Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 16, 2004, 10:49:46 pm
-
AJ: Alright my friends, second hour, September 10th, 2004, the anniversary of the globalist attack coming up tomorrow. It’s an amazing individual we have on the line. Bob Dole’s former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He’s suing the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims’ families signing onto it – it’s a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please sir, recap what you were just stating and then let’s get into the new evidence. And then we’ll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it.
SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence – in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th – when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen on television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government ordered thing.
We are suing them under the Constitution for violating American’s rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity.
And I’ve been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30-years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.
Full transcript (//"http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/130904hiltontranscript.htm")
Interview as MP3 (//"http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204hilton.htm")
Thought you guys might like to know.
-
This reeks of political propaganda.
It's being released at a time when any court case for defamation or slander wouldn't finish till after the elections.
-
Look, its Alex Jones. You can accuse him of being alot of things, but a Democratic propagandist is not one of them.
and anyway, I never said we should all polish our guns (thank you Mr. assault weapons ban expiration) and go kick Bush ass. I just posted it cause its an interesting development that, in my opinion, warrants further observation.
-
Not really.
In an ideal world it would be, but as it is everyone has already made up their minds wether they're a redneck or a liberal and no amount of amazingly incriminating evidence is going to change their minds, because then they'd have to admit that throughout all the pages and pages of "I's AM T3h RyTE!!!" they were, infact, wrong.
-
Give me a total break. Is this the best left-wingers can come up with? :rolls: Development? More like another whack-job conspiracy freak. Remember those French sites saying that there was no way that a plane could have hit the Pentagon? Same thing here, total crap.
-
25 years ago, no one knew, much less cared, about the coup in Chile. And now...The same is true for any number of events.
Sure, there are a few people who will not budge no mattter what, but I don't think they in the majority. For all the rest, it is at least possible, though difficult, to bring about a change in opinion.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Give me a total break. Is this the best left-wingers can come up with? :rolls: Development? More like another whack-job conspiracy freak. Remember those French sites saying that there was no way that a plane could have hit the Pentagon? Same thing here, total crap.
Bob Dole's chief of staff is a left-winger?
-
It's all bull****. It's like the city of Atlantis or that thing about Britain knowing about Pearl Harbour way in advance and not telling the USA.
All just fantasy.
-
Anythings possible...read A Man Called Intrepid...the real story of WWII as far as I'm concerned. It makes what was happening on the surface look like all bright and rosey compaired to the events going on behind the scenes.
Not saying this is true...just that there is alot more to 911, Al-Qaeda, Afganistan, Iraq, and the other issues than anyone cares to tell anyone about.
-
The Bush administration did say pre 9/11 that "terrorism was not much of a concern". The Clinton administration has done a better job at combatting terrorism than the current one. All Bush has done is use this as an excuse to kill thousands of innocent people, exploit people's fears, and also use it as an excuse to take away rights.
Honestly, I don't know which group of people are worse: The ones who believe stuff like that, or the ones who believe everything that any die-hard rightwinger (like Bush) has ever said (even when it is an obvious lie).
-
Riiight.
Lyndon Baines Johnson also had JFK assassinated. I have proof!
-
The Pentagon 'non-aircraft' is interesting, but, having been in the military myself, I know that secret documents are kept locked away and occaisionally shredded. I don't buy the conspiracy of 9/11 being ordered by the government though - it just makes no sense.
-
Well, it makes some sense. Just not in the sense that normal people would beleive. Unless you consider normal people every day peasants, in which that's exactly what they would want...
-
:wtf:
-
They've got several hundred eyewitnesses to the airliner hitting the Pentagon, BTW. The speed and strength of the impact meant most of the wreckage was, apparently, thrust into the building rather than outwards (plus there are witnesses who've confirmed no-one put what wreckage there was out onto the field).
Pretty muchb every aspect of the 9/11 consipracy theories - i.e. the Twin Towers being brought down with demolitions charges, etc - has been comprehensively & scientifically disproven.
What there is, is indicative of high level incompetence and miscommunication rather than conspiracy.
-
There is actually one aspect I find somewhat puzzling.
Didn't the US scramble any fighters after the two remaining hijacked planes after the twin tower attack? How come they never reached the planes in time to stop the attack on the pentagon? Considering the distance a modern fighter can cover I find this somewhat stange. Maybe there's a explaination that I'm missing.
-
That somewhat ties in with what I was thinking, which was that a stray missile from a fighter actually caused the Pentagon explosion...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
There is actually one aspect I find somewhat puzzling.
Didn't the US scramble any fighters after the two remaining hijacked planes after the twin tower attack? How come they never reached the planes in time to stop the attack on the pentagon? Considering the distance a modern fighter can cover I find this somewhat stange. Maybe there's a explaination that I'm missing.
The official story is that there was no communication between the national-defense-place-under-the-mountain-whose-name-i-forget - there's actually a tape of the ATC dithering whether to contact them after the first plane hit the towers.
The other thing is that there wasn't actually that much by way of air defense - the systems had mostly been switched off after the end of the Cold War, because no-one anticipated an aerial threat. That said, procedure was to send up fighters as soon as an airliner stopped responding, and this wasn't followed.
Also, I'm not sure if the Pentagon plane was visible to radar for some of the time - there's eyewitness acounts that it approached at very low level (literally skimming the ground), which IIRC would be below the level of radar. Unclear how longit would have spent at this altitude, though, so it probably wasn't a long term move to avoid radar.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The official story is that there was no communication between the national-defense-place-under-the-mountain-whose-name-i-forget - there's actually a tape of the ATC dithering whether to contact them after the first plane hit the towers.
I heard it already. The point though is that planes were actually scrambled after the second hit. I'm wondering where they went.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I heard it already. The point though is that planes were actually scrambled after the second hit. I'm wondering where they went.
IIRC there were at one point something like 14 aircraft which were suspected as being hi-jacked... possibly the planes in the air just didn't know where to go, and were put on patrol over the cities.
I get the impression that both the civllian and military ATCs were basically operating in complete chaos.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
the national-defense-place-under-the-mountain-whose-name-i-forget
Cheyenne Mountain!?
I KNEW the Goa'Uld were behind this!! It makes perfect sense! I see it all so clear now! Now that we have Ancients technology and the support of the Asgard the Goa'Uld are uncapable of attacking our planet! They infiltrate our society and pose as terrorists by crashing planes into important buildings!!!!
Obviously, SG-1 was on an away mission to PX-72635 and had taken General O'Neill with them on a diplomatic assignment. This was all careully planned by the Goa'Uld so that they wouldn't fall prey tp O'Neill uber destructive witty jokes of D00M!
YES! IT IS TRUE! I 4M RYT3!!!!1111shiftoneoneone
***
Conspiracy theories are fun! :D
-
[color=66ff00]NORAD I assume.[/color]
-
Yeah, Kosh, Clinton did a great job with terrorism. Just look at the actions he took against al-Qaeda after the African embassy bombings, or the Cole attack. Top-notch :rolleyes:. Maybe if Clinton had done something more then, 9/11 could have been prevented. Funny how everyone seems to forget that, though.
Karajorma, I seem to remember that fighters were scrambled at some point after the two WTC impacts, but that the attack on the Pentagon occurred before they were able to do anything about it. I don't have any concrete information, but I'd guess that the fighters were scrambled near New York; obviously, those wouldn't do much good to shoot down a plane in DC.
Clave, have you even seen the security camera frames that clearly show an airliner coming in and impacting the Pentagon? Doesn't look like a missile to me.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Clave, have you even seen the security camera frames that clearly show an airliner coming in and impacting the Pentagon? Doesn't look like a missile to me.
Unless you're referring to a different set of frames (i.e. not the ones from what i think was a security camera at the gated enterance), the time lapse doesn;t actually show anything other than a big fireball.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Cheyenne Mountain!?
I KNEW the Goa'Uld .................witty jokes of D00M!
What the fu..........Oh. Right. Holland.
-
I saw a picture of a hole that had been neatly punched through on of the inner walls. I looked like nothing a crumpled airliner would have done, if anything it was like a shell had blown through, but, weird things happen when stuff explodes, so who knows...
-
Originally posted by Clave
I saw a picture of a hole that had been neatly punched through on of the inner walls. I looked like nothing a crumpled airliner would have done, if anything it was like a shell had blown through, but, weird things happen when stuff explodes, so who knows...
The speed & sheer force of the impact simply forced the wings into the body of the plane.
-
[color=66ff00]Not that I think that this is true but the fact that the possibility exists that it could have been engineered is rather striking is it not?
[/color]
-
But even if the wings were forced in, or more likely sheared off, airliners consist mostly of empty space, unlike a missile or rocket which is mostly solid - I have first hand experience of missiles, and can make some presumptions here.
It's still bugging me though, because the pic I saw seemed neither one thing or another. There was not enough random debris for an airliner passing through, but the hole should have had more cracks in it if there was a missile explosion....
-
I'm too lazy to scroll up, but if you people are refering to the Pentagon, there's like 200 people who actually saw a plane come screaming through the air and slam into the building.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
but I'd guess that the fighters were scrambled near New York; obviously, those wouldn't do much good to shoot down a plane in DC.
That would be pretty f**king stupid considering that the BBC was reporting the planes locations more acurately than that.
However considering the complete state of disarray everyone was in on that day it's quite possible they did that.
-
There's one thing every discussion about 9/11 should keep in mind that some people seem to forget: nothing like this had ever happened before in US history. Passenger planes were hijacked and used as cruise missiles. You already had two that had flown into the most visible buildings in NYC. Of course everything was in disarray; I wouldn't think of it any other way. Some people seem to always be saying, "Well, if this had been done at that exact time..." Hindsight is always 20/20, but real life doesn't work that way. I'm not stating this for anyone on this board in particular, but as a general statement.
Now that you mention it, Aldo, the still shots didn't show the plane, just the resulting explosion. Still, as an0n pointed out, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. Not to mention the fact that if something other than a plane hit the Pentagon, a whole airliner's worth of people would be missing for no apparent reason :rolleyes:.
-
http://www.standdown.net/
-
If two huge jets slam into national landmarks, anyone with half a brain would immediately think "Scramble all fighters. Ground all civillian aircraft."
-
Originally posted by vyper
http://www.standdown.net/
Didn't read all that site, but one thing that immediately stands out as bollocks is the thing about the Twin Towers collapse being odd... the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers has already explained the towers could not handle an impact as happeneded on 9/11, and that the damage to the impacted floors meant that the upper floors were collapsing onto them, i.e. causing the rapid collapse.
It's also not explained exactly what the maximum operational time of a fuelled (assuming it is) combat aircraft at maximum speed is, not is it mentioned that many flights do leave at 30% or less capacity (I've been on one myself) RE: the causalty figures, nor that the timing of the attack (early morning rather than later on) was probably down to the best window opportunity (i.e. flights in the morning have less hostages to worry about, for one thing) as planning.
And probably much more.
-
Yeah, Kosh, Clinton did a great job with terrorism. Just look at the actions he took against al-Qaeda after the African embassy bombings, or the Cole attack. Top-notch
More inaccurate spin. Here are the facts: He did stop a ton of potential attacks (you won't hear it on Fox because it is the whole truth). It is better than exploiting it for his own political adgenda, unlike a certain president HAS done so repeatedly.
-
Hate to be anal about it, but both an embassy and especially a warship are legitimate military/government targets. So its not terrorism. It could be said to be "agression", but not terrorism, since it was not against a civilian population.
-
The fighters that were scrambled were chasing ghosts because the hijackers had turned off the planes' radar signals.
-
I think they should make those signals hardwired to the on position.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't read all that site, but one thing that immediately stands out as bollocks is the thing about the Twin Towers collapse being odd... the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers has already explained the towers could not handle an impact as happeneded on 9/11, and that the damage to the impacted floors meant that the upper floors were collapsing onto them, i.e. causing the rapid collapse.
I was under the impression that the towers were actually designed to take an plane impact, can't remember where I read that though, also, the reason I read for the collapse was that there was huge steel cables running the length of the buildings, keeping them stable and supporting the upper floors, when the planes crashed the excess jet fuel burning in the chambers these cables were housed in caused them to melt and the building to lose stability causing the collapse.
-
A plane as in a small cesna, not a jumbo jet!
-
the biggest they were designed to take is, AFAIK, a 737.
-
I think you're correct there 01010. I saw a program on why the towers collapsed and it said something along those lines.
Don't know about the steel cables but I definately remember that it was the heat from the fire that brought the towers down not the actual impact. As you can see from the footage they survived that.
Originally posted by Rictor
the biggest they were designed to take is, AFAIK, a 737.
Don't know about that. Notice that both towers survived the initial impact and only crumbled later on.
As for the theory that there was an explosion in the basement. Any fool watching the collapse footage can see that the tower started to collapse on the floors that were hit. You've really got to laugh at the idiots who come up with complex theories and yet don't look at the evidence in plain sight.
-
yeah, was that the "Anatomy of the Collapse" thing? The official story is that it was the poor fire-protection of the main structure that brought them down, partly because it was not maintained as per saftey standards, and partly because the fuel was jet fuel, which burns much hotter than a normal fire.
Though one has to wonder why access to the debris was so restricted and the conclusion classified in places.
-
http://www.wtc7.net/
-
Originally posted by 01010
I was under the impression that the towers were actually designed to take an plane impact, can't remember where I read that though, also, the reason I read for the collapse was that there was huge steel cables running the length of the buildings, keeping them stable and supporting the upper floors, when the planes crashed the excess jet fuel burning in the chambers these cables were housed in caused them to melt and the building to lose stability causing the collapse.
Yeah, what I meant was that a lot of less-sane people have claimed the 'controlled' collapse was reminiscent of planned demolitions charges, including seismic shocks... but that this was actually the successive collapse of the floorsabove the damaged ones on the WTC(s), i.e. it falling 'in on itself'.
-
[color=66ff00]I don't know aldo, there's a lot of shadyness about the whole thing.
I've still to make my mind up, it's a rather simple way of pushing a nation into a war without having too many questions asked. (relatively speaking)
[/color]
-
Not a war, perpetual war. Its the difference between your mom buying you an icecream cone, and your mom buying you an icecream factory.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I don't know aldo, there's a lot of shadyness about the whole thing.
I've still to make my mind up, it's a rather simple way of pushing a nation into a war without having too many questions asked. (relatively speaking)
[/color]
I just think the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
-
Personally, I hate to think that any President of the United States, no matter how much I disagree with his policy, would ever, EVER, kill a few thousand of his own people to further a political agenda and consolidate power.
Then again, there are crazies in the world. But that theory is just a little to crazy for me.
-
you make the mistake of thinking that someone who is able to get themselves elected President has a conscience. I've said it before and I'll say it again: most empires are run the same way organized crime outfits are; psychopaths at the top, with an army of greedy, afraid, stupid and/or indoctrinated grunts below.
-
Yeah, but I like to delude myself into thinking that the leaders of the country stick to the ideals upon which it was founded on. I'm like being in denial. So sue me.
-
Ideals upon which countries are founded do not last. This is not because people are "evil," but simply because in the natural course of human events, populations will shift their ideologies for whatever reason. If the right words are used and the right examples cited, any action a country takes can be made to be in keeping with "tradition."
-
The only thing that makes me wonder is the fact that, if I were Bush, and were planning something like this, I'd make it happen about now, just before the elections, though that probably would have raised even more questions.
I think Bush would sacrifice 3000 people for the chance of a net profit. Making decisions like that it what being a leader is about, Bush has just twisted it round in his head to justify the means.
However was this set up? I don't know, WTC7 is an interesting 'blip' in the whole thing, as was the fact that the WTC was apparently only just insured against Terrorist attack a few months before. And the fact that structural Reports had stated the buildings may have to be dismantled in 20 years anyway....
I won't think the American government made it happen, but I wouldn't put it past them to know about it several months in advance, insure the Towers and let it happen, as an excuse.
-
Mossad knew, that much is clear. They were literally in the next motel room over from one of the hijackers. As well, an investigation into terrorism and bin Laden in particular was axed just days before 9/11.
Here's an interesting bit of fiction vaguely related to the subject. Its also a good solid story in and of itself. Highly recommended (start from the first chapter)...I only wish it was updated more regularly.
http://theamericanbook.blogspot.com
-
[q]let it happen, as an excuse.[/q]
That seems the likeliest explanation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't read all that site, but one thing that immediately stands out as bollocks is the thing about the Twin Towers collapse being odd... the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers has already explained the towers could not handle an impact as happeneded on 9/11, and that the damage to the impacted floors meant that the upper floors were collapsing onto them, i.e. causing the rapid collapse.
Hmmm, doubt that, the WTC was built specificly to withstand the impact of a 707, equal in size to the 757s which hit them. If the guy who designed them is saying different somethings suss. Also the floors collapsing in on top of each other wouldnt have brought down the whole tower, the central core which was only tied in to the floor with trusses would have remained standing for a while anyways.
As for the US government allowing it to happen, certainly plausible, people dont remember the last time the WTC was hit by terrorists the bombmaker was an FBI informant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_bombing_attack_of_the_WTC
As for Mossad:
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
How can you document an event unless you know its going to happen?
Dont really like this ste but the article itself is well supported with sources:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Btw anyone who thinks the US government isnt capable of planning attacks on its own citizens should read this document:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Among the plans laid out in it is the use of unmanned airliners to attack american targets as a pretext for the invasion of Cuba 40 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Hmmm, doubt that, the WTC was built specificly to withstand the impact of a 707, equal in size to the 757s which hit them. If the guy who designed them is saying different somethings suss. Also the floors collapsing in on top of each other wouldnt have brought down the whole tower, the central core which was only tied in to the floor with trusses would have remained standing for a while anyways.
They designed it to withstand a 707 impact, yes. But this wasn't a 707 impact.
The structural engineer explicitly stated that they had never anticipated the intentional collision of 2 airliners upon both towers (remember, there's additional seismic shocks here, for one thing).
RE707 vs 757;
quick check;
707 min operating weight; 55,589kg
757 min operating weight; 64,590kg
Crucially, the fuel load onboard the colliding plane was not accounted for in the initial designs. I'm also not sure if current jet fuel is of a higher octane than that used when the WTC was designed. Regardless, it was the fuel and fire that ensured the towers fell.
Also, the explosion of the impact blew away fireproofing around said crucial tresses (said fireproofing had never been tested, and these tests may not have been adequate given the speed and intensity of high-octane jet fuel fires).
Maybe you should actually try checking these things out next time?
EDIT; oh, and I believe the design would not have been made under the assumption that the aircraft was trying to hit the towers. The 2nd plane, in particular, was diving so fast that it risked breaking up before it impacted.
EDIT2; the kinetic force upon the Twin towers had been calculated as roughly equivalent to 0.2kt ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1550326.stm ). Same article also points out the damage that falling debris would have caused (which some people interpret the seismic shocks from as being explosions to demolish the towers)
-
Yep, the fireproofing was the weak point. It had been badly applied, and not maintained for years, there were many areas with no fireproofing at all. The steel got hot enough to sag (not melt) and then the structural integrity was lost. It seems likely that if the fireproofing had resisted the initial blast, then the would have been no collapse...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
They designed it to withstand a 707 impact, yes. But this wasn't a 707 impact.
no they werent, they were actually 767s.
Originally posted by aldo_14
RE707 vs 757;
quick check;
707 min operating weight; 55,589kg
757 min operating weight; 64,590kg
Not really relevant, seeing how they were 767s, although no airliners fly at min weight anyways. Both flights were not fully loaded nor carried a full load of fuel, I'd guess there actual weight was below what was designed for.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Crucially, the fuel load onboard the colliding plane was not accounted for in the initial designs. I'm also not sure if current jet fuel is of a higher octane than that used when the WTC was designed. Regardless, it was the fuel and fire that ensured the towers fell.
Government estimates gave the amount of fuel onboard each plane at 10,000 gallons, thats roughly a ten foot cubed tank. Presuming the wtc was designed to take a fully loaded 707 thats less than half what its supposed to be able to withstand.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Also, the explosion of the impact blew away fireproofing around said crucial tresses (said fireproofing had never been tested, and these tests may not have been adequate given the speed and intensity of high-octane jet fuel fires).
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe you should actually try checking these things out next time?
Checking what out, the only thing that you've said that can actually be checked out is the min weight of 707 and 757s which in itself is meaningless.
Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIT; oh, and I believe the design would not have been made under the assumption that the aircraft was trying to hit the towers. The 2nd plane, in particular, was diving so fast that it risked breaking up before it impacted.
The second plane impacted at 590mph, almost 20mph less than the cruise speed of a 707. It also crashed into the tower at an angle, and as can be clearly seen in the videos a lot of its fuel exits the far side of the tower in a massive fireball.
Seeing as you're obviously well informed on this matter Aldo, why did WTC7 collapse?
-
Originally posted by Gank
*snipped for brevity*
Seeing as you're obviously well informed on this matter Aldo, why did WTC7 collapse?
NB: 757 was Pentagon. you did say 757 in your previous post, so I was assuming you were correct in that.
Fire, possibly - http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/default.htm (specifically, diesel fuel from backup generators). There's also been a suggestion that the NYFD demolished the building because they couldn't contain the fire http://sirdave.com/pullit.mpg
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
(specifically of reference;
The World Trade Center was designed for an impact of Boeing 707-320 rather than Boeing 767-320. But note that the maximum takeoff weight of that older, less effcient, aircraft is only 15% less than that of Boeing 767-200. Besides, the maximum fuel tank capacity of that aircraft is only 4% less. These differences are well within the safety margins of design. So the observed response of the towers proves the correctness of the original dynamic design. What was not considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire. Here the lulling experience from 1945 might have been deceptive; that year, a two-engine bomber (B-25), flying in low clouds to Newark at about 400 km/h, hit the Empire State Building (381 m tall, built in 1932) at the 79th floor (278 m above ground)—the steel columns (much heavier than in modern buildings) suffered no significant damage, and the fire remained confined essentially to two floors only (Levy and Salvadori 1992).)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf
I can't find a specific quote from the designer of the WTC (I have heard one on TV as mentioned earlier, but the intenet is full of ****e on this topic)
If you honestly believe that the WTC was destroyed by a set of demolitions charges on the underside of the building, rather than an unanticiapted level of impact and fire, then that's your choice. But I think it's a steaming pile of ****e.
-
Another factor some people forgot, but aldo's article briefly mentioned, was that two 110-story buildings collapsed in close proximity to WTC 7. I don't know what the seismic impact of the collapse was, but I'd safely say that hundreds of thousands of tons of debris falling to the ground creates quite a shock, possibly enough to cause significant structural damage. Couple that with debris that actually hit the building, and you have enough probable cause to say that the building's diesel tanks were damaged and leaking fuel, explaining why the building came down.
-
Aldo, just give up, there is no way to prove that there wasn't a 3,000 man deltaforce/Israeli task force planting tons of c4 and seting it up to explode sequincaly useing preditor cloaks so no one saw them and then useing an Asgaurd transport beam to get out before it blew up, and the planes, well they were probly holograms, yeah that's it holograms, and all the people on them were just made up by the government, or better yet they were all gathered up and killed, yeah that's better, and it's all Bush's fault, that's obvius yes.
-
The problem is that many conspiracy theories - if not all - are reflections of the theorists prejudices and perceptions. People are willing to believe even the worst supported theory, in the face of all evidence, if it validates their own opinions. In this context, even the vast quantity of qualified evidence is dismissed as 'part of the conspiracy'.
The other problem is that, even in real life, not all questions can be answered, or at least not immediately. Some people whould have you believe that's because there's some deep secret conspiracy or whatever. It's not - it's just real life.
Personally, I think it's infinately more likely that 20-odd years ago, 2 extremely large skyscrapers were built without the designers expecting a disaster of the magnitude of 9/11, than it is that some government agency carefully placed demolitions ( a bomb in any other words) , flew 2 planes into the building, and then waited a few hours before blowing said demolitions up.
EDIT; don't worry Bob, that's all I feel i need to say on the matter. :)
-
that was basicly my point, he wants to belive this too much to be able to reason with him.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
that was basicly my point, he wants to belive this too much to be able to reason with him.
Well, there are probably questions to be answered. But I think that bundling it all in some all encompassing conspiracy theory is equally as unlikely as the theorist believes the official explanation is.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that many conspiracy theories - if not all - are reflections of the theorists prejudices and perceptions. People are willing to believe even the worst supported theory, in the face of all evidence, if it validates their own opinions. In this context, even the vast quantity of qualified evidence is dismissed as 'part of the conspiracy'.
The other problem is that, even in real life, not all questions can be answered, or at least not immediately. Some people whould have you believe that's because there's some deep secret conspiracy or whatever. It's not - it's just real life.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Kennedy assassination really f**ked up America.
After that you can get crackpots to believe any old load of crap simply because the assassination was concrete proof that the government will continue to lie even when everyone knows that they're lying and that even changing the president doesn't change that.
-
yeah, well Gank isn't American, he's Irish
-
I know but a disproportionate number of consipiracy theorists are Americans.
-
so are a disproportionate number of Irish.
-
And Scottish, *****. :p
I believe that certain events happened on 9/11 that deepened the emotional impact of things, and I believe those parts were either specifically allowed to happen (when they could've been stopped) or were set in motion when they would otherwise not have happened, under the auspices of the United States Government, or someone with relation to it.
9/11 should not have happened - they know it, we know it, but we're too busy shoving our dicks up each other's asses in an attempt to get more money than each other to do anything about it.
That is all.
-
That's one way to look at it, sure. We've seen the video footage of the hijackers walking right through security.
Speaking of which...
Notice that NO ONE brings up the security agents who let these guys on board with boxcutters. Imagine having that on your resume.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you honestly believe that the WTC was destroyed by a set of demolitions charges on the underside of the building, rather than an unanticiapted level of impact and fire, then that's your choice. But I think it's a steaming pile of ****e.
Never said that did I, I just dont believe the official line theres just too many things wrong with it. I'm not an engineer, but I do work in construction and having read the official explanation for the collapse its pretty much common sense to me that a collapse of the floors, supported only by trusses, would have left the inner core and possibly the outer perimeter walls standing for at least some time after the floors collapsed. I wouldnt take that as explicit proof of bombs being planted though, its possible the exact reasons for the collapse havent been found out yet and the truss theory is just being put out to cover that.
If you want conspiracy theorys though theres no need to look at the actual attacks, plenty of stuff leading up to them and afterwards that stinks of either forewarning or complicity
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline_saudis,_bush
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=israel
Read through all of that and you'll see why its hard to accept the official line on anything connected with 9/11.
-
Of course it's hard to accept the official report. We will not trust it's sources as they are in positions of power, and ONLY for that reason.
-
Hehehe...
Well, on with my life :D
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Of course it's hard to accept the official report. We will not trust it's sources as they are in positions of power, and ONLY for that reason.
all vodka corrupts, but absolut vodka corrupts absolutely.
There is a very good reason why the people who are in power are in power. Because they're ruthless, lying bastards who would sell their own mother to increase their power. And this isn't my paranoia, it several hundred years worth of examples.
also, consider that IF the CIA/Mossad/FSB (the artist formerly known as the kgb) or whoever did something like this, the whole point would be for it to look genuine. So assuming that they're good enough at their job, which I believe "they" (the major spy agencies) are, you'de never know. I'm just speaking generally here, not about any specific incident, though you can probably guess a few in recent months which stand out.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
all vodka corrupts, but absolut vodka corrupts absolutely.
Okay, dammit. No making me laugh!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
all vodka corrupts, but absolut vodka corrupts absolutely.
There is a very good reason why the people who are in power are in power. Because they're ruthless, lying bastards who would sell their own mother to increase their power. And this isn't my paranoia, it several hundred years worth of examples.
[img-rollbarf]
Your hatred for those with power is, no matter how fiercely you deny it, starting to look really tinfoil paranoid.
Or then those with power quite often wish to have good influence [subjective, no ****!] on their country/other countries/people/whatever. I could be wrong.
-
The person who wants to be in charge of something probably isn't the right person for the job.
-
yeah, Adams was right...yet again.
No Janos, you're right, I don't doubt that there are people in power who have banevolent or positive motives, but I'm speaking broadly here. However,, I find that its quite easy to distinguish one from the other.
When you have institutions with enormous power, like the Russian state, or the American state or whatever, you usually do not have honest, decent guys in charge. My theory is, and will continue to be until I come upon someting better, that those countries where the leaders are all nice and just want to make the world a better place (er, parts of Europe...also, local governments) are like that because they're too small and irrelevant that anyone with nasty motives would bother to take charge of them.
Whereas you have John Johnson as major of Somewhere, USA, and he's great guy, has barbecues every week and look out for the common man, you also have Rudy Guliani running New York, which is a city of greater importance than the small town. Same thing with small states. Yes, certain countries have good people in charge, but they're too powerless to matter.
thats the theory anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The person who wants to be in charge of something probably isn't the right person for the job.
But he is. If he ****s up, someone else who wishes to fix up the mess the guy in power caused must have willingness to step up and take lead. And so on, and so on, and so on. I'd hate to be led by someone who does not have the ambition and willingness to be in charge, neither would I be a good leader if I weren't willing to be in charge.
-
I don't consider this an absolute law. It's just that the desire for power is, in and of itself, very often a liability. There's nothing that can be done about it; it's simply an inescapable paradox.