Hey scott, if you were at a park, and a piece of paper blew by you, and you picked it up, and in it said "you are a loser" you would probably cry your eyes out, huh?
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
I think Scott wrote what he wrote because he wanted Civility. This isn't exactly what he meant, I'm sure he'd probably have loved to have said something like "No, I would of passed it to you and told you that you had dropped something, but probably would of feared retaliation and the degrading of this particular thread (Which he's already a little upset at me over it being pushed into one mighty superthread.)
So please keep the Ad Hominem's down, at least in this thread.
Hey Stryder, who picked you to be a mod? You were probably a good teacher's pet back in the day, huh?
Instead of attacking everyone SIL..why not offer your opinion on 9/11? You seemed to show some interest in this thread.
Mr. Angus MacGyver, use some of that scientific knowledge you hold and figure it out for yourself. You don't need me to direct you. I would consider that an insult to an extremely resourceful secret agent like yourself. 
LOL...ok...I was just trying to invite you to the party. It's cool if you don't want to participate.
Scott,
Please tell me you reconsidered your mini-nuke theory. I didn't even go into the EMP that would have been created.
Please tell me you reconsidered your mini-nuke theory. I didn't even go into the EMP that would have been created.
Absurd, woot
. Well, from the new information I'm now gathering, the idea of a mini nuke or 2 may in fact be valid. I admit that this isn't even in the -alternate- mainstream theories, however, so I will lie on this one for now.Unless, ofcourse, the people behind the attacks didn't consider many U.S. citizens to really be a part of them. Or perhaps they felt that it was worth the sacrifice. Regardless of their motivations, however, I believe the evidence is clear that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. However, I agree that while I feel that this is clear, many feel that the planes bringing them down is clear. It's an argument that's lasted for 7 years and to tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure when it will end. All I know is that I think it'll end faster if people try to see why they disagree and abstain from all egregious insults.
Don't even get me started on the JFK conspiracy
I did suggest previously that it might well have been likely that charges could of been installed to create a "Controlled demolition" should the building itself ever lose it's structure integrity and needed to be brought down with a minimum of collateral damage. However this is an Ethical and Moral Dilemma if it was undertaken, considering if this was the case people would have still been in the building when the decision was made. This of course would of meant that such and act wasn't done as apart of an attack but as a way to minimize collateral damage.
Bu..bu..bu..bullshit!
This sad fact makes you feel sad so you need to make up some bullshit stuff to make yourself feel better.
You seem to like to make up things, no wonder why people dismiss your crap.
Amen
Yeah that did upset me, but I got over it. I'd rather have one huge thread that's still going then a bunch of smaller ones that die out because of a lack of civility. Nevertheless, I still don't see why we couldn't atleast break it down into 2 or more threads and cap it (anything's better then 1 in my view and you may be right that allowing too many threads could be problematic).
Sounds good to me
. 9/11 is definitely a topic that can get very emotional so keeping a level head may be extra important with such a subject (and said subject may be impossible to keep on going with if people lost check of their tempers).
I think you should perhaps have a look back through this thread, I'm pretty sure I mention the reason for a controlled explosion. Of course you wouldn't know, you are only here to be a harasser, a few more complaints about you and well I'm going to have to issue a warning. Btw, I don't play like James. I don't give you three strikes, you get one warning then I show you the door.
Oh yeah..you can catch alot flies with honey instead of vinagar.
Hey stryder, does your house have explosives installed just in case there was a fire, so then your neighbors' houses wouldn't get damaged. I hope you realize that's how you sound.
And how do you explain the fact that Silverstein bought insurance specifically for "terrorist attacks" just months before 9/11?
Ignorance is bliss.
And how do you explain the fact that Silverstein bought insurance specifically for "terrorist attacks" just months before 9/11?
Ignorance is bliss.
My house is only 3 Stories High. When you are talking about the World Trade Centre towers you are talking about some of the tallest buildings in the world at the time. Should my house be gutted in a fire, there might well be the chance of collateral damage through fire, however firemen can pretty much douse the nearby buildings while trying to treat the fire, not so with such tall buildings because of the overall footprint where debris could land and the fact that water couldn't be pumped that high to put fires out. Heck burning embers could carry in the wind for miles at that height and start fires miles away.
It's hardly a stupid suggestion that explosives be placed in a building to bring it down in case of a fire.
Originally Posted by scott3x
Don't even get me started on the JFK conspiracy
Cat's out of the bag
. So, as you were saying about JFK ;-)...I see what you're saying, but I really don't think that's what happened. I believe there was lots of evidence that without the use of explosives of some kind, the buildings simply wouldn't have fallen. One of the towers (I believe it was the south tower) had worse fires in 1975 and yet not a single floor collapsed, let alone all of them. I think the only ethical issue that might have faced them was what I view as a twisted one; the idea that to prevent even worse terrorism, they would 'innoculate' the country with this relatively small dose. A terrorism vaccine if you will. However, I don't think it was a wise decision by any means.
What's an even more absurd is the notion that explosives were "PLACED" beforehand for the purpose of reducing collateral damage.
I can't imagine what the employees in the towers would feel if they knew this.
Just another reason why we shouldn't trust the government!
Thanks for the support Stryder!
I can't imagine what the employees in the towers would feel if they knew this.
Just another reason why we shouldn't trust the government!
Thanks for the support Stryder!
I believe that the building had places to place explosives to bring it down; that, in fact, most if not all new high rises have this. However, I believe that the explosives are only placed close to the time that they want the buildings brought down. I have heard that explosives don't last that long and ofcourse there is the issue that if the explosives are in the building it makes it that much easier to blow it up in an inoportune time.
As to when the explosives were placed in the building, here's a good page:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm
Exactly:
This is stupid for two reasons:
1) Demolition explosives do very localized damaged to the structure. All you will see is a small puff of smoke, a quick flash and a huge sound blast. All the rest of the damage you see from a conventional demolition is due to the building breaking apart under it's own momentum.
2) If you believe that the sheer force of a building falling without explosives can not account for what you see in the above picture, then tell me of a bomb that can be responsible for this chaos we see in the picture that can at the same time remain silent?
Tell me why I shouldn't call you a moron/liar again? The jury is still out on which one more accurately describes you. It appears as though you don't even have the vaguest idea of how a demolition works.
I do believe that some if not all of the explosives were placed the weekend before 9/11 as is mentioned in the last link I put here. However, I sincerely doubt that reducing collateral damage was the intent, unless by collateral damage you mean damage to nearby buildings and the people in those as opposed to the people in the WTC towers; the tower did come down in a symetrical way, even if a fair amount of steel was shot outwards in an explosive manner.
A question to ponder: why is it that people knew that WTC 7 was going to come down hours before it actually did? Who precisely informed people that this would happen? The BBC reported that the building would collapse -before it actually did-. When BBC finally dealt with this issue, it simply passed the buck along, saying that it had gotten its information from Reuters. Passing the buck along is fine (it certainly gets the BBC off the hook), but it still doesn't answer the question.
- Status