most of the theories out there.
My friend has sent me loads of you tube stuff previously, evidence of people working in the twin towers, who said they heard explosions before the building was hit, footage showing "explosives" going off at lower levels to where the plane hit, structural engineers saying that there's no way the towers would have collapsed like that, how come these hijackers actually got through, they were doing an exact mock up of this in training, when it actually happened, that at least one of the pilots is still alive.
Forgive me if what I've said isn't spot on, because I'm trying to recall what he sent me months ago.
As I say I don't believe it, but he had the "evidence" and all I had was that I thought it was a load of b******s & I didn't have the inclination to prove otherwise.
He also feels that the press & TV are let's say manipulated by the government and therefore you can only truly believe in the internet as this can't be controlled by let's say governments.
Ah yes. That is one of the "items" my friend got me to watch.
Also, intriguing how the crash at the Pentagon wasn't captured on any cctv and never left any wreckage.
Not to mention the building near to the twin towers that "collapsed" despite not being involved in any impact, or falling debris.
But what sort of track record do the USA have when it comes to "dirty tricks" and such ?
I was told that the hole left by the 'plane' that hit the pentagon wasn't big enough for the supposed commercial plane that was hijacked. There's all these things on the internet about it. Apparently.
I'm not saying its true or that the government was behind it. Wouldn't be bothered to go into all this research about it tbh. Was Just a terrible thing to ever happen in the first place.
I was told that the hole left by the 'plane' that hit the pentagon wasn't big enough for the supposed commercial plane that was hijacked. There's all these things on the internet about it. Apparently.
I'm not saying its true or that the government was behind it. Wouldn't be bothered to go into all this research about it tbh. Was Just a terrible thing to ever happen in the first place.
Structural strength in the steel exo-skeleton you say? Still everyone heard the blast from the controlled demolition.
alan pardew is to blame.
Even if you believe that the ultimate aim was to invade Iraq, why did they bother with Afghanistan? Why, even, did they blame al-Qaeda, invade Afghan to get rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then blatantly lie about nonexistent links between al-Qaeda and Saddam as an excuse to invade Iraq?
Would it not have been easier just to blame Saddam, invade Iraq and take the oil, rather than fight the far more difficult war in Afghanistan first?
I'm open minded to the whole thing and I'm not sure what the truth is, although I'm more on the side that it was terrorism. It's been nine and a half years since the disaster and they still haven't caught Bin Laden? That's very feeeeeeeshy!
Hahaha, yeah that's why.
Bin Laden was seriouly ill at the time of the Afghanistan invasion iirc. I'd say he's been dead for several years now. He probably died a year or two before they stopped sending videos of him to Al Jazeera, which would be 2002/2003/2004.
Again, I can't see any reason why America would deliberately not catch bin Laden or release him after catching him. Sure, there's the links to the Saudi royal family, but I don't think the Saudis appreciated bin Laden's brand of politics/religion.