Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

What's new? The latest myff announcements


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Global Politics
McDougall

Smoking Gun II (the Pentagon False Flag)

Watch this and then you will see the truth. It's time to take the Red Pill "war on terror" supporters!

Click and watch: http://vimeo.com/4777716
Shagpile

I've been of the opinion for a couple of years now that 911 was self inflicted....... even academics and experts in demolition are at last putting their heads above the parapet.

That would have been unpatriotic back then. Yet now, due the persistant common sense questioning of 'Official' accounts, it is beginnig to dawn.

You can not tell me now that Obama STILL does not know what really happened.

Like Blair in the UK "Change" only means the change in rhetoric. AND I said so, before he was elected.
Alasdair

I think I've seen this video before, if it's the one I think it is it's rather compelling, however I still struggle with the notion that any government would be complicit in such actions on their own soil, against their own people.
Holebender

The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.

Not to mention the tonnes of explosives which would have to have been supplied from somewhere.
Shagpile

Holebender wrote:
The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.

Not to mention the tonnes of explosives which would have to have been supplied from somewhere.


Good point mate, yet that only makes it harder to accomplish. Not impossible though. Around 6 weeks, thats how long the bomb sniffer dogs were removed for. They were not reintroduced. GWs brother was incharge of security there, that's if I've remembered these points correctly.
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.
Shagpile wrote:
Good point mate, yet that only makes it harder to accomplish. Not impossible though. Around 6 weeks
I have worked on building sites where hundreds of workers were employed. I have worked on tall buildings in the big city. I have even worked on demolition jobs. And I find the idea that you could have HUNDREDS of workers employed on a site for up to six weeks, and somehow manage to keep all of this totally secret, quite unbelievable.
Shagpile

I can't remember off hand all the points, but if you want, google "Loose Change".
Shagpile

Dave Coull wrote:
I have worked on building sites where hundreds of workers were employed. I have worked on tall buildings in the big city. I have even worked on demolition jobs. And I find the idea that you could have HUNDREDS of workers employed on a site for up to six weeks, and somehow manage to keep all of this totally secret, quite unbelievable.


It was not going to be my wish to discuss 911 theroies again as I've done that a lot already on this and other forums, which is why I posted my last post as an invitation to "look for yourself" so to speak.

As I've said in my reply to Holebender, it would not be easy to conceal the required activity, but not impossible.

Several floors in both towers were closed for. maintenance. There was direct access to the lifts from the underground carparks. These workmen would not be wearing work clothing identifying them are demolition contractors. I immagine most work would have been done in the small hours where normal activities were minimal. Also, the nature of the design of the towers would require charges to be placed in the central columns, and not in the outward office accomodation.
Dave Coull

On the Opus Dei topic,
Shagpile wrote:
Would it not be more appropriate to continue this discussion here?

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/sutra89149.php#89149
and, on the Opus Dei topic, I replied
Quote:
Yes, it would. The original topic of this discussion was about Opus Dei, and with particular reference to the SNP candidate in a Glasgow by-election being a member. The direction discussion is now taking has got nothing at all to do with that, and yes, there IS a topic heading under which it would be more appropriate. Shift discussion which is not relevant to the original topic, I say. I will post this message under both headings, but will only reply to any comments under the OTHER heading.
Shagpile

Dave Coull wrote:
On the Opus Dei topic,
Shagpile wrote:
Would it not be more appropriate to continue this discussion here?

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/sutra89149.php#89149
and, on the Opus Dei topic, I replied
Quote:
Yes, it would. The original topic of this discussion was about Opus Dei, and with particular reference to the SNP candidate in a Glasgow by-election being a member. The direction discussion is now taking has got nothing at all to do with that, and yes, there IS a topic heading under which it would be more appropriate. Shift discussion which is not relevant to the original topic, I say. I will post this message under both headings, but will only reply to any comments under the OTHER heading.


Is it possible for a Mod/Admin to move the relevant posts?
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
Holebender wrote:
The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.
Shagpile wrote:
Good point mate, yet that only makes it harder to accomplish. Not impossible though. Around 6 weeks
I have worked on building sites where hundreds of workers were employed. I have worked on tall buildings in the big city. I have even worked on demolition jobs. And I find the idea that you could have HUNDREDS of workers employed on a site for up to six weeks, and somehow manage to keep all of this totally secret, quite unbelievable.


Dave,

I have PM'd the admin to move the 9/11 posts to this thread. Sorry I was responding to the Loose Change comment without thinking there could be another thread.

You are indeed correct. The programmes on National Geo followed a crew preparing a building and blowing it up to show the preparation required, man power and equipment needed. Also, what evidence would have been left behind once the building has been destroyed. Once they blew the building up there was loads of evidence just lying around of what occured.

The experts featured estimated it would have took 6 months or more and 100's of workers to wire up the twin towers and strip back materials around the steel beams to wire the beams with explosives prior to demolition.

How this was achieved with out any of the 10000's people who worked and used twin towers daily without anyone seeing would have been impossible.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
if the Glasgow terror attack succeeded, would people in this country have been so sympathetic towards Megrahi and be quick to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Shagpile wrote:
those SEPARATE issues
I personally think Megrahi may just have been the "fall guy" for the Lockerbie bomibing, the full truth of which has yet to come out. However, although I think it's quite possible there may have been an "official" conspiracy in that case, I think the "evidence" for a 9/11 "official" conspiracy is rubbish. So I agree that these are completely separate issues.
Shagpile

Dave Coull wrote:
Ultra wrote:
if the Glasgow terror attack succeeded, would people in this country have been so sympathetic towards Megrahi and be quick to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Shagpile wrote:
those SEPARATE issues
I personally think Megrahi may just have been the "fall guy" for the Lockerbie bomibing, the full truth of which has yet to come out. However, although I think it's quite possible there may have been an "official" conspiracy in that case, I think the "evidence" for a 9/11 "official" conspiracy is rubbish. So I agree that these are completely separate issues.


I believe the Lybian followed his orders.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
The experts featured estimated it would have took 6 months or more and 100's of workers to wire up the twin towers and strip back materials around the steel beams to wire the beams with explosives prior to demolition.


I would not dissagree with that, the last part, the part where the charges were fitted, aparently took around six weeks though...... about haw long the dogs were removed. They'd have gone crazy otherwise.

Quote:
How this was achieved with out any of the 10000's people who worked and used twin towers daily without anyone seeing would have been impossible.


As I've said, difficult and certainly not withought it's challenges. But NOT impossible.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
The National Geo programmes logically and scientificially destroyed bit by bit the conspiracy theories featured in Loose Change.


Does that include why MOSAD agents had their recording equipment set up to record and document the imminent atack too, for example?

Quote:
Then you add in the video footage from the public, eye witness accounts, black box info from the flights


Exactly.... one 'Black Box'.

Quote:
voice recordings from the flights


Are these the ones from alleged mobile phone calls?

Quote:
it does not take a genius to dismiss Loose Change and the vast amount of conspiracy theories surrounding it.


Yet there is still a lot which remains to be 'de-bunked'.

Shagpile wrote:
Based of the German computer simulation of how the floors collapsed on top of each other?


Quote:
No based on computer modelling using the exact plans of the twin towers and crashing a plane into them using the data from the plane. Same was done for the Pentagon. So unless you have actually watched the Nation Geo programmes you really don't know what was shown or what experiments were carried out.


The computer model sounds like the one I watched. I've also watched a documentary on how the Twin Towers were designed and built on the "Discovery Channel", before 9/11 happened.

Quote:
Computer modelling is used to test and explain things like how to make cars safer


Very good point. Crumple Panels and Crumple Zones are used in the design of cars in order to decellerate; primeraly the car occupants, inside the more greatly protected car 'cabin'. Now think about that when you think about the towers collapsing at "free fall"speed. ie absolutely nothing to decellerate the fall of towers as each floor crashed onto the floor beneath. If a golf ball was dropped from the roof of each tower just as it began to collapse, it would have hit the ground, within a second or two of the roof....... that Ultra is free-fall.

Quote:
before they go into production and also work out how planes have crashed as part of investigations testing out various scenarios. So why would similar not be used to expalin the twin towers and automatically be dismissed as it's tried and tested technology?


I don't have a problem with computer modeling, yet there is an adage with computers along the lines of "rubbish in = rubbish out".

Quote:
Remember the Director from Loose Change was featured in the programme too and freely admitted that his film has been edited numerous time over the years as various conspiracy theories have been disproved or more information comes to light.


I'd call that objective. There are some things in "Loose Change", that I think are not right, the thing that most readily springs to mind is the claim that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand "multiple" collisions  by aircraft. I believe stated like that it is grossly misleading.

They were certainly designed to withstand A collision from "a large passenger aircraft". Depending on the Safety Factor used in that particular scenario, it may well have been two or possibly three. Hence the multiple aircraft claim. That might also mean two light private aircraft.

Shagpile wrote:

Firstly that's on official theory not an official fact. That theory would have to be backed up with forensic data to be properly considered fact. There is no supporting forensic data as all the crime scenes were cleaned up at break neck speed, distroying all the evedence.


Quote:
Even to this day the site hasn't really been fully re-developed.


Yes, but possibly not for the reason s you imagine.

Ultra wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
That theory is serioosly flawed too. It does a good job of explaining how fire damaged trusses weakend and collapsed on the floor below and that's where it ends.


What theory are you referring to? The programme featured various scientific experiments to show how the towers collapased by weaking the steel supports and also carried out experiment on what would be required to blow up a building using various means to test out the conspiracy theories. I would rather believe upteen experts explanations and evidence put forward that mimicked what happened on the day and came back with pretty much the same results. The other progammes featured minute by minute footage from a wide range of peoples cameras, phones, news media. military communications, etc. The kind of stuff you can't really fake due to the amount of people involved.


See above where you and I have commented on computer modeling.

Shagpile wrote:
It does not explain, how the central columns collapsed. AND at free fall speed! Returnig to that official theory of yours..... even that model shows a slight pause or delay as each floor collapsed (even through floors undamaged by fire).


Ultra wrote:
There is enough footage of the towers collapsing showing you the buildings collapsing at free fall speed as you put it.


Where explosions can be seen eminating from the sides of the buildigs, in advance of each collapsing floor. Yes or No?

Quote:
I believe the term used was the upper floors collapsing on each other would have a pile driver effect and built up so much momentum on the way down there would be very little left.


Think for a moment on what you have written here...... Pile Driver (repeated aimed blows) "built up momentum"....... to catch up with a falling golf ball?

Very little left? Cleared by demolition charges you really mean.

Two explosions at "Ground Zero", each measuring aprox. 0.6 on the Richter Scale were recorded after the planes hit. Subterranean explosions.

Enought to take out the foundations of the towers. Why is that relevant? Because you can't demolish a building where the foundations are intact. The central columns would have transmitted some of the energy into the foundations where it would have been absorbed. Causing unpredictability in the building's collapse.

Quote:
Also, that due to the densely populated area the towers were built in, the towers were designed to collapse a certain way.


Absolute rubbish...... the towers were designed to STAY STANDING within the peramiters of their design. They were each designed to withstand both fire AND aircraft collision. If the oposite; what you claim to be true, is true...... Why did all those fire men enter the building if they knew it was designed to collapse around them and bury them? Don't you think their training might have just included a small detail like that?

Quote:
Maybe you are some sort of world leading expert on building tower blocks, steel structures, or a demolishion expert. So if you have another theory let's hear it? I'd love to hear it.


For someone who has difficulty in understanding such terms as minority governments..... what would be the point.

I am an engineer (amongst otherthings too), and civil engineering is not my dicipline. We did touch on it ever so briefly at colledge though, odly enough on the topic of safety factors, as a comparitive.

Ultra wrote:
I watched Loose Change first and then watched the fact based programmes later.


Shagpile wrote:
No, what you mean is you watched official accounts later.


Quote:
Is that not what I said?


No.

Quote:
It's hard to dispute science, logic, video footage, recorded messages from the actual flights, eye witness accounts, and computer modelling using the actual data from the buildings and planes.


You're making a bad job of it right enough.

Quote:
You may choose not to believe it, ignore it, or you may not understand it. The fact remains the evidence still exists to explain what happened or with alot of the conspiracy theories there was no evidence to back up the claims.


And in the examples you've shown.... poor evidence to de-bunk them.
Shagpile

Shagpile wrote:
I believe the Lybian followed his orders.


I feel that I've got to add..... although I was comfortable with the conviction, and I believe the Lybian was following orders (and no excuse what so ever), was the rules not changed somewhat for the evedence? I vaguely recall there was a lot of "on the ballance of probability" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.

Not to mention the tonnes of explosives which would have to have been supplied from somewhere.


Funny, I thought you were generally quite big on conspiracy theories.
Ultra

Shag,

Not really sure you can dispute CCTV, photographic, scientific, forensic, industry experts in engineering and demolition, eye witness evidence, radio transmission from the hi-jacked planes, recorded messages for the people on the planes, and computer modelling using the black box recorders and plans of the Pentagon and twin towers.

No evidence was found to suggest the twin towers had been demolished using explosive.

Also, you are disputing the Loose Change director too, who featured in the programmes and when shown the evidence, he changed his conspiracy to remote controlled planes and 1000's of people being involved. The director freely admits to editing Loose Change many times as more information becomes available or a theory is dis-proved.

You offer no concrete evidence yourself except more reference to Loose Change.

So if the US Government did indeed kill over 3000 people on 9/11, why is the Loose Change director still walking about? Surely he would have had some sort of 'accident' by now to shut him up? One more won't make much difference?

It's clear you haven't watch the National Geographic programmes or other Channel 4 programmes on 9/11.

So you are in no position to make a comparison between Loose Change and the information provided in these programmes.

I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
Shag,

Not really sure you can dispute CCTV, photographic, scientific, forensic, industry experts in engineering and demolition, eye witness evidence, radio transmission from the hi-jacked planes, recorded messages for the people on the planes, and computer modelling using the black box recorders and plans of the Pentagon and twin towers.

No evidence was found to suggest the twin towers had been demolished using explosive.

Also, you are disputing the Loose Change director too, who featured in the programmes and when shown the evidence, he changed his conspiracy to remote controlled planes and 1000's of people being involved. The director freely admits to editing Loose Change many times as more information becomes available or a theory is dis-proved.

You offer no concrete evidence yourself except more reference to Loose Change.

So if the US Government did indeed kill over 3000 people on 9/11, why is the Loose Change director still walking about? Surely he would have had some sort of 'accident' by now to shut him up? One more won't make much difference?

It's clear you haven't watch the National Geographic programmes or other Channel 4 programmes on 9/11.

So you are in no position to make a comparison between Loose Change and the information provided in these programmes.

I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories.


OK, now I see....... It's not Stan anymore, it's Lorrettah!

No...no... I'm wrong, you're Spike insisting I should follow a sandall or something?

Answer the post! Not summerise your previous and expect me to adopt your gourd.

It of course comes down to.... yet again..... why would they do that to their own people?

Not the guys with th white hats..... OH NOOoooooo.

They wouldn't do it to their own people......

Hitler yes. Sadam Yes! Mugabe YES!!!!

GW Naw......

Although nowt to do with his administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

And the kicker is..... it's not been outlawed. They can do it again IF there is Senate approval.

So, now you can rule out that excuse.

AND, you never yet me get off the Twin Towers and on to the Pentagon, et all.........
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
The strongest argument against the World Trade Center being rigged for demolition (I presume this is what is being discussed) is the amount of time and the number of people it would have required to set up the charges. It would have taken hundreds of people several weeks to do the job, and that level of activity could not be kept secret for long.

Not to mention the tonnes of explosives which would have to have been supplied from somewhere.


Funny, I thought you were generally quite big on conspiracy theories.

Which just goes to show how wrong you can be a lot of the time.
Ultra

Shagpile wrote:
OK, now I see....... It's not Stan anymore, it's Lorrettah!

No...no... I'm wrong, you're Spike insisting I should follow a sandall or something?

Answer the post! Not summerise your previous and expect me to adopt your gourd.

It of course comes down to.... yet again..... why would they do that to their own people?

Not the guys with th white hats..... OH NOOoooooo.

They wouldn't do it to their own people......

Hitler yes. Sadam Yes! Mugabe YES!!!!

GW Naw......

Although nowt to do with his administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

And the kicker is..... it's not been outlawed. They can do it again IF there is Senate approval.

So, now you can rule out that excuse.

AND, you never yet me get off the Twin Towers and on to the Pentagon, et all.........


Shag,

So either Loose Change is indeed correct and the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the US Government or the 4 seperate programmes on 2 different channels, 1 which featured the Loose Change director himself, are correct.

Which 1 is it?

Answer your post on what? I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am commenting on Loose Change and the programmes I have watched on 9/11.

You haven't watched the programmes so there is indeed no point in continuing discussing programmes you have not watched with you is there?

I cannot comment on why MOSSAD have recording equipment set up. I have no idea. I do not work for MOSSAD. Why did they have recording equipment set up? More importantly, who said they had recording equipment set up? Evidence please.

Wikipedia? Oh please? Don't embarrass yourself any more. At least the programmes I am commenting on are from well respected broadcasters.

There is indeed alot of Loose Change de-bunking still to take place which is why the programmes focused on the main conspiracy theories. If you take the main conspiracy theories away though, the rest are either coincidences or random acts.

But I suppose if it's in you make up to look for a conspiracy theory then you will find it.
landg

the earth is round.
get over it.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
Answer your post on what? I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am commenting on Loose Change and the programmes I have watched on 9/11.


Like I said in my post, someone unable to understand 'minority government', is not going to be able to understand much anyway.

I'm not trying to tell you what to think, nor am I trying to tell you what to believe. Yet this post of yours; and others, is indicative that you will not consider other perspectives.

I'm only telling you what I believe. And you make too many assumptions of how I arrive at what I choose to believe.

Quote:
I cannot comment on why MOSSAD have recording equipment set up. I have no idea. I do not work for MOSSAD. Why did they have recording equipment set up? More importantly, who said they had recording equipment set up? Evidence please.


Did you miss that in your TV documentaries?........ You mean it wasn't included?........ Related and relevant things like that ommited from a conspiracy de-bunking exercise? Makes me believe their REMIT was reported, NOT THEIR INVESTIGATION!

"Why did they have recording equipment set up? More importantly, who said they had recording equipment set up? Evidence please".

GOOGLE it for yourself, pick your own headings to read, remember when you do...... you chose which ones to read.

They went on Israeli TV and told viewers what they did and why.

Quote:
Wikipedia? Oh please? Don't embarrass yourself any more. At least the programmes I am commenting on are from well respected broadcasters.


Google THAT yourself too.

Quote:
There is indeed alot of Loose Change de-bunking still to take place


And you're on a one woman mission. Remember, scrutinise everything  the same..... Official or Conspiracy, I bet if you do it right.... YOU will ask more questions.

Quote:
But I suppose if it's in you make up to look for a conspiracy theory then you will find it.


Turned round and right back at you.
Ultra

Shag,

I am not making any assumptions about you except for not having seen the TV Programmes I have watched about 9/11 disputing the main conspiracy theories in Loose Change.

I don't need to. Because yours are even more bizarre than Loose Change.

How do you crash a plane full of fuel into 2 twin towers wired for demolition wothout setting of the explosive changes?

Which way did both the twin towers fall down? From the bottom up like if you blew up a building or the top down like it shows up in any footage of the buildings falling?
Holebender

Many types of explosives are very stable and require specific forms of detonation. They would not be set off by a plane crash. And, of course, it is perfectly possible to rig your charges so they explode in sequence from the top down. Those two examples are definitely not adequate to debunk any conspiracy theory.
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
Many types of explosives are very stable and require specific forms of detonation. They would not be set off by a plane crash. And, of course, it is perfectly possible to rig your charges so they explode in sequence from the top down. Those two examples are definitely not adequate to debunk any conspiracy theory.


Without 10000's of people everyday who used the twin towers seeing them over 6 months or more wiring the towers, 100's of people required to wire up the towers and nobody saying anything about being involved, or any evidence being left at the scene?

What about the 10 floors or more which were left in each tower after they collapsed?

Would the extensive fire covering a number of floors not have destroyed the charges, wiring, explosives, and dentonators?
Holebender

As I've already said the time, personnel and materiel required to rig the charges is the strongest argument against the conspiracy theories. The lack of any residual evidence is another although, I suppose, the people who set it up could have cleared up afterwards but, again, it would be a huge exercise.

Aviation fuel doesn't burn at especially high temperatures (one of the compelling arguments against the fire having brought the buildings down) and certain types of explosive hardware could certainly withstand the heat. They use explosives to put out oilwell fires and anything which can withstand a burning well can certainly withstand burning kerosene.
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
As I've already said the time, personnel and materiel required to rig the charges is the strongest argument against the conspiracy theories. The lack of any residual evidence is another although, I suppose, the people who set it up could have cleared up afterwards but, again, it would be a huge exercise.

Aviation fuel doesn't burn at especially high temperatures (one of the compelling arguments against the fire having brought the buildings down) and certain types of explosive hardware could certainly withstand the heat. They use explosives to put out oilwell fires and anything which can withstand a burning well can certainly withstand burning kerosene.


Did you see any of the programmes on National Geo or Channel 4?
Holebender

No. It's not something which greatly interests me. I just know a thing or two about engineering so I can see where things are possible and where they are highly unlikely.
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
No. It's not something which greatly interests me. I just know a thing or two about engineering so I can see where things are possible and where they are highly unlikely.


Ok. The programme pretty much tested out the main conspiracy theories including blowing up a building and taking you through the stages of how it was demolition plus evidence which would remain immediately after. Pretty much what you said on man power and time too.

Plus carried out experiment on various explosives and heat required to weaken the beams to cause the collapse.

It was 4 seperate programmes on 2 different channels all featuring a different aspects to 9/11 and different evidence which would disprove various conspiracy theories.

It's not a subject which greatly interest me tbh. I have caught a few interviews with the Loose Change director over the years on talk radio and that was my reason for watching Loose Change.

As he was featured in one of the programmes I decided to watch it and the experiments which they carried out.
Shagpile

Holebender wrote:
Many types of explosives are very stable and require specific forms of detonation. They would not be set off by a plane crash. And, of course, it is perfectly possible to rig your charges so they explode in sequence from the top down. Those two examples are definitely not adequate to debunk any conspiracy theory.


Absolutely correct Holebender. Which is exactly why we can sleep at night knowing if there's a fire in one of our neuclear bomb dumps. our Nukes will not distroy Europe overnight.

Ultra, conventional explosives detonate a Nuke.   Wink
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
Would the extensive fire covering a number of floors not have destroyed the charges, wiring, explosives, and dentonators?


NO.

If any damage to wiring to charges occurred it would have been negligible.

Why?

Chages were placed around ALL central columns, and failure eg one specific floor would have had no effect; considering all (more or less) floors would have been wired....... safety factor again.  Wink
Shagpile

Holebender wrote:
As I've already said the time, personnel and materiel required to rig the charges is the strongest argument against the conspiracy theories. The lack of any residual evidence is another although, I suppose, the people who set it up could have cleared up afterwards but, again, it would be a huge exercise.


Some food for thought.........

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/great_escape.htm

Now, in a place where prisoners' escape was definately expected..... The Luftwaffe did not detect the dirt from "Tom", "Dick" or "Harry". Who, in the Twin Towers ever expected they'd be blown to dust? Especially as they had "sniffer dogs" to protect them?

Quote:
Aviation fuel doesn't burn at especially high temperatures (one of the compelling arguments against the fire having brought the buildings down) and certain types of explosive hardware could certainly withstand the heat. They use explosives to put out oilwell fires and anything which can withstand a burning well can certainly withstand burning kerosene.


Also an arguament against "how the temperatures" in such an inferno could "vapourise the wreckage" of the 737; which alledgedly, hit the pentagon.
Shagpile

Holebender wrote:
No. It's not something which greatly interests me. I just know a thing or two about engineering so I can see where things are possible and where they are highly unlikely.


I've said as much too.....

Yet, for Ultra.... who seems to think I'm a stupid imbicile.....

Let's do the Pentagon thingy....

At the top of this thread, the post was about how police officers contradicted the official scenario of how the atack took place.

Now, I've talked to pilots who've reported 'bird strikes'. More often than not, they have reported "handling difficulties' with their aircraft post strike.

Birds' weight is concidered in grammes, lamp posts' in kilo's surely!

Factor in thingies like...... "The terrorist pilot's", below average ability to fly a single engined light plane. How an expirienced "multi engine" experienced pilot would have difficulty in flying some ( even impossible) of the manuveres allegedly performed.

Considering things like:

http://www.se-technology.com/wig/html/main.php?open=aero

How he could fly his plane to the target; through "a flock of lampposts"?

There would also have been a series of alarms in the cocpit to distract even an expert (on type) pilot.

Now I know how the "Ship in a Bottle" trick is done...... I do not know how the "737 into the Pentagon" is done through a 10 meter hole?

EXPLAIN, please Ulra?
McDougall

If you want to see the full case for the inside job look here: http://www.honornetwork.com/new_911_investigation.html

Within 3 years all will see the truth, for December 2012 is the date they have set for the big show. If you are still alive then you can eat crow, as they will stave you or make you sick. Probably you will forget all about this time when you could have made a difference, as you will rationalize the insanity that is coming too.

If I'm wrong I will have to humble myself at that time, but I'll still be alive as I have acted on my opinions, for I'm not in this for the chitchat or the grandstanding.

By the way I'm not religious and I have never made a prediction like this before, nor believed in such things. It is not mysticism that has me seeing this coming , but all the news and information is lining up now in a nice little row. That information is for those not domesticated and passive and think themselves bright.

Good luck and hope you live, except for the disinformation actors here who dismiss such info with cries of "you are not part of the majority group who follow fashion like it means something."

Again good luck. For if all these videos linked above don't wake you up nothing will, baring it being to late to do anything or your likely selfish reflex once you do see what is going on so very late in the game.
Shagpile

The videos on your link don't work.
Ultra

Shagpile wrote:
The videos on your link don't work.


It's a conspiracy.
Shagpile

Ultra wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
The videos on your link don't work.


It's a conspiracy.


Laughing   Laughing   Laughing

Don't let your hatred of me fix your perspecties........ you also understand what I post, so why the problem with spelling?

Grow up..... Lassie.
McDougall

Well if you are being blocked go to Utube and watch it directly???

As for the "lassie" comment from Shagpile the Lowlander, if you and I ever met I would dust the floor with you sunshine.  So "poke ma hom."
landg

it was muslim extremists that wot dun it on 9-11.
Shagpile

McDougall wrote:
Well if you are being blocked go to Utube and watch it directly???


Question or instruction?

Quote:
As for the "lassie" comment from Shagpile the Lowlander, if you and I ever met I would dust the floor with you sunshine.  So "poke ma hom."


Have not the faintest idea of what you mean..... care to elaborate? No matter, few of the posts you make are ever supported with your own opinion. If that's the average Mayan for ya, welcome to Scotland.....

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Global Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics