9/11 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

9/11

Harry said:
There is now way buildings such as the twin towers can collapse like a deck of cards.

If they were hit near the bottom then maybe.

If anything it would fall apart piece by piece taking much longer, ie one floor collapse here, another there, one side here another there etc.

It seemed way too orchastrated and there seemed to definately be explosions happening floor by floor as it crumbled.

Too suspicious.


Firstly, if the burning fuel and excessive heat from the explosion didn't melt the beams, then surely the heat would have at least weakened them structurally enough, for them to start to fail mechanically.

Secondly, you have to realise mate, that here we have an aircraft, weighing close to 100-tonne, flying into the building at....what....200-300km/h?
How many buildings are built to survive such an impact, and how many would have survived upright, as long as they did, after such an impact?

Such an impact would have caused dramatic weaknesses on the steel and concrete, still left, trying to hold up the remaining floors (see photo below):

fig1.gif


With so much steel/concrete warped, or totally destroyed, it would have been only a matter of time before whatever left of the structure at the point of impact, would collapse under the weight of the remaining floors above.

The resulting collapse, would have left the building like a concertina, as each floor gave way under the weight/force of the floors above, then the 'pancake' continued all the way to the bottom.

635008.jpg


In fact, there's an excellent webpage here, showing the engineering behind why the building collapsed the way it did.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

even one from the Sydney University:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR/

The principal engineer of metallurgy quoted on this webpage states:

"Only the containment building at a nuclear powerplant is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion".


Again, like I've said previously, if you want to believe the Americans did it, then no evidence will sway you, no matter how factual, scientific, or logical, it is.
 
I'm pretty sure Harry is taking the p!ss here. He is far too smart to believe all that hoky poky stuff he is posting.
 
Aside from all the more technical details for and against (many of which IMO are highly suspicious), you have to ask why anyone planning an attack such as the one on the twin towers would choose to do so at a time of morning when most people that are employed in the buildings were not yet at work.

Is that the sort of timing a 'terrorist' would choose, or the sort of timing a crooked government trying to minimise loss of life while still ensuring *some* were killed, and also ensuring it happened at an easily publicised, maximum shock value time of day.

The timing alone is enough to raise suspicion IMO...let alone the rest.
 
Rayzorwire said:
Aside from all the more technical details for and against (many of which IMO are highly suspicious), you have to ask why anyone planning an attack such as the one on the twin towers would choose to do so at a time of morning when most people that are employed in the buildings were not yet at work.

Is that the sort of timing a 'terrorist' would choose, or the sort of timing a crooked government trying to minimise loss of life while still ensuring *some* were killed, and also ensuring it happened at an easily publicised, maximum shock value time of day.

The timing alone is enough to raise suspicion IMO...let alone the rest.

Geez, not you too Rayzor. Harry losing it was bad enough.
 
Jb - you know you wanna join us.

Or do you still think Saddam had WMD's?

Or that they really can't find Osama?
 
Harry said:
Jb - you know you wanna join us.

Or do you still think Saddam had WMD's?

Or that they really can't find Osama?

But that's the point mate...

Here you are saying that the USA is smart enough, and covert enough, to carry out such an unbelievable lie, which resulted in the death of thousands of its own citizens.....the destruction of two iconic towers, in the heart of one of the busiest cities in the world, using an elaborate and well-planned attack involving 4 airliners..............yet, they can't plant some WMDs in Iraq? or find Osama?
Come on....even I reckon you're taking the *smile* (or on the *smile*!) now! ;)
 
Should've watch "The Cutting Edge" on Tuesday Harry. They could've had Osama a couple of timespre 9/11 but Clinton wouldn't allow the the hit as it was felt too many W & C would be killed.
Was an excellent doco from Canada called "The Path to 9/11".
 
My only post on this thread -

People favouring conspiracy theories around 9/11 seem to forget that terrorists had already made a previous attempt on the WTC in 1993. My guess is that the wankers knew about the structural  integrity of the building.

The first week of September is the first week back from Summer holidays. Good time for terrorists to take advantage of the disorganization.

I went to a fund raiser on Monday for a friend that my wife lost (she was on the 87th floor of the first building hit - if you remember the second hit building collapsed first). Her instructions were to stay where she was.. Minimizing casualties?

I'm no suppporter of W, but to suggest a government conspricacy is dumb. :blah
 
Tigers of Old said:
Harry said:
To beleive what the Govt and media tell you is dumber.

..and where do you get your information Harry? Off the internet? :cutelaugh

same place as you do - except I tend to ignore the media at times.
 
Theories also abound on the internet claiming that Martin Bryant was framed by the Australian government over Port Arthur, including some with apparent scientific foundation and one from a member of the Australian military.

It's fine to have an open mind and to ask questions in pursuit of the truth, but conspiracy theories generally ignore or discount important facts. It's pertinent to realise that propaganda is a weapon of modern warfare and that giving credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories means ceding ground to the enemy.  :blowingup
 
jb03 said:
Geez, not you too Rayzor. Harry losing it was bad enough.

LOL...truth is often stranger than fiction...as I said, I have a hard time believing a terrorist would deliberately plan an attack for a time of day when there'd be only a fraction of the victims that there would have been if it had been done an hour or two later. If the agenda was chaos, destruction of life etc, then why choose a time when the fallout was comparitively minimal?

Don't get me wrong, there's a few quite good points against government involvment...so I wouldn't class myself as convinced of a conspiracy...but there is a heck of a lot that doesn't come close to adding up.

Edit to add:

LTRTR, can't say too much about this publicly, but it's definite Bryant wasn't responsible for all the killings at Pt Arthur...
 
As a friend of mine once said:

“There’s a lot of truth out there, and I don’t believe any of it.” :hihi
 
Pantera, brought this one up 'cos your other thread reminded me that I never answered you about this in the RT thread.

Anyway, yes I believe it is most likely the US government played a very large part in these events.
 
Disco08 said:
Pantera, brought this one up 'cos your other thread reminded me that I never answered you about this in the RT thread.

Anyway, yes I believe it is most likely the US government played a very large part in these events.

There is no doubt in my mind that the CIA contracted aliens to carry out 9/11. No doubt at all.