|
|
#241
06-24-2005, 01:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
Wacki, you have displayed atleast moderate interest in this thread. I would like you to think about these few points if you haven't read the whole thread:
Crackpot Theory Perfect Collapse Motive Controlled Demolition What Are The Odds? Growing Skepticism These pretty much sum up any argument I would otherwise try to make from here on in. 
|
|
#242
06-24-2005, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
So did the gov. also kill all of the ground crew that normally worked on flights 11 & 77 (baggage handlers, ticket counter, flaggers, pushers, mechanics, skychef)? How come their families haven't reported them missing? Do you think American Airlines is really a secret wing of the CIA?
Oh wait, I need to have an open mind right! I think you mean empty head, this is so obviously crackpot.
|
|
#243
06-24-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
So did the gov. also kill all of the ground crew that normally worked on flights 11 & 77 (baggage handlers, ticket counter, flaggers, pushers, mechanics, skychef)? [/ QUOTE ] No.
|
|
#244
06-24-2005, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
Oh wait, I need to have an open mind right! I think you mean empty head, this is so obviously crackpot. [/ QUOTE ] If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head.
|
|
#245
06-24-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again. [/ QUOTE ] Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering... man this sucks... I have to stop. [/ QUOTE ] Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them. Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11. Operation Northwoods
|
|
#246
06-24-2005, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again. [/ QUOTE ] Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering... man this sucks... I have to stop. [/ QUOTE ] Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them. Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11. Operation Northwoods [/ QUOTE ] SMACK! All you guys need to seriously read this article - it's short so you have no excuse. After you're done, ask yourself how much of this is really a crackpot idea.
|
|
#247
06-24-2005, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Come on wacki, you should just stay out of this thread unless you wanna talk evidence again. [/ QUOTE ] Well it's hard to take you guys seriously. I mean you guys are doing your research but your putting too much weight on the wrong sources. A lot of those conspiracy websites you are linking to just have a bunch of crap on it. Sure 10% of the stuff will be hard to explain away without a degree in civil engineering... man this sucks... I have to stop. [/ QUOTE ] Why are they the wrong sources? Because there's no Brand America® corporate logo in the top corner? How else would you expect a non-mainstream media source to get their point across? Yes, there are a few unreliable sources, but it only takes a little research on your own part to quickly discover and disregard them. Here is an article that I found quite interesting, published by a source you would probably deem credible and reliable, a few months before September 11. Operation Northwoods [/ QUOTE ] SMACK! All you guys need to seriously read this article - it's short so you have no excuse. After you're done, ask yourself how much of this is really a crackpot idea. [/ QUOTE ] And after you're done that, go back and review all of the evidence again, especially the WTC collapse. You guys think I'm just some paranoid nutcase. But I'm not the least bit afraid. In fact, I believe this is the better of the two scenarios. I am a lot more comfortable knowing it was the government using it to promote their political agenda, than suspiciously staring down every Arab and Muslim, waiting for the next big "terrorist attack" to happen.
|
|
#249
06-24-2005, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head. [/ QUOTE ] Come on. I've been reading this whole thread without responding, but this last comment you made is just ridiculous. I read the entire link you provided, and all I found was somebody's opinion of what some clouds of dust look like, and a bunch of speculation. Nothing even close to proof of anything at all. Promise me that you believe the moon landing really happened, you don't think there are aliens at Area 51, and you don't think the Illuminati is secretly running the world, and I'd be more inclined to take you seriously. Otherwise, I heard the Bilderbergs and Bohemian Grove are having a party in the left nostril of the face on Mars. Get in touch with Kissinger, maybe you can swing an invite.
|
|
#250
06-24-2005, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Former Bush Team Member Questions WTC Collapse
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head. [/ QUOTE ] Come on. I've been reading this whole thread without responding, but this last comment you made is just ridiculous. I read the entire link you provided, and all I found was somebody's opinion of what some clouds of dust look like, and a bunch of speculation. Nothing even close to proof of anything at all. Promise me that you believe the moon landing really happened, you don't think there are aliens at Area 51, and you don't think the Illuminati is secretly running the world, and I'd be more inclined to take you seriously. Otherwise, I heard the Bilderbergs and Bohemian Grove are having a party in the left nostril of the face on Mars. Get in touch with Kissinger, maybe you can swing an invite. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you can come back after reading this ENTIRE page (it's not that long), and believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition, then you most certainly have an empty head. [/ QUOTE ] For many people, including some of the leading demolition experts in their first unguarded moments, the initial appearance of the collapses alone left no question that these were controlled demolitions. But you would know better, I guess. Some of these, for example the south tower pictures below, show clear rings of explosions running completely around the building just below the point of collapse. In other pictures we see extremely energetic ejection of debris that simply cannot be accounted for by gravitational forces. Many of these images show the explosive nature of the collapses, the violent ejection of large amounts of powdered concrete and shattered steel and the huge pyroclastic clouds formed. What is especially striking in the collapse of both towers is the enormous volume of material being ejected early in the collapse, and the quantity of shattered steel thrown out ahead of the dust clouds. Much of this broken steel consists of neatly chopped one-story long pieces of the perimeter columns, 14" square steel box columns that are assembled in three-story sections. These columns are also welded to 52" deep plates along each floor, but have somehow been broken free of these at the same time they are chopped up and ejected at high speed. --(are you stupid?) This combination of shattered debris with dust and smoke ejected at high speed makes for a textbook picture of the effects of high explosives. As the author notes it is very peculiar that the top section, having begun tilting to the south, did not continue to topple and land far to the south of the tower. Needless to say, had this happened the damage to other buildings in the area would have been vastly greater. Conservation of angular momentum requires that an object continue to rotate around its center of mass once set in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. Even if the tower beneath it had completely given way, leaving it nothing more to push against laterally, the rotation once started would not abruptly stop. But the top section does not stop rotating and drop straight down, as some have claimed. What does in fact happen is that the top section breaks up internally so that it no longer behaves as a rigid object, relieving it of the obligation to conserve angular momentum.. By turning into a slurry of concrete dust and shattered steel the rotation becomes dissipated into the motion of what is essentially a fluid. Why the top would collapse on itself in this manner is very difficult to explain on the basis of a simple plane damage and heat-induced collapse. It would require the entire top section to lose all internal mechanical strength just at the moment it started to topple, at the same time that its thirty one-acre slabs of 4" thick concrete were turned to dust. To accomplish this without explosives would be very difficult indeed. Instead of the kind of slow start we would expect near the beginning of a gravitational collapse we see high speed “demolition waves” coming directly toward us, with another set shooting out to the left, from the east side of the building. These are exactly the sort of confluent rows of small explosions that are so characteristic of a controlled demolition, and can be seen emerging in flat rings extending all the way around the tower and propagating rapidly downward. Your denial of this (and other) evidence, is simply you not being able to grasp the concept that your government would do such a thing. Period. Seriously, what's wrong with you? How can you ignore a single word of that?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
