Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

event horizon wrote:
Are you saying that in a twenty four hour period, agents managed to rig a skyscraper to implode, conceal all the detonator cords, drill the thousands of holes in the walls to plant the thousands of explosives and patch and clean everything up the next day?

It not necessarily had to be done within a 24 hour period , it could have been planned well in advance, If you have worked in a tall building, you always see maintenance people going in and out and doing "something" , are you or anybody for that matter , aware of every single thing that goes on ? NO? Because its not in their job description.

THe entire placement of all the detonators either via cords or remotely controlled could have been done in the most elegant way with perfect aesthetic sense.

Hey EH - answer my question

Also if that looks like a plain crash to you you should check out others on the net to see what they really look like.

Also again with the wheres the flight 77. Where is Osama bin Laden or WMD? Thats not really the point here or why it wasn't a plane - might be many reasons but I dunno all I can say is that its highly unlikely it was a plane.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:47 pm --

Sry missed your respose earlier.
So they looked like demolitions to you - does that strike you as odd? I mean would you expect that when a buidling ravaged by fire falls over?

THe entire placement of all the detonators either via cords or remotely controlled could have been done in the most elegant way with perfect aesthetic sense.

I don't know about that or maybe I misunderstood your post.

You actually have to do intensive work that can't be covered up without anyone noticing:

http://www.phillyblast.com/HollanderRidge/hrt-prep.htm

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329#

Silverstein admitting he issued the order to demolish WTC7. How could they have been ready for a full demolition? Doesn't it take months to demolish a building?

event horizon wrote:You actually have to do intensive work that can't be covered up without anyone noticing:

Let me put to you this way, do you think buildings were people work dont have jobs done all the time ? When they do the jobs , the whole office doesnt shut down, people carry on not knowing what the construction and maintenance people are up to

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

haha , you underestimate technology my friend, you have remote controlled spy planes , that travel 100's of km, if you are wondering about their radio frequency at which the controls work, it truly is amazing

Anyways, do remote controlled detonators even exist for explosives used in buildings?

I think the Pentagon, being so many years ahead of the world, can probably muster up a wireless detonation.

EH

So they looked like demolitions to you - does that strike you as odd? I mean would you expect a building ravaged by fire to fall over like that?

Wireless denotars are common...they are used by the military all the time. Don't you watch any war movies!

Let me put to you this way, do you think buildings were people work dont have jobs done all the time ? When they do the jobs , the whole office doesnt shut down, people carry on not knowing what the construction and maintenance people are up to

Oh come on, they have to use jackhammers/drills (or whatever) to drill holes in the concrete and acetylene torches to cut through the steel beams.

Just watch an NGC program on the 9/11 conspiracy theories where they placed over one hundred pounds of thermite around a steel beam and even then it didn't come close to melting through - they also needed to construct a little contraption around the steel beams to hold the thermite.

So what do you have to say about Silverstein's confession?

EH - please respond to my question.

And if you watch that, they themselves said that the experiment was a failure as the "tank" that was suppose to hold the thermite leaked and only a very little quantity of it actualy got to the beam. Thermite is used in construction to "weld" metal beams toghter and very capable of melting steel.

I've even read the popular mechanics article. Nothing solid even there.

event horizon wrote:Oh come on, they have to use jackhammers/drills (or whatever) to drill holes in the concrete and acetylene torches to cut through the steel beams.

Do you work in construction ? Building maintenance services ? You are making baseless assumptions

event horizon wrote:

to cut through the steel beams.

The steel beams were cut...

I think it only fair that if questions are asked they aren't avoided.

Whilst I'm still agnostic, I have to say - the fanbois are on the back foot at the moment - they have more questions about holes in their theory than the opposition do. Just my observation.

I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for the dynamic duo, I may jump in and help them out - at least they are only hinting at ad hominem attacks for now... (a common smoke and mirrors tactic is to allude that opponents are nazi like or anti-US govt) - I trust the discussion will remain civil and focus on questions and answers about the events and evidence.

Consider this a gentle mod warning against ad hominem attack guys (for once, I'm not actively taking part in the discussion, so I will use my Mod powers to delete future personal attacks - and other Mods can edit my posts if I do the same).

So - I believe that questions need answering...


Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Anyways, I'm impressed how much confidence you have in our secret agent guys. A 30 story skyscraper took 4 months to rig up for demolition but three of the largest skyscrapers in the world was done over the weekend (without anyone even noticing all the detonation cords and holes drilled in the walls and support columns).

No kidding. And some here are saying that there is no way the terrorists could have learned how to fly those planes properly after months of pilot training, but the government can send in a hundred invisible demolition experts to rig many tower blocks with explosives in a weekend without anyone seeing anything suspicious.

I've read some things about 9/11, but I get immediately turned off by some of the conspiracy arguments because they seem so far fetched. If the US wanted an excuse to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan they had reason - the previous bombings of embassies by Al Qaeda. If they wanted an excuse to attack Iraq, they could come up with "proof" of weapons of mass destruction on the ground in Iraq - who would know in the rest of the world? Why plan an elaborate attack on US soil that has so many factors to it and leaves behind tons of forensic evidence that people could prove it was not a terrorist attack but an attack carried out by the US government. So many people had access to ground zero, there were tons of witnesses, passengers on planes calling to loved ones from their phones etc.

The documentary I saw was very thorough at explaining how the towers fell, and it featured many experts.

kanelli wrote:Why plan an elaborate attack on US soil that has so many factors to it and leaves behind tons of forensic evidence that people could prove it was not a terrorist attack but an attack carried out by the US government.

How else would the government justify spending billions on another war budget ? The bill has to go through congress , the reason for staging the incident locally is the perfect excuse to rally up public support, which benefited the bushy administration and helped passing controversial laws that clearly violated the first amendment.

The government is in massive debt from these wars, is that supposed to be in the best interest of the US population? Lots of small attacks with few to no casualties would have been as effective at scaring the population into accepting controversial laws that clearly violate the first amendment.

kanelli wrote:The government is in massive debt from these wars, is that supposed to be in the best interest of the US population?

good question, and so it is one of the reasons , why the bush administration has been severely criticized

Lots of small attacks with few to no casualties would have been as effective at scaring the population into accepting controversial laws that clearly violate the first amendment.

Indeed, they're were ulterior motives to staging the incident, couldnt agree with you more !

Why is no one answering any questions? If we're so wrong to assume it was a conspiracy, then please, enlighten us.

1.Why are the steel beams cut at a 45 angle?
2.If there was no demolition set up, how could Silverstein issue the order to "pull" the building and it being successfully pulled the same afternoon of 9/11

Please, someone give me a plausible explanation. You say it needs months of planning to demolish a building, but if the WTC towers weren't pre-rigged, then how could a demolition have been set up in a few hours? Explain this to me, please.

Sorry zubber, I don't agree with you at all. I was saying that the US government could have done many smaller attacks with fewer casualties, fewer witnesses and in more controlled environments to clean up any forensic evidence that could tip people off. It makes no sense to plan such a complicated large attack with so many casualties, variables, witnesses, evidence etc. I don't buy that the government was behind anything other than bungled communication about intelligence info on these attacks by Al Qaeda terrorists.

(Wow, I wonder which CIA agents who could pass as Middle Eastern looking were ready to volunteer themselves to train as pilots to commit suicide for this big government mission to instigate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and clamp down on the rights and freedoms of the American public. I bet they had tons of volunteers lined up for that!)

-- Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:24 am --

Icenic wrote:Why is no one answering any questions? If we're so wrong to assume it was a conspiracy, then please, enlighten us.

1.Why are the steel beams cut at a 45 angle?
2.If there was no demolition set up, how could Silverstein issue the order to "pull" the building and it being successfully pulled the same afternoon of 9/11

Please, someone give me a plausible explanation. You say it needs months of planning to demolish a building, but if the WTC towers weren't pre-rigged, then how could a demolition have been set up in a few hours? Explain this to me, please.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Why is no one answering any questions? If we're so wrong to assume it was a conspiracy, then please, enlighten us.

No point in slaying the dead?

1.Why are the steel beams cut at a 45 angle?

Because it's easier to remove debris that way?

2.If there was no demolition set up, how could Silverstein issue the order to "pull" the building and it being successfully pulled the same afternoon of 9/11

Because he was more worried about the lives of the firefighters to whom he was referring to when he told the fire chief to go ahead and pull his men out from building 7?

then how could a demolition have been set up in a few hours? Explain this to me, please.

I've never claimed that a demolition was set up in a few hours. I'm saying that in order to rig the twin towers, you would need months of time.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Go back a few posts man. Read that past couple of pages.

Because it's easier to remove debris that way?

So they happen to be cut at 45 degree angles, and at the same height? Seriously?

Because he was more worried about the lives of the firefighters to whom he was referring to when he told the fire chief to go ahead and pull his men out from building 7?

Pull the building not the firemen.

I've never claimed that a demolition was set up in a few hours. I'm saying that in order to rig the twin towers, you would need months of time

I'm referring to the fact the WTC7 was demolished, as admitted by Silverstein. My question is that how could it have been demolished if it wasn't previously set up to be demolished?


Look at the way all WTC1,2 and 7 collapsed. They did so in the same manner. A manner which is the exact replica of a typical building demolition. 3 building fell in the same manner. How is that possible? They were hit at different location, and one wasn't even hit at all.

Fine, let's say WTC7 did collapse due to fire and debris. How did it fall in the same exact manner then? I mean come on, this is logic. Buildings do not collapse vertically when hit by a plane. A fire burning for a few hours WILL NOT result in the building falling in a demolition-like manner.

And I still have no replies or comments on any of the videos. Are you afraid to watch them?

I get around to watching conspiracy theory videos when I'm bored enough.

kanelli wrote: It makes no sense to plan such a complicated large attack with so many casualties, variables, witnesses, evidence etc. I don't buy that the government was behind anything other than bungled communication about intelligence info on these attacks by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Rallying public support could not have been done, with a smaller incident , that could be easily cleaned up. The incident had to be horrific enough to get everybody involved in it in whatever way possible, obviously it has worked, look at this thread we are on, the tonnes of movies made on this , it was a publicity masterpiece, not only that it also invites layers of interpretation , from a all walks to life.

All of this could not have been achieved if it was just one small building somewhere with a 20 or 30 casualties.

kanelli wrote:I get around to watching conspiracy theory videos when I'm bored enough.

Well you are taking part in a debate about a specific conspiracy theory, and if you are not willing to examine the information we provide to back up our statements, then you shouldn't be part of this debate.

You are right, I can't be arsed to look at your propaganda. Besides, I don't think anyone could present any info that would change your mind anyway.

I can't be arsed to look at your propaganda.

Oh and Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all those networks are completely unbiased and include no propaganda whatsoever? The US government is infamous for the spreading of propaganda, but in the case of 9/11 they are telling the truth right? That is why they have so many 9/11-related documents locked up and disclosed.

"If there is a lie, and someone covers up that lie, then they are part of the lie."

I don't think anyone could present any info that would change your mind anyway.

There's the bias right. If you don't want to accept that your thoughts may be wrong, then you will never change your mind, of course. As I said before, I am willing to have my mind changed, but no one thus far has provided enough proof for me to do so.

zubber wrote:Rallying public support could not have been done, with a smaller incident , that could be easily cleaned up. The incident had to be horrific enough to get everybody involved in it in whatever way possible, obviously it has worked, look at this thread we are on, the tonnes of movies made on this , it was a publicity masterpiece, not only that it also invites layers of interpretation , from a all walks to life.

All of this could not have been achieved if it was just one small building somewhere with a 20 or 30 casualties.

Yes, much like Barry the British Jihadists’ plan to bomb a mosque and ‘radicalise the moderates’ into uprising, in the film ‘Four Lions’.

I can just see the characters in the film contributing to the content of this thread and other conspiracy threads like it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk2TojOd-4

A brief synopsys;

Four men have a secret plan. Omar is disillusioned about the treatment of Muslims around the world and is determined to become a soldier. This is the most exciting idea Waj has ever heard. Better still it's a no brainer because Omar does his thinking for him. Opposed to Omar and everyone else on earth is the white Islamic convert Barry. He'd realize he joined the cell to channel his nihilism - If he had half the self knowledge of a duck. Faisal is the odd man out. He can make a bomb - but he can't blow himself up just now coz his sick dad has "started eating newspaper". Instead he's training crows to fly bombs through windows. This is what Omar has to deal with. They must strike a decisive blow on their own turf but can any of them strike a match without punching himself in the face?

Courtesy IMDB

^You mean 'Four Lions' wasn't a documentary

LOL

Cheers,
Shafique

Dillon wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk2TojOd-4

hahha LMAO !, I am definitely going to watch this