Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Is it anti-semitic to call for a new 9/11 investigation?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 7:52:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 8:27:28 AM PDT
KING CONAN says:
Yeah,

And they were all Texting
each other,
While flying the plane.
(Whoop's)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 7:44:11 AM PDT
KING CONAN says:
Or Vince Foster's Park Police. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:43:43 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Your point? Just because you think something *should have* happened differently doesn't mean that it had to happen that way. People are making all kinds of claims that it shouldn't have happened that way without anything more than assumptions and their own beliefs backing up their position. The simple fact is that they *did* happen the way they happened, whether you think it should have or shouldn't have. I'm more willing to take the word of third party engineers analyzing the collapse of WTC #7 than lay people who have zero engineer experience and claiming it shouldn't have collapsed like that, when the experts say otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:40:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 6:44:07 AM PDT
Skriker says:
No I don't consider it an event of probability of planes being deliberately flown into buildings. I am considering the likelihood of similar buildings collapsing in a similar situation an event of probability. Mister Tee was stating how highly improbable it was that both towers would collapse and that is was miraculous that WTC #7 would collapse too, even after being damaged. I was responding to those claims.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:38:15 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Ohhh...so now the planes were remote controlled into the buildings. Yeah even more likely. I'd like to see some actual evidence for that, but I don't expect to ever see any.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:37:03 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Nice of you to cut and snip I never said that the incidents with identical. I said the "same kind of accident". They are similar enough that the point still stands.

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 5:28:39 AM PDT
Yo says:
Watch your back Skriker. Sniffy's got an interesting "hobby" in addition to "9/11 trutherism" and Holocaust denial. He's always trying to get to the "bottom" of things, if you know what I mean ...

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 4:48:34 AM PDT
re: "structural damage"
***********************
You could knock over a house of cards are have more "structure" standing than building #7!
Or the towers.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:44:21 AM PDT
Maybe they had 72 virgin guardian angels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:43:04 AM PDT
`someone could fly a jetliner at speed into an exactly planned portion ...
*****************************************
just yesterday, the pilots were said to be experts. And at the Pentagon, that was a dead-on hit, even though planes land nose-up.
The simplest explanation is that the story is BS. Over and over, the events of the day ON VIDEO contradict each other.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:36:33 AM PDT
In fact given that the two times it happened in New York on the same day resulting in both buildings collapsing and damaging surrounding buildings enough to lead to more collapses I would say that the evidence takes things from miraculous or unbelievable to "highly likely".
***********************************************
Planes are deliberately flown into buildings, and you consider it an event of probability? "Deliberate" and "random" are mutually exclusive.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:36:14 AM PDT
Did well with identifying everyone from this crash site. Must have been Steptoe and Son DNA services.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2385/396/9_11_Flight_93_-_Banned_Footage_Video.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:31:23 AM PDT
Suddenly, waiting on the tarmac doesn't seem to bad after all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:14:24 AM PDT
Suet says:
"Enclose the charge inside the box column."

How?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 2:54:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 2:58:16 AM PDT
Skriker says:

Despite your rude comment about things being remedial, I will assume you are actually responding to Suet and not me. I have no problems with the concept of people planting explosives in the building, but do have a problem with a pilot flying a jetliner at speed into two different, but precisely planned out, points on the towers. It is just laughable when the simplest explanation is that the planes crashed, caused damage and started fires and then the damage caused led to the collapses.
_________

Are you 'closely' related to Yo ? I don't believe they were piloted into the buildings, only a fool would believe a pilot(or two) about to hit a building at 500 miles an hour would have the focus to tilt the plane at the last moment before impact. Especially if they had been on the booze and cocaine the night before as these 'devout' Jihadis were inclined to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:25:33 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
You had it coming !

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 5:17:55 PM PDT
Suet says:
You were being rude to me?!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 2:42:28 PM PDT
Ku says:
"But Captain, smart technology has been in existence since the 21st century!"

That's right, Scotty.

Jetliners are equipped with cruise missile technology so that in the event of the pilot not wanting to be late, he can flip the switch to cruise missile mode and make a beeline for the exact gate he wants to crash into.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 2:35:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 2:36:56 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
<why is it unlikely to be that the same kind of accident that happened to both of them within the span of about 30 minutes wouldn't lead to both failing in similar ways within a short time from each other?>

Only a few reasons:

- Dissimilar initial damage:
-- points of impact were not at the same level
-- impact points WRT the cross-section of the building are different

- Airliners could *not* have had identical fuel loads

- Airliners could *not* have been traveling at the same speed

- One of the towers leaned appreciably before full demolition sequence got underway

- Buildings were unlikely to have the same internal contents at both impact points

Other than that, the two incidents were identical. <rolleyes>

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 2:26:30 PM PDT
Skriker says:
Given that both towers were built the same exact way at the same time and were roughly the same age why is it unlikely to be that the same kind of accident that happened to both of them within the span of about 30 minutes wouldn't lead to both failing in similar ways within a short time from each other? We aren't talking completely different things here. We are talking the main two towers of the world trade center with the only real difference between them being the baseline contents of the offices on the floors where the crashes and fires happened. Engineeringwise they were nearly identical inside and out, so it would be kind of dumb to assume that jetliners crashing into both towers in similar ways should result in completely different outcomes. This is engineering, science and physics we are discussing, not magic.

As for WTC #7 it is also engineering. #7 was damaged when the main towers collapsed. They dropped somewhat in their own footprints, but hardly exactly. Damage was done to all of the surrounding buildings. Not all of those surrounding buildings were designed or built the same way, which is why some fell and some didn't. The plans for WTC #7 show some serious issue in the design that the damage the building took from the main collapses would readily and did lead to a collapse of that building as well. Hardly high probabilities involved in a building that was poorly designed and already damaged by the collapse of a neighboring building collapsing as well. Again we are talking engineering, science and physics here, not magic.

Expecting that identical buildings that underwent almost identical incidents with jetliners crashing into them to have completely different outcomes from those incidents is the first erroneous assumption and completely ignores the engineering aspects of the situation, and then claiming some conspiracy when a poorly designed building, which was already damaged, collapsed due to its own design flaws/weaknesses is the second erroneous assumption. There is no magic here. There are no incalcuably small percentages. It is all simple math and pretty basic at that. Maybe if the WTC towers were completely different from each other, which they weren't, or if WTC #7 was actually 20 blocks away and they tried to claim it was because of the main towers collapsing I would give merit to your claim. On the other hand, two identical buildings, 2 very similar jetliners crashing into them, with both collapsing in similar ways, damaging nearby buildings and causing some of them to collapse too is hardly any kind of high probability or shock. It is what most rational people would EXPECT. If after similar crashes one tower fell and the other didn't I would have been very surprised and would consider that the much more unlikely scenario. I am also surprised that more of the buildings surrounding the twin towers were not more significantly damaged or collapsed. THAT is the incredibly high probability event that still happened, but that doesn't seem to enter into your equation at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 1:48:05 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
You're right, I replied to the wrong guy.

But I disagree, that yours is the *simplest* explanation. The odds of both towers coming down exactly the same are incalculably small. Let's call it the smallest imaginable nonzero number possible.

Than you add WTC7 to the equation and Spock wouldn't even be able to calculate the probability of such a series of events !

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 1:41:35 PM PDT
Skriker says:
Despite your rude comment about things being remedial, I will assume you are actually responding to Suet and not me. I have no problems with the concept of people planting explosives in the building, but do have a problem with a pilot flying a jetliner at speed into two different, but precisely planned out, points on the towers. It is just laughable when the simplest explanation is that the planes crashed, caused damage and started fires and then the damage caused led to the collapses.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 1:13:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 16, 2012 1:13:43 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
The WTC used box columns.

Enclose the charge inside the box column.

Those that are destroyed by the jet impact have already been successful in their ultimate goal.

The rest are protected inside (intact) columns.

Sheesh, it gets downright remedial in here sometimes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 7:11:36 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Wow...so someone can actually "plan" exactly where they want to hit a building like the WTC when flying a plane into it at speed? Do you even bothere to think about or read the stuff you post Professor? So you are saying it is more likely that someone could fly a jetliner at speed into an exactly planned portion of one of the towers where explosives were prepared to make the towers collapse than that the damage from the crashes and fires lead to the collapse...hahahahahahahaha! That is just amazing! In the real world it is usually the simplest answer that ends up being true. In this case the simplest answer is that jetliners crashed into the towers causing damage and fires that eventually led to collapses that very clearly started at the points in the tower where the crashes occured.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 16, 2012 7:05:33 AM PDT
Skriker says:
Such an event is *improbable*, but not *impossible* as it did happen. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can never happen ever. It isn't like jetliners fly into skyscrapers at speed everyday without causing any problems. In fact given that the two times it happened in New York on the same day resulting in both buildings collapsing and damaging surrounding buildings enough to lead to more collapses I would say that the evidence takes things from miraculous or unbelievable to "highly likely".

As for the Olympics, there is a certain level of security necessary for such things. Everyone is always thinking back to Munich and not being the Olympic host nation to have something horrible happen like that again. The simple fact is that the security firm hired to provide the security needs of the event recently stated clearly that they could not fulfill their contractual obligations. Not sure where else you would expect to find replacements other than troops to fill the security ranks with less than 2 weeks until the events fully get under way...
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  101
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 10, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions