| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| David Aaronovitch is a lying waste of space, much like yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
he's a wacky crackpot eh?
that settles it then. All this time i've been wasting researching 9/11 and all along i've been a wacky crackpot. *
you win cts
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seriously tho cts.. read that article.
it is trying to say that michael meachers comments were not the whole truth. fair enough. He didn't go into that much detail on the NORAD response....
but it still states that it was 45 mins between the first report of a hijacking being made and the first F16 jets taking off.. and doesn't acknowledge this as unusual. Which it is.
it also throws many insults above such as 'crackpot', 'wacky'. 'looney', 'nut'.. If your arguement against michael meachers opinions is a sound and rational one, there is really no need for this kind of retort. Anyone with an once of common sense would be able to see that the theories Michael Meacher has formed, based on the evidence, are totally understandable, whether you agree with him or not. And are certainly not due to any kind of mental disability.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This Aaronivitch character, wasn't he an apologist for the Iraq misadventure? hardly the most well informed reliable witness, I can't download the link, does he tell us how Bin ladin toppled WTC7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sheriton Hotel asks:
| Quote: | | .....does he tell us how Bin ladin toppled WTC7? |
Bin Ladin did not topple the WT7 building. Neither did Silverstein. Nor explosives.
There is plenty of evidence that WT7 was badly damaged by the collapse of the nearer of the Twin Towers. And, judging by the huge clouds of smoke billowing out at the rear of the building, from all levels of the building, WT7 was burning furiously from a number of fires. The firefighters were expecting the building to collapse and withdrew all firefighters from it an hour and half before it did.
If you do not believe this, then do some research and look it up on the debunking sites I have provided. If you wish, I can give you the links again .
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Banish
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And no prizes for guessing whether he's a roundhead or a cavalier - if you get my drift!
CTS
Show us the evidence that WTC7 was badly damaged.
Listen to how ridiculous this is. At 5 o clock or thereabouts Larry Silverstein decided there was so much loss of life that day that the building should be "pulled".
So in the middle of a national emergency a demolition team was summoned, they then went into the 47 Storey "burning and badly damaged" WTC7 laid the explosives, tested and detonated the building all in a half an hour. A job that would take 6 months!! Bollox.
There was probably a misfire in WTC7, thats why the delay and what the smoke was. It certainly was not a raging inferno, as some ^ claim. It was simply sorted and blown later on. There were NO firemen in WTC7!! Why? Becasue it didnt need firemen and it it was going to be blown up.
And it certainly was not the seismic impact of the other buildings collapsing that weakened WTC7, the only thing that hit the floor in those cases were microscopic particles of dust, which a witness described as "a bag of flour bursting open". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see CTS has went from skeptic to know it all -
"Bin Ladin did not topple the WT7 building. Neither did Silverstein. Nor explosives."
WTC 7: A short computation
Kenneth L. Kuttler
Professor of Mathematics
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
Introduction
I provide a short computation, focused on World Trade Center building 7. Based on very favorable assumptions for achieving a fast fall, including ignoring resistance due to intact steel columns, I could only get
the building to fall in about 8.3 seconds, whereas the observed roof-fall time is approximately 6.5 seconds.
The problem is the large number of floors and conservation of momentum in a collision. Some of the “official”explanations about progressive collapse are evocative but they do not explain the difficulty in the rapid fall ofthe building along with what is evidently taking place when the video of the falling building is observed. --
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/W7Kuttler.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I thought CTS had finally gone away to do some proper research and read DRG "New Pearl Harbour"............NFC!!!!!!!
Pikey,
You're right! Not in a million years! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some friends of mine recently visited Ground Zero. They were surprised at how 'small' the site is, considering the cataclysmic events that took place there. They were also surprised at how far away, relatively from the 2 main Towers, WTC7 had stood. There were other buildings closer to the impacts that could have fallen before WTC7 but didn't. Their conclusion was that WTC7 is the main anomaly in this whole scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If you do not believe this, then do some research and look it up on the debunking sites I have provided. If you wish, I can give you the links again .
CTS |
Why 'debunking'? That seems a strange word for what you appear to believe to be the truth. The fact that you define your theories in terms of opposition to a 'false' theory is revealing.
Surely if they were telling the truth these sites would be called 'Truth' sites. The word 'debunking' gives away the fact that they are fabricated shill sites designed to discredit the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has CTS even looked at footage of building 7 imploding?
Why would a building so damaged at the corner collapse by *crumping* in the middle?
Its desperate stuff, it really is: if it wasnt, the 911 commision would have white-washed it properly
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey wrote:
| Quote: | By the way CTS we are still waiting for you and Sog to respond on this thread:-
|
My reply has been posted on Debunking911myths.com
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: |
My reply has been posted on Debunking911myths.com |
No it hasn't. You have never engaged in any serious detailed argument with anyone who disagrees with the line you promote.
There is no credible explanation for the collapses of the towers other than controlled demolition. Apologists for the official line present wild and highly implausible theories for the initial collapse but have never addressed the simple impossibilty of such massive destruction and energy dissipation taking place WHILE THE TOWERS (1 and 2) WERE IN FREE-FALL.
During free-fall ALL the available gravitational energy is converted into kinetic energy (otherwise it would be falling more slowly). The heat energy (from the burning fuel) stored in the building before collapse was negligeable and can be ignored. As the initial gravitational energy was (according to the official line) the only energy available, there being no explosives in the building, where did the enormous amounts of energy come from that:
1) Cut the massive steel beams in thousands of places.
2) Pulverised hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete to fine dust.
3) Ejected huge 'dreadlock' plumes of dust and steel beams hundreds of feet sideways AND, if you look carefully at the TV footage, upwards.
All this occurred before the building hit the ground, while gravitational was converting solely to kinetic energy. There was little or no energy available that was not being used in accelerating the falling mass. The whole scenario is too ridiculous....Of course huge amounts of energy were needed to smash up the building so it could fall. Where did this energy come from?
Self-powdering aluminium panels?....Is that it? Is that ****ing it?
Where is the response to Stephen Jones finding 'Thermate' (Thermite and Sulphur) on the WTC steel debris? Where is..........oh, forget it.
There are NO sensible answers to these points. There are ONLY LIES from the liars who tell them and the witless creeps like CTS who can only refer people to the desperate nonsense that these liars generate.
The liar is a traitor to his own soul. Pity him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm still waiting to hear back from you after my last PMs CTS.
like i said, i'm up for a rational debate and i consider all sides an arguement when discussing things with people... but you seem to be very focused on one side of the arguement, cts.
and the fact you won't acknoweldge anything about the collapse of the wtc buildings (especially wtc7) as being atleast unusual, makes me think you are quite brainwashed and incapable of independent thinking
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
