Conspiracy Theories (NWS)

[Wilson]

Watch This verhead: verhead: verhead:

U have to watch this...Very convincing!!


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0&feature=related

 

[Wilson]

http://www.mpri.com/main/internationalgroup.html

These guys...They can provide security at Blue Tongue

 

[Bex]

Watch This verhead: verhead: verhead:

U have to watch this...Very convincing!!


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0&feature=related

No, not convincing at all actually.

Its a practical thing to allow for an aeroplane or two to hit a building the size of the WTC. The shear size of the building gives it an inherent stability and, with the height of the building and the need to protect against earthquakes, the job of protecting against an aeroplane strike would be virtually accomplished without too much effort at all.

By contrast, extinguishing a fire created by approximately 100,000 litres of jet fuel spread over several floors that are a couple of hundred metres above ground level is a completely different kettle of fish. A deluge system would be needed AND it would need to be designed to work after being struck by an aircraft - virtually nothing could survive such a hit on the floors that were hit, so you would asking the system to work from several floors away. How would you do that? Either release a deluge of thousands of litres of water or use a oxygen ommitting gas system. Both systems would likely kill many more people than it saves at the time it was activated.

I guess its fair criticism to say that such a deluge system may have prevented the building from falling. At the same time, you could criticise some football stadium designers for collapses. You could also criticise the design of the leaning tower of Piza. Note that these are all criticisms made after the event. How many buildings do you think include such compromises in their designs? How well do you think Sydney Tower would handle an aircraft impact? Or any of the buildings in Sydney for that matter. I suspect you may not want to know the answer.

 

[Wilson]

Watch This verhead: verhead: verhead:

U have to watch this...Very convincing!!


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0&feature=related

No, not convincing at all actually.

Its a practical thing to allow for an aeroplane or two to hit a building the size of the WTC. The shear size of the building gives it an inherent stability and, with the height of the building and the need to protect against earthquakes, the job of protecting against an aeroplane strike would be virtually accomplished without too much effort at all.

By contrast, extinguishing a fire created by approximately 100,000 litres of jet fuel spread over several floors that are a couple of hundred metres above ground level is a completely different kettle of fish. A deluge system would be needed AND it would need to be designed to work after being struck by an aircraft - virtually nothing could survive such a hit on the floors that were hit, so you would asking the system to work from several floors away. How would you do that? Either release a deluge of thousands of litres of water or use a oxygen ommitting gas system. Both systems would likely kill many more people than it saves at the time it was activated.

I guess its fair criticism to say that such a deluge system may have prevented the building from falling. At the same time, you criticise manner football stadium designers for collapses. You could criticise the design of the leaning tower of Piza. Note that these are all after the event. How well do you think Sydney Tower would handle an aircraft impact? Or any of the buildings in Sydney for that matter. I suspect you may not want to know the answer.

Did you not watch it..They said that it was designed to withstand multiple impacts

I ask you again did you watch it,,there are twelve videos..

Did you watch it when they described the structure of the building and how it was made
Did you see how the fireman and the building supervisor said they heard and felt explosions from below them
Did you see how they found the chemicals that are used in thermate!! a military made explosive thatt can melt steel in seconds

These guys are experts in their fields with no motivation other than the truth

And if the buildings  in Sydney were hit they would Probably fall on their own foot print hey they did on 9-11....Your argument is flawed because wtc 7 fell down and it did not get hit by a plane..Check out this pic it shows the tower starting to lean and fall but miraculously it falls down on its self at free fall speed...
Look at this photo and explain how the weight of the fall can suddenly change when the steel strusture below it had not been comprimised because even jet fuel is does not burn hot enough to melt or soften steel..

 

[Bex]

I watched the single 10 minute video that you provided the link for above, that said below it "U have to watch this...... very convincing". Hence my reply, "not convincing".

 

[Wilson]

I watched the single 10 minute video that you provided the link for above, that said below it "U have to watch this...... very convincing". Hence my reply, "not convincing".

What about the pic i just showed you...The first 10 mins is just an intro

 

[Bex]

Did you watch it when they described the structure of the building and how it was made

No, but I have seen a documentary that does describe it.

Did you see how the fireman and the building supervisor said they heard and felt explosions from below them

No, but I've been involved in root cause investigations for 15 years of my professional career and I know that its very common for witnesses to read their own agenda or opinion into every situation, even when they have very little understanding of a problem.

Did you see how they found the chemicals that are used in thermate!! a military made explosive thatt can melt steel in seconds

These guys are experts in their fields with no motivation other than the truth

Yeh, of course we believe everyone who is supporting the conspiracy theory without question.

And if the buildings  in Sydney were hit they would Probably fall on their own foot print hey they did on 9-11....Your argument is flawed because wtc 7 fell down and it did not get hit by a plane..Check out this pic it shows the tower starting to lean and fall but miraculously it falls down on its self at free fall speed...
Look at this photo and explain how the weight of the fall can suddenly change when the steel strusture below it had not been comprimised because even jet fuel is does not burn hot enough to melt or soften steel..

Gravity acts directly toward the ground. A house of cards falls straight to the ground. Granted, its not the WTC, but it shows that its the naturally tendency to fall directly downwards. The only mechanism causing buildings, trees, etc to fall over sideways is the inherent column strength in the supports. The unbalalanced forces of whatever causes the failure instigate sideways motion. But those types of buildings focus on supporting the weight throughout the centre of the building. In the case of the WTC, much of the structural support was through the outer concrete columnar skin. The fires were responsible for the damage that caused the collaps. Its clear from the footage that the fires were spread right around the floors affected and not just one side. Its quite feasible that the outer columnar skin could straighten up the building as it starts to fall sideways because thats where most of the restistance to the fall would be focused.

 

[Bex]

I watched the single 10 minute video that you provided the link for above, that said below it "U have to watch this...... very convincing". Hence my reply, "not convincing".

What about the pic i just showed you...The first 10 mins is just an intro

As I said, I'm not investing time watching conspiracy theory videos. I've never seen one of these videos that proves what it sets out to prove without employing wild speculation, here-say and, most of the time, very questionable science. So far, both of the videos I have looked at in this thread are the same so I expect the others won't be any different.

 

[Wilson]

What about my pic

 

[Bex]

Yeh, saw it.

Bored with this.

k bye

 

[Wilson]

Yeh, saw it.

Bored with this.

k bye

Good get off..Got you!!

 

[Bex]

LOL

 

[Ted]

I have watched all the vids (parts 1 to 10), thanks for the link mate.

 

[Wilson]

I have watched all the vids (parts 1 to 10), thanks for the link mate.

And what did you think??

and look at the above pic++ i posted

 

[Ted]

They just confirm what I already think and yes, I looked at the pdf.

 

[loyalist]

simpsons did it

 

[Bex]

And Nelson said "haa haaaa"

 

[Bear]

i like devon

If you get a round piece of devon, cut a piece of plastic wraped cheese in a circle and place in the centre of the devon, then put the devon in the microwave for 30 seconds on medium, the sides of the devon fold up and create a "boat" with melted cheese in the middle. Add tomato sauce, perfect snack

 

[Bex]

I'll be sure to give that a try bear.

I like to drizzle a line of tomato sauce across the devon and roll it up. Its like a devon and tomato sauce cigar. If you've got some leftover mashed potato you can put that in with the tomato sauce.

Fine cuisine indeed.

 

[Bear]

If you've got some leftover mashed potato you can put that in with the tomato sauce.

OOOHHHHHHHHH good 1, ill try that fo sho