|
Post by phunk on Apr 26, 2006 4:10:31 GMT -4
Impressive, you can link to a ct website. Have any thoughts of your own? Your reply to 911: Inside Job sounds like if you are ... Short of arguments Phunk? No, just tired of seeing the same links over and over, especially when they don't include even the slightest bit of commentary. What kind of debate is it if we just throw links at each other?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 26, 2006 5:37:47 GMT -4
No asphyxiated corpses among the rubble-clearers either: H 2S is instantly lethal at 500ppm concentration. Partly what I was getting at. At very small concentrations it is a highly disgusting odor, at higher concentrations it damages tissue including the lungs and is , as you point out, lethal. I have a bit of an interest having managed to nearly gas myself with it once ;D It actually blocks neurotransmitters, so if the concentration rises to above about 100ppm you can't smell it....
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 26, 2006 9:23:18 GMT -4
I generally keep out of 911 threads as I'm not a structural specialist and am comfortable leaving the debunking to those who are. However, this does not stop me from asking questions.
What I never seem to hear from the CT side is any explanation of how their controlled demolition was synchronised with the aircraft. The collapse manifestly started at the floors hit by the aircraft, the same floors where the fires broke out, so were explosives only sited on these floors, or spread through the building and only exploded on those floors? If the former, how easy would it have been for the pilot to pick the right floor to hit while flying at some 600 mph, particularly in view of the fact that the impacts were not exactly aimed at the centres of the towers in the lateral direction? If the latter, how would you prevent unexploded demolition charges and their wiring surviving the collapse and being found?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 26, 2006 9:47:05 GMT -4
Impressive, you can link to a ct website. Have any thoughts of your own? Your reply to 911: Inside Job sounds like if you are ... Short of arguments Phunk? I thought it was a pretty good piece of sarcasm in response to repetitive claims that are backed up by links to a site that is quite obviously pushing a political agenda without any attempt at objectivity. If that site is the best evidence available for a claim that has be argued ad nausium, then at this point in the debate the claim can just be dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Apr 26, 2006 10:30:28 GMT -4
I generally keep out of 911 threads as I'm not a structural specialist and am comfortable leaving the debunking to those who are. However, this does not stop me from asking questions. What I never seem to hear from the CT side is any explanation of how their controlled demolition was synchronised with the aircraft. The collapse manifestly started at the floors hit by the aircraft, the same floors where the fires broke out, so were explosives only sited on these floors, or spread through the building and only exploded on those floors? If the former, how easy would it have been for the pilot to pick the right floor to hit while flying at some 600 mph, particularly in view of the fact that the impacts were not exactly aimed at the centres of the towers in the lateral direction? If the latter, how would you prevent unexploded demolition charges and their wiring surviving the collapse and being found? I've asked the same questions many times, never had an answer. Not only how did they hide the unexploded charges, but how did they get explosives on the impact floor to survive the impact and an hour or two of fire and still go off on demand?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 26, 2006 11:29:36 GMT -4
Much the same with asking for a logical explanation of the Apollo hoax, I wasn't really expecting answers either.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 26, 2006 18:27:43 GMT -4
Partly what I was getting at. At very small concentrations it is a highly disgusting odor, at higher concentrations it damages tissue including the lungs and is , as you point out, lethal. I have a bit of an interest having managed to nearly gas myself with it once ;D It actually blocks neurotransmitters, so if the concentration rises to above about 100ppm you can't smell it.... I did not know that. I only knew it could chemically burn flesh by having watched an underwater docuementary in which the divers swam into a lagoon and the concentration of H2S was very high. The diver that got caught is writhing in pain and trying to swim out of the area. he could not go up too fast as he was too far down and would have suffered the Bends ,so he was trying to find a way out by going back where he came into it.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 26, 2006 18:29:22 GMT -4
I generally keep out of 911 threads as I'm not a structural specialist and am comfortable leaving the debunking to those who are. However, this does not stop me from asking questions. What I never seem to hear from the CT side is any explanation of how their controlled demolition was synchronised with the aircraft. The collapse manifestly started at the floors hit by the aircraft, the same floors where the fires broke out, so were explosives only sited on these floors, or spread through the building and only exploded on those floors? If the former, how easy would it have been for the pilot to pick the right floor to hit while flying at some 600 mph, particularly in view of the fact that the impacts were not exactly aimed at the centres of the towers in the lateral direction? If the latter, how would you prevent unexploded demolition charges and their wiring surviving the collapse and being found? I've asked the same questions many times, never had an answer. Not only how did they hide the unexploded charges, but how did they get explosives on the impact floor to survive the impact and an hour or two of fire and still go off on demand? I've asked this same question many times before as well and never get a satisfactory answer either.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 26, 2006 22:38:39 GMT -4
I generally keep out of 911 threads as I'm not a structural specialist and am comfortable leaving the debunking to those who are. However, this does not stop me from asking questions. What I never seem to hear from the CT side is any explanation of how their controlled demolition was synchronised with the aircraft. The collapse manifestly started at the floors hit by the aircraft, the same floors where the fires broke out, so were explosives only sited on these floors, or spread through the building and only exploded on those floors? If the former, how easy would it have been for the pilot to pick the right floor to hit while flying at some 600 mph, particularly in view of the fact that the impacts were not exactly aimed at the centres of the towers in the lateral direction? If the latter, how would you prevent unexploded demolition charges and their wiring surviving the collapse and being found? I've asked the same questions many times, never had an answer. Not only how did they hide the unexploded charges, but how did they get explosives on the impact floor to survive the impact and an hour or two of fire and still go off on demand? See my posts explaining the sequence of assisted demolition using thermobaric bombs and thermite on 911 for the heck of it. If you want continue the discussion there. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1116367890&page=109
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 27, 2006 3:09:40 GMT -4
I've asked the same questions many times, never had an answer. Not only how did they hide the unexploded charges, but how did they get explosives on the impact floor to survive the impact and an hour or two of fire and still go off on demand? See my posts explaining the sequence of assisted demolition using thermobaric bombs and thermite on 911 for the heck of it. If you want continue the discussion there. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1116367890&page=109I've seen your posts. What I didn't see was answers to phunk's and my questions.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Apr 27, 2006 15:35:35 GMT -4
Your reply to 911: Inside Job sounds like if you are ... Short of arguments Phunk? No, just tired of seeing the same links over and over, especially when they don't include even the slightest bit of commentary. What kind of debate is it if we just throw links at each other? I already gave my comments in the previous posts. The information found at those links addresses many of the arguments that were raised. There are multiple references in that article to observed molten steel in the core, not just one as was suggested. Try reading the article more carefully, strenat. There's really no point in arguing the facts here. Every documented news report that contradicts the official story is dismissed as being from a biased source, as if the 9-11 Commission didn't have a bias of its own. Yes, everybody has a bias. That doesn't automatically invalidate the information presented. Don't pretend that only CTs are biased. The official story is also a CT. What I never seem to hear from the CT side is any explanation of how their controlled demolition was synchronised with the aircraftThe C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center. The odds are good that the operation was run from this building. It was mysteriously (and conveniently) demolished at the end of the day to cover their tracks. Anyone who thinks that building was brought down by a couple of fires, is naive, to put it charitably. It's the smoking gun equivalent to Ruby shooting Oswald "to spare the country". The large amount of pulverized concrete (it was getting pulverized and expelled even before the top had started to fall significantly) and high-rising dust that emanated from the collapses is highly indicative of high-energy controlled demolition, not of a structural failure and gravitational collapse caused by fire.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 27, 2006 16:49:16 GMT -4
Inside Job, how do you explain the fact that Al Qaeda admits to 9-11 and the fact that their supporters are proud of it?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 27, 2006 17:03:16 GMT -4
Read the Jones Report article. Then compare this google video of the south tower collapse with this youtube video showing what a thermite reaction looks like. This would explain the sitings of molten steel in the remains of each building's footprint. So would jet fuel, I think. Don't you?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 27, 2006 18:57:32 GMT -4
I have a bit of an interest having managed to nearly gas myself with it once ;D It actually blocks neurotransmitters, so if the concentration rises to above about 100ppm you can't smell it.... I did not know that. I only knew it could chemically burn flesh by having watched an underwater docuementary in which the divers swam into a lagoon and the concentration of H2S was very high. The diver that got caught is writhing in pain and trying to swim out of the area. he could not go up too fast as he was too far down and would have suffered the Bends ,so he was trying to find a way out by going back where he came into it. Yes, I believe it forms quote a nasty acid dissolved in water. That doesn't really get to be a problem when it's free in the atmosphere though ;D
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on May 3, 2006 21:33:56 GMT -4
Inside Job, how do you explain the fact that Al Qaeda admits to 9-11 and the fact that their supporters are proud of it?As Alex Jones and others have documented well, " Al CIA-da" is run by U.S., British, and Israeli intelligence agencies. All of the alleged 9-11 hijackers were being "handled" by FBI agents before the attacks. How else do you think they got that list together so fast? Osama Bin Laden is (or was, since he's probably dead) a CIA asset ( well documented fact, not opinion), not that I think he had much to do with the attacks other than take the blame for them. So would jet fuel, I think. Don't you?No, the jet fuel couldn't burn long or hot enough to even soften structural steel. The Madrid Windsor inferno shows how long a building can withstand 800 C temperatures without collapsing (18 hours). It still had to be manually dismantled. To those who ask how explosives could have been planted prior to 9-11, maybe Marvin Bush knows.
|
|