Reasons not to steal cables

[ban-all-sheds]

so please leave your wacky conspiracy theories to the side and concentrate on the actual facts and evidence.

Sorry - life is too short to read the insane ramblings of a bunch of loonies.

Just wear the hat and keep away from windows and you'll be fine.

Oh - and don't drink the tapwater- they put mind control drugs in that, you know.

 

[Gavin77]

Well all Skenk's evidence is on Youtube, so i guess it must be true Along with all the other crackpot stuff like perpetual motion machines and that the moon landings were faked.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And all "satellite" photos which show that the earth is more-or-less spherical are also fakes.

 

[bernardgreen]

just as clearly as steel cannot be melted by unpressurised hydrocarbon fires

look up the chimney effect where the updraft in a lift shaft caused by hot air rising up a vertical shaft can create very high temperatures in the combustion.

(1) and 47-storey steel-and-concrete skyscrapers cannot come down in perfect symmetry at free-fall acceleration because of fire

Correct. But when a floor collapses to the one below the compressed air pressure is equal on all the walls and thus all the walls tend to blow out at the same time. symetry is the result.

It is considered that the free fall inside the perimeter walls may not have started as totally symetrical but the walls came out symetrically as a result of the equalising effect of the compressed air. This would mean the floor below would lose all its perimeter support within milliseconds and hence fall as a flat sheet onto the floor below.

For anyone unaware of the third skyscraper which collapsed that day (and was not hit by an aeroplane):

Most of the buildings were interconnect by under ground passage ways and tunnels. It is not impossible that the air compressed by the collapse of the towers was forced vias those tunnels into that building and damaged the structure.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bernard - you will never change by reason beliefs not arrived at in that way in the first place.

 

[skenk]

so please leave your wacky conspiracy theories to the side and concentrate on the actual facts and evidence.

Sorry - life is too short to read the insane ramblings of a bunch of loonies.

But you spend so much time on here!?

Allow me to answer with a couple of quotes:

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
-- Noam Chomsky

What are you on about with your flat earth rubbish? An attempt to discredit by association or something? Your attacks fit neatly into the neo-con mantra of 'Deny, Denounce, Discredit'. A lot of these 'loonies' are highly qualified, respected in their field and have decades of experience, but I guess that doesn't matter to you because you have already discounted any possibility that you could be wrong, pity. Just keep believing what you're told, next you'll be telling me you believe James Murdoch (et al) are telling the truth about their knowledge of phone hacking.

 

[skenk]

Well all Skenk's evidence is on Youtube, so i guess it must be true

And the peer-reviewed paper? Do you have any meaningful criticisms or are you just another bandwagon-jumper who doesn't dare question conventional wisdom?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[skenk]

just as clearly as steel cannot be melted by unpressurised hydrocarbon fires

look up the chimney effect where the updraft in a lift shaft caused by hot air rising up a vertical shaft can create very high temperatures in the combustion.

And this would be enough to simultaneously remove ALL support columns (the only way the building could fall at freefall acceleration)?

(1) and 47-storey steel-and-concrete skyscrapers cannot come down in perfect symmetry at free-fall acceleration because of fire

Correct. But when a floor collapses to the one below the compressed air pressure is equal on all the walls and thus all the walls tend to blow out at the same time. symetry is the result.

You've answered this with your first word then given some vaguely related factoid. Can you please explain how multiple floors can fall at freefall acceleration if there is ANY resistance from the floors below to slow the descent? Can you explain why fire (organic...) can cause the total and symmetric collapse of ANY steel building? This has never, ever happened unless you believe the official lies of 9/11, despite there being many examples of much hotter and longer fires gutting lesser steel buldings - which do NOT then suffer a complete collapse.

It is considered that the free fall inside the perimeter walls may not have started as totally symetrical but the walls came out symetrically as a result of the equalising effect of the compressed air. This would mean the floor below would lose all its perimeter support within milliseconds and hence fall as a flat sheet onto the floor below.

Are you referring to the latest nonsense explanation from NIST?, that the entire internal structure of the building had already collapsed before the perimeter walls came crashing down. This in itself is pure fantasy in it's assumptions but, if true, would mean that there were no floors to cause the air pressure effect you are talking about. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that if there is ANY resistance freefall cannot happen, NIST denied the existence of freefall for years, but were proved wrong and finally had to admit it. (1)

Most of the buildings were interconnect by under ground passage ways and tunnels. It is not impossible that the air compressed by the collapse of the towers was forced vias those tunnels into that building and damaged the structure.

Compressed air along underground tunnels weakened one of the most over-engineered steel buildings around to the point where it suffered a total collapse 7 hours later?

You seem like a smart guy, just how much compressed air do you think you need to undermine structural steel?


(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

 

[skenk]

BAS - you got NOTHING so all you can do is call me a loony, come on, hit me with one of your cut-and-paste extravaganzas so I can take you apart.

Have you got ANY arguments which aren't based on 'I just can't believe it'. At least Bernard is having a go with his compressed air theories.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK - come on then.

I know this is pointless, as you and any form of reason appear to be strangers, but...

If the buildings did have explosive charges placed in them, and then planes crashed into them to disguise the fact that they were actually blown up, and all of this has been covered up by the US govt,

 

[JohnW2]

It's interesting how the world has changed. Given the limitations of our knowledge, virtually nothing is totally impossible - but some things are incredibly improbable. Not many decades ago, it was generally accepted that if intelligent and/or learned people believed that something was 'total nonsense', it probably was - or, at least, incredibly unlikely. In more recent times, in the name of 'having an open mind', we have so often seen intelligent people who 'know' that something is nonsense having to adopt the 'nothing is impossible' position. This has fuelled so many of the 'conpiracy theories', led to countless people being taken in by crazy (and often expensive and/or upsetting) claims (notably in relation to 'alternative medicine', but prevlent in most fields), and goodness knows what else.

'Crazy' claims or theories are often 'backed up' by what appears to be respectable scientific investigation and research - but the interesting thing is that when people attempt to replicate such investigation or research, they generally find that they can't.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[skenk]

EDIT: addressed at BAS

It's you who appear to be a stranger to reason given the sheer volume of evidence available, even discounting circumstance and even eye-witness statements. I refer to you my previous answer - do you have anything based on actual evidence rather that your inability to believe otherwise?

When discussing this topic I prefer to stick to the science based stuff because it is the hardest to deny, but seeing as you're asking here's a few reasons why it might have been done:

Put simply - profit and power.

Since that event, countless thousands (probably 100's of thousands) of people have died in wars which were made publicly palatable after it happened. This has extended the American empire (hungry for oil and power) and provided unimaginably huge profits for many, largely American, companies.

'Anti-terror' legislation has rescinded many of the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard for, to the benefit of those in power (look up the patriot act for starters). To the benefit of the power elite (keeping control of us plebs).

In the case of building 7, it housed several shadowy agencies - FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, Various Banks, the IRS, the SEC (a massive haul of case files relating to the Enron scandal were lost), the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It's destruction would have been very convenient for getting rid of evidence relating to the planning of the event or any other evidence for that matter that conspirators wanted rid of.

It was known that the demolition of the WTC, which had been applied for, would be MASSIVELY costly, as explosive demolition had been ruled out. - http://www.asbestosattorneyguide.info/the-demolition-of-the-wtc-was-refused-did-you-know-that.html - then there's the coincidence that the new building owner had just reinsured the buildings specifically against 'acts of terror'. He got 4.55 BILLION (look it up . . .).

In the case of the Pentagon, just the previous day Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRILLION(!) was missing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU So a good time to bury that bad news, not to mention increase the defence budget at a time when military spending was already out of control.


I don't claim to know why, or who knew or whatever, but the actual physical evidence for demolition is out there if people would only look. The two-hour ae911truth.org video is a bit boring but quite a good place to start.

In addition there is a HUGE amount of circumstantial evidence, for example the BBC announced that building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened, with the building still standing in the background!! Explanation: confusion on the day . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

Did you know that in a scary neo-con document titled 'Project For a New American Century - Rebuilding America's Defenses' (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf authors include Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and John Bolton) there is a quote "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". The plan for invading Afghanistan was before the president days before the event http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19tnCIBJtJQ

Now maybe I should ask you: Why did Hitler burn down the Reichstag and blame it on 'terrorists'?

 

[bernardgreen]

Skenk

You seem to have absolute faith in your opinion and seem to select evidence that fits your opinion that the building was intentionally demolished.

Look at the video of the collapse. Each floor in turn explodes outwards with a lot of horizontally moving debris. Then look at a building that is demolished by controlled explosions. Compare the two.

I doubt you will see the significant difference. You are determined to only believe what you want to believe.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Since that event, countless thousands (probably 100's of thousands) of people have died in wars which were made publicly palatable after it happened. This has extended the American empire (hungry for oil and power) and provided unimaginably huge profits for many, largely American, companies.

So you think that the American military-industrial complex put explosives into the buildings and arranged for some Saudis to hijack planes to fly into them as a cover story (no doubt also arranging for the others to conveniently miss their targets) in order to justify an imperial war and associated profits, and figured that they would be able to conspire to keep it a secret?

You are barking mad.

'Anti-terror' legislation has rescinded many of the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard for, to the benefit of those in power (look up the patriot act for starters). To the benefit of the power elite (keeping control of us plebs).

So you think that the American government and/or security agencies put explosives into the buildings and arranged for some Saudis to hijack planes to fly into them as a cover story (no doubt also arranging for the others to conveniently miss their targets) in order to justify repressive legislation, and figured that they would be able to conspire to keep it a secret?

You are barking mad.

In the case of building 7, it housed several shadowy agencies - FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, Various Banks, the IRS, the SEC (a massive haul of case files relating to the Enron scandal were lost), the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It's destruction would have been very convenient for getting rid of evidence relating to the planning of the event or any other evidence for that matter that conspirators wanted rid of.

You are barking mad.

It was known that the demolition of the WTC, which had been applied for, would be MASSIVELY costly, as explosive demolition had been ruled out. - http://www.asbestosattorneyguide.info/the-demolition-of-the-wtc-was-refused-did-you-know-that.html - then there's the coincidence that the new building owner had just reinsured the buildings specifically against 'acts of terror'. He got 4.55 BILLION (look it up . . .).

So you think that the building owner put explosives into the buildings and arranged for some Saudis to hijack planes to fly into them as a cover story in order to save demolition costs and perpetrate an insurance scam, and figured that he would be able to keep it a secret?

You are barking mad.

In the case of the Pentagon, just the previous day Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRILLION(!) was missing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU So a good time to bury that bad news, not to mention increase the defence budget at a time when military spending was already out of control.

So you think that the American Department Of Defense put explosives into the buildings and arranged for some Saudis to hijack planes to fly into them as a cover story (no doubt also arranging for the others to conveniently miss their targets) as a PR stunt, and figured that they would be able to conspire to keep it a secret?

You are barking mad.

I don't claim to know why, or who knew or whatever, but the actual physical evidence for demolition is out there if people would only look. The two-hour ae911truth.org video is a bit boring but quite a good place to start.

Well then ask yourself why.

It's a bit like scams and com merchants etc - you know the advice - if it seems too incredibly good to be true, it is.

If your conspiracy theory seems barking mad, it is.

In addition there is a HUGE amount of circumstantial evidence, for example the BBC announced that building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened, with the building still standing in the background!! Explanation: confusion on the day . . .

Oh, well why didn't you say so at the start?

That makes all the difference.

I mean - how could there possibly have been any confusion on the day when reporting the events?



Anyway - I've had enough with you and your utter, barking, certifiably insane nonsense, and I'm not spending another minute on it.

This correspondence is now closed.

Watch out for the hidden microphones in your toothpaste.