Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter clarky003
- Start date
clarky003
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,123
- Reaction score
- 1
The whole point of the thread on my part is putting the opposing theory forward, because there isnt anything to add to the origional it has already been 'explained', its already been accepted by the masses.
I havnt stated anywhere that im arguing to make a specific point, my views are based on whats infront of me, only that the video capture suggest's demolition as a more likely explaination for the behaviour of all 3 building's observed, in context to historical reference and demolition behaviour characteristic's, that coupled with the complete lack of key evidence to support the origional theory, and certain known lie's / misinformation from top official's that has been propagated before after the event leading to war in Iraq.
I havnt stated anywhere that im arguing to make a specific point, my views are based on whats infront of me, only that the video capture suggest's demolition as a more likely explaination for the behaviour of all 3 building's observed, in context to historical reference and demolition behaviour characteristic's, that coupled with the complete lack of key evidence to support the origional theory, and certain known lie's / misinformation from top official's that has been propagated before after the event leading to war in Iraq.
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
Angry Lawyer
Newbie
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 6,868
- Reaction score
- 1
Physics professors aren't infalliable, you know. Don't you remember all the hubbub about cold fusion? That was physicists talking out of their asses.
Notice how other physicists haven't spoken up to defend him. Science requires objective analysis and *agreement*.
-Angry Lawyer
Notice how other physicists haven't spoken up to defend him. Science requires objective analysis and *agreement*.
-Angry Lawyer
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
No.clarky003 said:
Photographs!
http://www.stargods.org/ClintonShapeShift.htm
http://www.stargods.org/GoreShapeShifted.htm
My media is analyzed in far more depth. It is better than anything you have posted full stop.
You clearly subscribe to the explosive demolition theory with religious commitment even though that theory's complete abundance of missing evidence doesnt seem to bother you. Lack of explosives, lack of motive, lack of sound files, lack of etc.
My video footage shows the alien space orbs which fired the beam-melting lasers. What do you have outside of a wall that slopes inwards?
I am a fool for simply putting forwards an alternate theory to your unsupported one *sarcasm* *sarcasm* *sarcasm*.
So do us ALL a favor and stop trying to derail my thread into the crazyhouse!
The whole point of the thread, on my part, is putting the opposing theory forward - because there isnt anything to add to your crazyhouse that hasn't been accounted for. It has already been 'explained' and it has already been accepted by the asses.
I have stated everywhere that im arguing to make a specific point, and am upfront about it. My views are also based on things that are in front of me, and apparently that's all that is required to make them valid, even if what is in front of me is unverifiable and questionable to the max.
I have pointed out a complete lack of explosives evidence and fully documented reports of reptilian influence /misinformation from top reptilian officials from well before 2001.
I AM BEING COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE AND MERELY REACHING A CONCLUSION THAT IS BASED ON MY OPINION AND ALSO INTERNET.
Point for point, crap for crap.
My evidence of a reptillian conspiracy is far more solid.
baxter
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 0
Pauly said:
Charles Clifton, structural engineer at the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association,
believes 'the impact damage, not the severity of the fire was the principal cause of the ultimate collapse'. This view is shared
by Gregory Fenves, professor of civil engineering at the University of California.
However, Eduardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes that fire was primarily responsible.
So does Robert McNamara, president of the US structural engineering firm, McNamara and Salvia.
But Oral Buyukozturk, another professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT and Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated, suspect a combination of both factors caused the towers to fall.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/engineering/news_towers.htm
Dr Andy Davids is one of a handful of people who designs the world's tallest buildings. He's a structural engineer and a friend of Les Robertson who engineered the world trade centre.
Dr Andy Davids: You can see clearly on the footage that that top 25 stories moves almost as a rigid object a single block - it rotates over quite a long way - actually several meters - and drops as a single object. The mass of debris just keeps feeding on itself as it drives down the building and the building just basically unzips.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s369520.htm
Seismologist at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam.
There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
I could go on and on …….. But won’t
Your whole theory and ideals is based on a single principle, discrediting and showing the rest of us “peons” how the American Government masterminded the most unspeakable act ever…. Mass murder of their own citizens.
You have failed at every opportunity to back up these claims, but simply relied on ludicrous claims from ludicrous websites
You have failed to address the expert opinions put forward.
You have failed to answer testimony from ground level.
You have failed to answer the simple question on WTC 7
And therein lays the beauty of the conspiracy theory. Unlike common sense and scientifically proven theories, conspiracies rely solely on people refusing to believe them , they feed off this negative feed back and simply comeback with even more ludicrous and eye catching headlines.
THE THUTH THEY HIDE FROM US.
WHAT ARE THEY HIDDING?
THEY KNEW ALL ALONE.
These eye catching headlines sucker the gullible and stupid even further into believing, “hey there must be something going on”… after all a Professor of physics says so.
You live in this make believe world , whereby you see something that the rest us missed and we are all so stupid that , thank heaven of guys likes you , who can point out our stupidity and correct us.
All you have to do is answer these questions and I will accept my role as a stupid, misguided peon and go away to join the rest of the sad misguided idiots out here
Who planted these bombs?
When?
Who authorised it?
When?
How did they get these explosives in?
Why?
Who supplied them?
Who set them off?
Stop hiding behind your conspiracy websites and add some to credibility to your thoughts.
…..still waiting for those audio files of WTC 7.
Who planted the bombs? Several engineers had free reign of the building while it was in power-down to upgrade bandwitdh for the whole building.
When? and how they got in... According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.
Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.
Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
Forbes didn’t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, “I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.”
Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place. Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for “security reasons.” Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA’s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino. (Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)
Who authorised it? President Bush's brother Marvin.
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.
source http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-02/articles/10292-1.html
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.
As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter] http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html cached version
Marvin bush was also in NYC on 9-11.
When? when was it authorized? I am not sure when the bombs were authorized to be placed. But they were placed september 8th-9th.
Why? Why did they do it? / who it benefitted...
Halliburton. Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton.
Direct quotation from 911phyics
How do Halliburton benefit from 9/11 and other "Terrorist" attacks?
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top U.S. Army procurement official said on Monday Halliburton's deals in
Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as
Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm."
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.
Her blistering criticism came as the Democrats released a new report including Pentagon audits that identified more than $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050627...lXzNgSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has signed on Halliburton (NYSE:HAL - news) to do nearly $5 billion in new work in
Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the Texas-based firm $9.1 billion, the Army said on Wednesday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_halliburton_dc
"Also on Friday afternoon, the Pentagon announced that Halliburton had won the bidding for a new $1.2 billion contract to rebuild oil infrastructure in southern Iraq, leading Democrats to protest."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/16/news/companies/halliburton/
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. unit will build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States is holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects, the Defense Department announced on Thursday."
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuo...tfh06332_2005-06-16_23-14-13_n16610208_newsml
WASHINGTON, July 25 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying out Pentagon contracts, experienced a 284 percent increase in operating profits during the second quarter of this year.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html
2.) The Carlyle Group. Defense contractor. George W. Bush works for this group.
3.) People will do anything when they are scared.
Hitler knew this... he got people's support for attacking the Russians by blaming the Reichstag fire on them. Hitler kept this under wraps by grasping the media and getting the media to spread propaganda.
4.) Two words. "Mission Accomplished" ? Ok bush we accomblished are doing iin Iraq by finding there are no WMDs, and why havent we begun recalling our troops? Oil is a very profitable buisness you know?
5.) Larry Silverstein took out world record insurancy policies on all the WTC buildings, and how many are left standing? The hilton was a lot closer to the WTC 1,2 while wtc 7 was much farther way. THe only other difference is that Larry silverstein does not own the Hilton.
All of Larry silversteins buildings collapsed.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=79&contentid=267&page=2
Link to a huge list of those companies benefited from the vicious attacks of september the 11th.
Who supplied them? Not sure... but I know Controlled Demolitions Inc. cleaned up after the attack. The scraps of metal that easily fit trucks and vaporized steel dust made it an easy clean up than expected.
Who set them off? The individual who flipped the switch, or "Pulled it" ?
I don't know. WTC7 had a bunker built in the middle of it that had bullet proof glass. thats as close as I can think as to who set them off.
When? and how they got in... According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.
Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.
Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
Forbes didn’t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, “I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.”
Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place. Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for “security reasons.” Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA’s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino. (Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)
Who authorised it? President Bush's brother Marvin.
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.
source http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-02/articles/10292-1.html
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.
As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter] http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html cached version
Marvin bush was also in NYC on 9-11.
When? when was it authorized? I am not sure when the bombs were authorized to be placed. But they were placed september 8th-9th.
Why? Why did they do it? / who it benefitted...
Halliburton. Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton.
Direct quotation from 911phyics
How do Halliburton benefit from 9/11 and other "Terrorist" attacks?
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top U.S. Army procurement official said on Monday Halliburton's deals in
Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as
Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm."
"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.
Her blistering criticism came as the Democrats released a new report including Pentagon audits that identified more than $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050627...lXzNgSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has signed on Halliburton (NYSE:HAL - news) to do nearly $5 billion in new work in
Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the Texas-based firm $9.1 billion, the Army said on Wednesday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_halliburton_dc
"Also on Friday afternoon, the Pentagon announced that Halliburton had won the bidding for a new $1.2 billion contract to rebuild oil infrastructure in southern Iraq, leading Democrats to protest."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/16/news/companies/halliburton/
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. unit will build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States is holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects, the Defense Department announced on Thursday."
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuo...tfh06332_2005-06-16_23-14-13_n16610208_newsml
WASHINGTON, July 25 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Halliburton announced on Friday that its KBR division, responsible for carrying out Pentagon contracts, experienced a 284 percent increase in operating profits during the second quarter of this year.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html
2.) The Carlyle Group. Defense contractor. George W. Bush works for this group.
3.) People will do anything when they are scared.
Hitler knew this... he got people's support for attacking the Russians by blaming the Reichstag fire on them. Hitler kept this under wraps by grasping the media and getting the media to spread propaganda.
4.) Two words. "Mission Accomplished" ? Ok bush we accomblished are doing iin Iraq by finding there are no WMDs, and why havent we begun recalling our troops? Oil is a very profitable buisness you know?
5.) Larry Silverstein took out world record insurancy policies on all the WTC buildings, and how many are left standing? The hilton was a lot closer to the WTC 1,2 while wtc 7 was much farther way. THe only other difference is that Larry silverstein does not own the Hilton.
All of Larry silversteins buildings collapsed.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=79&contentid=267&page=2
Link to a huge list of those companies benefited from the vicious attacks of september the 11th.
Who supplied them? Not sure... but I know Controlled Demolitions Inc. cleaned up after the attack. The scraps of metal that easily fit trucks and vaporized steel dust made it an easy clean up than expected.
Who set them off? The individual who flipped the switch, or "Pulled it" ?
I don't know. WTC7 had a bunker built in the middle of it that had bullet proof glass. thats as close as I can think as to who set them off.
TheGrimSweeper
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 0
Your all wrong...
Everyone knows the real reason of who destroyed the buildings
http://www.thenextstepp.com/wizartist/forumpix/godzilla.jpg
GODZILLA!!!!!
Everyone knows the real reason of who destroyed the buildings
http://www.thenextstepp.com/wizartist/forumpix/godzilla.jpg
GODZILLA!!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
Pauly:
How about facts rather than wild speculation? It's entirely feasible that the upper floors' power was down for, you know, a cabling upgrade just like the Port Authority said.
Also, what about the lower 48 floors? They were powered and occupied. You don't do a controlled explosive demolition without covering all the floors.
If there were explosives planted, how did the whole setup survive the impact of a fully-laden airliner at high speed?
How about facts rather than wild speculation? It's entirely feasible that the upper floors' power was down for, you know, a cabling upgrade just like the Port Authority said.
Also, what about the lower 48 floors? They were powered and occupied. You don't do a controlled explosive demolition without covering all the floors.
If there were explosives planted, how did the whole setup survive the impact of a fully-laden airliner at high speed?
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey pauly, as solid as 'single man had suspiscions' and 'Bush's brother's security company does security work', there are some pretty massive holes in your argument.
Actually, everything other than those two sentences is a giant hole, but bear with me while I clarify some points:
In your scientific reconstruction of events, President Bush's plan was this:
Step 1: Convince his brother, at least a dozen of his brother's employees and a large chunk of halliburton employees to kill 3000 people.
In order to kill the people, he either manages to convince sixteen people to pretend to be terrorists and die for no reason or convince a very large number of scientists to build fake planes, fly the fake planes into fake explosions, falsify video evidence and photographic evidence and more. He also convinced at least several dozen government employees to help with the murder by concealing the stuff.
At this point, I think a conservative estimate would be at least 200 people being involved in the conspiracy.
Step 2: Blame the 3000 dead on Afghanistan and then spend multiple billions on a war there. A war which has nothing to do with the plan. To do this, Bush would furthermore need to include Osama and his higher-ups in his plan to get him to accept the blame, as well convince every single person involved in pre-war intelligence, from multiple nations, that Afghanistan's terrorists are the real culprits.
At this point, the number of people involved in the conspiracy must be at least reaching the 2000-man mark, and these people must all be 100% prepared to kill very many more innocent civilians and soldiers in both Afghan and America.
Step 3: Start a war with Iraq, which has nothing to do with Steps 1 or 2. The combined spending for both wars soon reaches 300 billion.
Again, even more bodies are added to the kill count, and even more silent conspirators are recruited.
Loose estimate: At least five-thousand conspirators are involved at this point, in the deaths of close to half a million people.
Step 4: Halliburton gets big profit money! Approximately 11 billion dollars, even! Cheney, of course, skims a portion of that money from the company and now uses it to pay the minimum 5000 conspirators. Let's be generous and assume he manages to skim a full quarter of that 11 billion.
That means each conspirator recieves, on average, 550 000 dollars. Each conspirator has also, on average, killed 100 people. Of course, the pay would not be equal to all parties. Most of it would go to Bush and Cheney and bell-curve out from there.
So, basically, Bush picked at least five-thousand people semi-randomly and asked them 'would you kill a man for than three grand' and every single person agreed unequivocally. A hundred times.
Note that in reality and not my estimations, Bush would have had to spend an additional pile of his personal cash on the explosives, fake planes, footage-faking equipment,
labs where this would all be set up, and the eventual coverup and destruction of all the evidence these would leave. Simultaneously, the final number of conspirators would be much, much higher than three thousand, and the availiable payoff even smaller.
That's the plum retardedest theory I've ever heard. And I've spent nearly 20 minutes reading about Reptilians.
AND HERE'S THE KICKER:
For this theory to work, Bush had full access to these funds, the ability to fool the entire the government and close ties to Halliburton Cheney all along.
He could have just freaking said "Cheney I will pay you a two billion for a defense sandwich" and Cheney would say "okay here is it on rye bread thank you for the billion, I will lend you half of it because you are a friend."
Cheney: "Oh no, but that makes a million times more sense!
Better kill tens of thousands and directly involve half the freaking country in the cash-grab caper!
That way we'll leave enough shaky 'evidence' for Clarky and Pauly to blow our cover with nothing more than a sub-highschool education and Internet Explorer!"
Bush: "Great plan! I'll call my brother up and see if he'll commit inhuman acts for my benefit!" (pause) "He said sure, and he's got a hundred freinds who'll help!"
DURKA DURR
Actually, everything other than those two sentences is a giant hole, but bear with me while I clarify some points:
In your scientific reconstruction of events, President Bush's plan was this:
Step 1: Convince his brother, at least a dozen of his brother's employees and a large chunk of halliburton employees to kill 3000 people.
In order to kill the people, he either manages to convince sixteen people to pretend to be terrorists and die for no reason or convince a very large number of scientists to build fake planes, fly the fake planes into fake explosions, falsify video evidence and photographic evidence and more. He also convinced at least several dozen government employees to help with the murder by concealing the stuff.
At this point, I think a conservative estimate would be at least 200 people being involved in the conspiracy.
Step 2: Blame the 3000 dead on Afghanistan and then spend multiple billions on a war there. A war which has nothing to do with the plan. To do this, Bush would furthermore need to include Osama and his higher-ups in his plan to get him to accept the blame, as well convince every single person involved in pre-war intelligence, from multiple nations, that Afghanistan's terrorists are the real culprits.
At this point, the number of people involved in the conspiracy must be at least reaching the 2000-man mark, and these people must all be 100% prepared to kill very many more innocent civilians and soldiers in both Afghan and America.
Step 3: Start a war with Iraq, which has nothing to do with Steps 1 or 2. The combined spending for both wars soon reaches 300 billion.
Again, even more bodies are added to the kill count, and even more silent conspirators are recruited.
Loose estimate: At least five-thousand conspirators are involved at this point, in the deaths of close to half a million people.
Step 4: Halliburton gets big profit money! Approximately 11 billion dollars, even! Cheney, of course, skims a portion of that money from the company and now uses it to pay the minimum 5000 conspirators. Let's be generous and assume he manages to skim a full quarter of that 11 billion.
That means each conspirator recieves, on average, 550 000 dollars. Each conspirator has also, on average, killed 100 people. Of course, the pay would not be equal to all parties. Most of it would go to Bush and Cheney and bell-curve out from there.
So, basically, Bush picked at least five-thousand people semi-randomly and asked them 'would you kill a man for than three grand' and every single person agreed unequivocally. A hundred times.
Note that in reality and not my estimations, Bush would have had to spend an additional pile of his personal cash on the explosives, fake planes, footage-faking equipment,
labs where this would all be set up, and the eventual coverup and destruction of all the evidence these would leave. Simultaneously, the final number of conspirators would be much, much higher than three thousand, and the availiable payoff even smaller.
That's the plum retardedest theory I've ever heard. And I've spent nearly 20 minutes reading about Reptilians.
AND HERE'S THE KICKER:
For this theory to work, Bush had full access to these funds, the ability to fool the entire the government and close ties to Halliburton Cheney all along.
He could have just freaking said "Cheney I will pay you a two billion for a defense sandwich" and Cheney would say "okay here is it on rye bread thank you for the billion, I will lend you half of it because you are a friend."
Cheney: "Oh no, but that makes a million times more sense!
Better kill tens of thousands and directly involve half the freaking country in the cash-grab caper!
That way we'll leave enough shaky 'evidence' for Clarky and Pauly to blow our cover with nothing more than a sub-highschool education and Internet Explorer!"
Bush: "Great plan! I'll call my brother up and see if he'll commit inhuman acts for my benefit!" (pause) "He said sure, and he's got a hundred freinds who'll help!"
DURKA DURR
clarky003
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,123
- Reaction score
- 1
Mech should write a novel , entitled howto take a thread and derail it to insight talk of conspiracey theory ... this thread was never supposed to be about conspiracey, both theory's hint at conspiracey to destroy and murder either way, "protect the constitution from domestic or foreign enemies" (from the outset a foreign enemy was accused, and it was biased then on) both theories have relatively little concrete evidence to back them up, but only one has the physical consistancey with historical records on behaviour of steel building's and demolition collapse.
I dont know what the fuk happened before or how it came to be, you cant possibly know, although you seem to have conjured up a great idea to disagree with from your little passage of creative writing.
But in response to the prove by sound hinge, How about you prove the fire melted the entire core structure in all building's in question within the theory you stand by, you cant, and thats what addressing possible theories is all about no matter how unlikely they might seem to the ideological eye... it's professional to officially consider both rather than to blindly follow a single method, that doesnt conclude or repeat the event's consistantly because there is no model to prove it, but atleast they tried to put that model together although short of anything complete.
The 'comission report' was not fair, it was an 'omission report' it was biased to convicting a foreign enemy with no hard evidence on hand, all hard evidence to support the motivation turned out to be lies, all known possible hard evidence relating to the event has been confiscated and not heard of.
I dont know what the fuk happened before or how it came to be, you cant possibly know, although you seem to have conjured up a great idea to disagree with from your little passage of creative writing.
But in response to the prove by sound hinge, How about you prove the fire melted the entire core structure in all building's in question within the theory you stand by, you cant, and thats what addressing possible theories is all about no matter how unlikely they might seem to the ideological eye... it's professional to officially consider both rather than to blindly follow a single method, that doesnt conclude or repeat the event's consistantly because there is no model to prove it, but atleast they tried to put that model together although short of anything complete.
The 'comission report' was not fair, it was an 'omission report' it was biased to convicting a foreign enemy with no hard evidence on hand, all hard evidence to support the motivation turned out to be lies, all known possible hard evidence relating to the event has been confiscated and not heard of.
baxter
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 0
Whoa did I miss something; this thread is entitled "Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition”
Throughout this thread you have constantly used 911 conspiracy sites to back this claim up; you have gone to great lengths to show how the towers were brought down by explosives. You have showed the towers, from every angle, with little red arrows making out the explosions; you have posted links to reports of explosions.
Suddenly it's about how fire did or didn't melt the cores of the towers.....simple they didn't ( according to you ).Explosives brought down the towers, ( according to you)you have pushed this constantly , right from the beginning.
So for this theory now to work, we simply accept that explosives were there, they simply materialised and because it fits in perfectly with this theory that is as far as it goes.
Mechs summary of the events are far more plausible that anything you have put forward to back up this theory.
The burden of prove does not lie with me, it lies with you.
So....who put these bombs there?
When...oh forget it simply ignore the obvious and believe what you will.
clarky003
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,123
- Reaction score
- 1
"Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition”
Its a theory because the 'demoltion theory' is based on observation. Its only a conspiracey theory when you start to discuss the means, and so far if you read the thread the people who have been trying to move the discussion onto that are maintaining the origional theory, because there is no accurate basis for a mean's none of it is plausable, no one can say how they got there, theres no evidence to suggest who could of done that in whatever period of time, but that doesnt get rid of the possibility that they may of been there. There is evidence of the building's behavioural characterisitic's exhibited for a study which the origional theory does very little of full explaining.. which is why they should include other means in which you can replicate those collapse events more accurately.
No the burden of truth lie's with the government bodies, to disclose withheld possible evidence under the freedom of information act, and try to explain away the many visual inconsistancies if they want to uphold the origional theory.
and you could argue about it all day when you put it like that, retorical nonsense.. I believed in the origional theory for 2 years.. till i had a good look at some of the footage in detail, and took the time to get a few free DVD's of gatherings and presentation's to see what all the uproar was about.
Those exact question's youve just reiterated, when even attempting an answer, is what turns it into a conspiracey theory.
There is nothing obvious about the origional theory infact it doesnt make any sense whatsoever it just postulates the heat deformed the flooring to create a pancaking effect with the upper building acting like a pile driver( even though the 'pile driver' in question disintigrates before it even tips full force down onto the rest of the building), Looking at other 800 C fires in steel buildings that has never happened before (WTC 7 in particular), most recent example, the hotel Windsor in Barcelona...
and the understanding of "big fuk off jets" and fire bringing entire steel skyscraper's down is not adequet, "oh yeh dont you get it, jets hit the building thats what made them collapse like that" is a feeble understanding, especially when one of the jets completely missed the central support columns and mostley exited the building (jet fuel and all) on the same side. Postulating a one sided theory for how a building can collapse like that by fire alone.. it isnt thorough, its biased toward the means (which has no hard evidence anyway), alot of it doesnt make a lick of sense, and is based on contradiction's of historical consistancies in the interaction between hudge amounts of steel and observably small amounts of fire, the proper simulations are clearly incomplete, it strikes alot of people as incomplete inadequet and unprofessional.
Its a theory because the 'demoltion theory' is based on observation. Its only a conspiracey theory when you start to discuss the means, and so far if you read the thread the people who have been trying to move the discussion onto that are maintaining the origional theory, because there is no accurate basis for a mean's none of it is plausable, no one can say how they got there, theres no evidence to suggest who could of done that in whatever period of time, but that doesnt get rid of the possibility that they may of been there. There is evidence of the building's behavioural characterisitic's exhibited for a study which the origional theory does very little of full explaining.. which is why they should include other means in which you can replicate those collapse events more accurately.
No the burden of truth lie's with the government bodies, to disclose withheld possible evidence under the freedom of information act, and try to explain away the many visual inconsistancies if they want to uphold the origional theory.
and you could argue about it all day when you put it like that, retorical nonsense.. I believed in the origional theory for 2 years.. till i had a good look at some of the footage in detail, and took the time to get a few free DVD's of gatherings and presentation's to see what all the uproar was about.
Those exact question's youve just reiterated, when even attempting an answer, is what turns it into a conspiracey theory.
There is nothing obvious about the origional theory infact it doesnt make any sense whatsoever it just postulates the heat deformed the flooring to create a pancaking effect with the upper building acting like a pile driver( even though the 'pile driver' in question disintigrates before it even tips full force down onto the rest of the building), Looking at other 800 C fires in steel buildings that has never happened before (WTC 7 in particular), most recent example, the hotel Windsor in Barcelona...
and the understanding of "big fuk off jets" and fire bringing entire steel skyscraper's down is not adequet, "oh yeh dont you get it, jets hit the building thats what made them collapse like that" is a feeble understanding, especially when one of the jets completely missed the central support columns and mostley exited the building (jet fuel and all) on the same side. Postulating a one sided theory for how a building can collapse like that by fire alone.. it isnt thorough, its biased toward the means (which has no hard evidence anyway), alot of it doesnt make a lick of sense, and is based on contradiction's of historical consistancies in the interaction between hudge amounts of steel and observably small amounts of fire, the proper simulations are clearly incomplete, it strikes alot of people as incomplete inadequet and unprofessional.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
/me sighs
The fire alone was not responsible. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it was. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, the fire was a major contributing cause as was the fact that a fully laden jetliner crashed into the structure at high speed.
The fire alone was not responsible. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it was. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, the fire was a major contributing cause as was the fact that a fully laden jetliner crashed into the structure at high speed.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
FFS Clarky. This is exactly like claiming that things fall upwards and then saying you can't be wrong because you never mentioned gravity in your 'unbiased professional theory'.
FACT: You are making claims that depend on a conspiracy to logically exist.
FACT: You are claiming there is no conspiracy.
THEREFORE: Your argument is an utter failure.
No 'unbiased professional' goes to such lengths to COVER UP the weaknesses of his argument.
Again, please stop derailing my thread into stupidity.
FACT: You are making claims that depend on a conspiracy to logically exist.
FACT: You are claiming there is no conspiracy.
THEREFORE: Your argument is an utter failure.
No 'unbiased professional' goes to such lengths to COVER UP the weaknesses of his argument.
Again, please stop derailing my thread into stupidity.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
It's my thread because I friggin' own it now. Beeeeeeeatches.
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
I have no idea how you do this.
(How does the burden of proof lie with the US government? Their conclusion is that terrorists flew a plane into a building and that made the building collapse. Your assumption is that it did not. Which one, do you think, requires more explaining? Ooops, we seem to be back to square one where Pi deployed Occam's Razor.)
(How does the burden of proof lie with the US government? Their conclusion is that terrorists flew a plane into a building and that made the building collapse. Your assumption is that it did not. Which one, do you think, requires more explaining? Ooops, we seem to be back to square one where Pi deployed Occam's Razor.)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
Also there we 3 scans released of all the passengers on the plane that Hani Hanjour is supposedly hijacked. The problem with this release is Hani Hanjour was not on the plane, and all the names of the passengers are no Arabic names or such of that nature...
The governments explanation to this is that "We believe he did not have a ticket" How did he get on the plane then? Is it really that EASY to sneak on commercial airliner?
scans from the sheets if you wish not to believe.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001-sm.jpg
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10002-sm.jpg
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10003-sm.jpg
But the 9-11 commision report "experts" said that fire is what took down the buildings. They did not mention anywhere that the plane took out major support columns, etc. The commision report is supposed to be an in-depth report.
Also, back to the collapse of both buildings under 10 seconds. This is equivilent to a 10 story building falling to the ground in 1 second. The buildings fell so fast that steel and concrete fell as fast as pieces fall through the air. Peices of a building cannot crash through steel reinforced concrete floors as fast as they fall through the air. that is scientific evidence, you cannot disprove that.
Thanks for contributing something to the the conversation pi, unlike many others.
Also there we 3 scans released of all the passengers on the plane that Hani Hanjour is supposedly hijacked. The problem with this release is Hani Hanjour was not on the plane, and all the names of the passengers are no Arabic names or such of that nature...
The governments explanation to this is that "We believe he did not have a ticket" How did he get on the plane then? Is it really that EASY to sneak on commercial airliner?
scans from the sheets if you wish not to believe.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10001-sm.jpg
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10002-sm.jpg
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/images/foia/foia-10003-sm.jpg
But the 9-11 commision report "experts" said that fire is what took down the buildings. They did not mention anywhere that the plane took out major support columns, etc. The commision report is supposed to be an in-depth report.
Also, back to the collapse of both buildings under 10 seconds. This is equivilent to a 10 story building falling to the ground in 1 second. The buildings fell so fast that steel and concrete fell as fast as pieces fall through the air. Peices of a building cannot crash through steel reinforced concrete floors as fast as they fall through the air. that is scientific evidence, you cannot disprove that.
Thanks for contributing something to the the conversation pi, unlike many others.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
'Pauly' as in 'Shore' or 'Pauly' as in 'a parrot that repeats what has been said while saying nothing of substance'?
You didn't do those calculations yourself and I doubt very much that you ever will. You're relying on conspiracy websites for your scientific data, and that's not good enough for anyone but Clarky, who has no standards for scientific merit.
When you're dealing with milliseconds as you are here, I ask for a professional opinion and not a layperson's analysis of video in which smoke and dust obscure the building's initial and final stages of collapse.
Is it really so unlikely that the massive buildings would fall at a speed close to freefall? I say no, and you have shown nothing to the contrary.
I also notice that you totally dodged my post which states explicitly how you make no sense.
You didn't do those calculations yourself and I doubt very much that you ever will. You're relying on conspiracy websites for your scientific data, and that's not good enough for anyone but Clarky, who has no standards for scientific merit.
When you're dealing with milliseconds as you are here, I ask for a professional opinion and not a layperson's analysis of video in which smoke and dust obscure the building's initial and final stages of collapse.
Is it really so unlikely that the massive buildings would fall at a speed close to freefall? I say no, and you have shown nothing to the contrary.
I also notice that you totally dodged my post which states explicitly how you make no sense.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
This double post was not a mistake, but rather confirmation that the Reptilians are trying to subvert my message.
Glirk Dient
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 0
I hate threads like this. The next person that brings up some BS conspiracy theory garbage gets punched in the face. Even if they have "evidence" it still lacks why that party would rig such a thing. It's dumb and only a good read for entertainment not political discussion.
Im bringing up the fact about the jetliner crashing into... how come the designers of the WTC buildings specifically said a long time before 9-11 that the buildings were able to withstand the impact of a "Fully Loaded 707"Pi Mu Rho said:
Need more? They also said one tower could withstand 2(two) fully loaded 707 jetliners.
Source?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/141104clip.WMV Take in January of 2001.
states the plane would have an effect of a pencil pushing through a screen door net.
MSN source for this quote:
"The buildings had been designed to withstand a collision from a jet plane, and they had survived a terrorist bomb attack in 1993. But they could not withstand the heat of the burning fuel. All seven buildings in the complex collapsed during the disaster." But the previous source of an architect said the buildings could survive a fully-loaded jetliner. Which means it could survive the fuel. Plus, fire has never brought down a steel structure alone.
Demolitions and Earthquakes only have. MSN says it could survive the jetliner...
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505572/World_Trade_Center.html
Raziaar
I Hate Custom Titles
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,769
- Reaction score
- 140
Pauly said:
That was because New york City is in a city skyline that had trouble in the past with planes crashing at slow speeds into buildings(I cant remember which one, but had a plane crash into it in bad weather).
It didn't say a plane that was flying in a super fast dive into it. You'd be foolish to compare the past comments to today's events. :upstare:
Go read a history book.
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
Pauly said:
They built them to withstand the impact of two fully-loaded 707s that were travelling at landing speed and had jettisonned all their fuel. They assumed, as Raziaar said, that any plane crashes would be accidents due to bad weather, visibility or navigation failure. They also built them to withstand twice as much as they needed to - but that wasn't enough. The planes were going at double the anticipated speed and were full of fuel. Twice the speed = quadruple the kinetic energy = twice the impact the buildings were built to withstand. And then there was the fire...
911 eyewitnesses movie just came out- They have video/audio anaylisis of the bombs for whoever wanted the sound PROOF.
You can torrent it.
Just thought I would respond to whoever wanted that video.
oh and a b-52 bomber also has crashed into the empire state building back in the 40's... no collapse.
You can torrent it.
Just thought I would respond to whoever wanted that video.
oh and a b-52 bomber also has crashed into the empire state building back in the 40's... no collapse.
b-52's didnt exist in the 1940's.
the plane that crashed into the empire state building was considerably smaller than a B-52 or a modern Jet.
heres a link to the SMALL PROP PLANE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell
Also since my dad works with teh department of buidlings here....
The WTC didnt have proper fireproofing, the steel suport beams were very vunlerable to fires. The reason for the lack of fire proofing was simple, cutting back on construction costs. Also the grade of steel used wasnt the best, let alone the other huge amount of building code violations that were associated to the TWC. They just werent up to spec, even 1970's spec, and that fact hasn't been widely published due to shame.
The theories behind "bombings" and "government involvemen" are jsut made up by crack pots, they use flimsy logic just like ID.
the plane that crashed into the empire state building was considerably smaller than a B-52 or a modern Jet.
heres a link to the SMALL PROP PLANE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell
Also since my dad works with teh department of buidlings here....
The WTC didnt have proper fireproofing, the steel suport beams were very vunlerable to fires. The reason for the lack of fire proofing was simple, cutting back on construction costs. Also the grade of steel used wasnt the best, let alone the other huge amount of building code violations that were associated to the TWC. They just werent up to spec, even 1970's spec, and that fact hasn't been widely published due to shame.
The theories behind "bombings" and "government involvemen" are jsut made up by crack pots, they use flimsy logic just like ID.
HyperionCC
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 0
I know I am getting to the discussion late, and I am still reading through all the pages in this thread but I wanted to see if any one has seen "Loose Change". If you google video the term "Loose Change" you will see a fairly long documentary about the Twin Towers. It does actually touch upon the plane hitting the Empire State Bldg. and other issues brought up in this thread. I found it, and wanted to share with you all. now if you excuse me I have 15 more pages to catch up in this thread...
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
QFT and E.Eg. said:
Ravioli
Microboner
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,097
- Reaction score
- 2
My theory, note that i dont want anyone here to believe it, its their choice, you think what you think...im just saying what i THINK but i nearly doesnt belive. Im not going to discuss it, im not going to answer questions about it, im not going to argue about it...
I think that the US government themselves, or some insider job, did this to scare the people of terrorism, and have a reason to invade the middle east and have the people behind their back at the same time...
I mean...Security shut down, sniff dogs removed, engineers without access could freely walk in and out of the building, drills were found within the building, floors were closing, then 1 week later planes crash into it...doesnt that make you think?
And why was there no plane found at the pentagon? Why did the government take the tapes filming it? Why was an American Military Airplane flying over the pentagon exakly when this happend? Did it fire the missile?
Plus...why did George Bush attend at a school talking to kids, while his security said that planes just crashed into the WTC...and he completely ignored it, he stayed hours in the school after he was informed, they even said "the united states of america is under attack...mr president" but all he did was smile and talk to the students.
Doesnt all these questions make you think?
I think that the US government themselves, or some insider job, did this to scare the people of terrorism, and have a reason to invade the middle east and have the people behind their back at the same time...
I mean...Security shut down, sniff dogs removed, engineers without access could freely walk in and out of the building, drills were found within the building, floors were closing, then 1 week later planes crash into it...doesnt that make you think?
And why was there no plane found at the pentagon? Why did the government take the tapes filming it? Why was an American Military Airplane flying over the pentagon exakly when this happend? Did it fire the missile?
Plus...why did George Bush attend at a school talking to kids, while his security said that planes just crashed into the WTC...and he completely ignored it, he stayed hours in the school after he was informed, they even said "the united states of america is under attack...mr president" but all he did was smile and talk to the students.
Doesnt all these questions make you think?