[Closed] she won't be doing that again....

[url= http://www.themovieblog.com/2008/03/death-star-destruction-conspiracy-theory ]a real conspiracy[/url]

ow! cnts!

Okay a change of tact - why don't you explain to me how they did it. How did demolition engineers rig the towers? How did a team of men rig two enormous building with tonnes of explosives and how did it go completely unseen.

How many men do YOU think were involved?

How long do YOU think it took?

Were these men military? Mercenary? CIA? NSA? Foreign nationals?

How did the Bush administration mastermind this? How many people were involved? Why has no one spoken out? How did the conspirators trust each other? Surely in such an elaborate plan their would be one objector? One whistle blower?

How are Al-Qaeda not responsible?

Why bother to hijack passenger jets and fly them into the buildings? A risky strategy surely? The passengers might have successfully thwarted the hijackers - the planes could have missed revealing the controlled demolition. Why not simply fake a lorry bomb, or a number of car bombs in the underground car parks? The bomb vehicles would be vaporised leaving no trace. In fact they wouldn't even need to be there, just the theory would suffice....so why the planes?

Also if 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated by the American government then surely the July 7th bombings in London were the work of the British Government?

Which bomb attacks do you think were actually the work of Al-Qaeda, and which were the work of secret government agents? Bali? The first WTC bomb? Dar es Salam? Nairobi?

Really do tell. Seeing as the above questions might actually be difficult to answer without massive speculation and/or pure fantasy I fully expect your answer to be in the [i]*yawn*, I'm bored now[/i] or the [i]I'm going to eat some pie etc[/i] style.

I don't think that you can argue against the view that US/UK foreign policy has destabilised the region and led to fundamentalism springing up in areas where it didn't exist before. However, the characters involved in that example of violence against a helpless girl, did what they did because they are sick ****s, not because someone in Burnley or Las Vegas needs a steady supply of cheap petrol.

Finding excuses for it or deflecting blame from it really doesn't place anyone on the moral high ground.

An ever-growing number of people believe 9-11 was an event masterminded by the US government.

Rude boy, I've listened to the Sh1te about 9/11 for years, a member of my family is in fact the Grand Wussak of the local klaven and has tried to persuade me for years. Quite simply, there is NO evidence whatsoever to support the suggestion. Everytime something is debunked the argument simply shifts to another piece of drivel and then to another and another. Wake up and smell the coffee man for goodness sake.

I'll happily go toe to toe with you here and I'll eat my shorts unwashed if you can produce any piece of substantiated irrefutable [u]evidence[/u] to back up your claims.

Further to my previous post and your response the fact that modern warfare methods are being used currently is wholly irrelevant to the point I was making earlier. What do you expect? They roll up and use slings and arrows?The point is that the places are unstable and have been for thousands of years. Our involvement either, colonial or otherwise is recent history in terms of that simple [b]fact[/b], (not a word that you seem able to bring to a discussion)

At no point did I say it was right, nor did I say it was wrong, just that its better to live here than it is there, and if you're that unhappy about the way things are here perhaps you would be better to go there and check it out for yourself first hand and then if you survive the experience you can report back with your new enlightenment on the subject.

Regarding your debasement of our political system, and what our society stands for, just try to look at some of the positives rather than the negatives, of which I grant you there are many. For example, rather than talking of our involvement in the slave trade, for instance (which incidentally had been going on in Africa when we in these islands were all running around in skins), how about talking about William Wilberforce and our nations impact on reducing it? Got the idea?

RudeBoy, do you honestly think that 8 years of a George W Bush administration could have organised and pulled off a stunt like 9/11? This is a guy who couldn't have organised a piss-up in a brewery!

Forget GeeDubya. Forget him. He was merely a puppet. It's the people behind his father, you wanna be worried about.

And yes, I do believe that administration, or rather, their puppet-masters, cooduv organised and pulled off such a stunt. After all, previous administrations were up to all sorts.

Now, it may seem preposterous, to many people, that a government of such a 'free and democratic' society could do such a thing, but let's not be naive; 9-11 served the USA perfectly. It was just the reason they'd been waiting for, to justify an invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan. And look at the ensuing Islamophobia that has developed as a result. Indeed, we all seem to be a lot more fearful and distrusting of others. Some of the attitudes on this very forum surely prove that.

And if you don't believe the USA government would perpetrate such a horrific act of murder, on thousands of innocent people, then just look at Iraq. We were told Saddam had WMDs. That they could prove this. The inspectors went in, found **** all. The US and Britain still steamed in. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and an entire country devastated. relatively stable before, Iraq is now in chaos; insurgents and extremists on all sides, intent on destroying each other. Schools, hospitals, colleges, homes; all gone. The people are now almost entirely dependent on the West. Who are more than willing to send in their own contractors, to help fis the place up. At a price, of course. And what price? You guessed it- the Black Gold.

And you seriously believe this administration woon't murder 3000 of it's own citizens? The same regime which has sent thousands of it's own troops to their deaths?

The people in the WTC were no less expendable than those in Iraq. Or anywhere else for that matter.

You see, it's not about the Nation, but those who seek power. I doubt they really care, about the lives of ordinary people.

G, you believe what you want, eh?

Me, I'd rather believe in the probability of the US regime being a bunch of 'orrible ****s bent on grasping as much power and wealth as possible (let's face it, there's not a lot of evidence to the contrary on that score!), than the fairytale that they are all sweetness and light.

Lot of Ostriches on here. Maybe youse would be better off in the Middle Aast. Plenty more sand there.

Question; why believe the debunkers, over the 'conspiracy theorists'?

Is anybody else actually reading Rudeboy's silliness on this thread any more (normally I do read most of his writings for amusement, but am just [b]so[/b] bored with conspiracy theories)?

Like I said any one piece of evidence!

PS Saddam did have WMD's the UN inspectors spent a considerable amount of time cataloguing and keeping track of them. Not only that he actually used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. Its just that they weren't there when we invaded the country. Never at any point is there a real question of whether he actually had them or not. Unless....... well unless all the dead kurds and Iranians were actually working for MI6 or the CIA and their mass suicide was just a fiendish plot all along....

A more sensible one would be what did he do with them ?

Sorry; of course, youse are all right, and I am wrong. How stupid of me, for daring to question the integrity of a democratically elected Government of a free society. 🙄

The evidence is there, you go look for it. Don't be lazy.

G; you're just making it up now, to suit your own argument.

Oh, do you mean the Superguns?

The ones that were made partly in the UK?

You make me laugh, you really do.

Oh, here's a bit of it:

[img] ?v=0[/img]

Hmm, wonder where he hid that?

RudeBoy
Sorry; of course, youse are all right, and I am wrong. How stupid of me, for daring to question the integrity of a democratically elected Government of a free society.

The evidence is there, you go look for it. Don't be lazy.

No, it's not. What you refer to as evidence is just speculation. It's pointing at something and saying "what if" and ignoring any logic which might not support your conspiracy.

The reason you're not posting any of the "facts" or "evidence" to back up your waffle is because you know it can be easily disproven simply by looking at the counter points.

The reason you're not posting any of the "facts" or "evidence" to back up your waffle is because you know it can be easily disproven simply by looking at the counter points.

Any one piece will do, doesn't have to be anything major.

[url= http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/12/16/justice-needed-iraqi-government-crimes ]Apparently this lot are making stuff up too [/url]

Some of youse really do not want to believe that you might be wrong, eh? You really don't want to believe that such a thing could happen?

There is evidence; seismic reports do not support official explanations. Several scientists have dismissed claims the planes, on there own, cooduv caused the towers to collapse. Tower 7 collapsed all on it's own, without even being struck by anything more than falling debris.

Buildings that were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner hitting them.

Of course, seeing as how the rubble was quickly removed from the scene, and subsequently recycled, we'll never know exactly what caused those buildings to collapse in precisely the manner they did. Because much of it was never analysed for evidence of being melted by airline fuel (most of which clearly burned off in the initial impact), or anything else. Indeed, the official line can't even be supported itself! As there's no evidence left to support the claims!

Anyway, we could be here for ever.

Sleep safe....

(Nice little attempt at distraction, G. What was it you said, about going off on another tangent..?)

Rude you really are as dopey as everyone says you are aren't you?

Now then back to the evidence...... I'm waiting ......

How about some "evidence" from Loose Change. I'm going from memory so excuse me if my numbers are out but the jist of it should be right.

Loose Change makes some very bold assertions - one of which is that the Jet fuel from the planes could not have melted the steel structure of the twin towers.
Lets ignore any other possible contibuting factors to the degredation of the buildings structure like loose change does, factors like the damage caused by hundreds of tonnes of plane slamming into it, factors like the contents of the building burning along with the jet fuel to increase temprature. Lets just look at the melting point of steel. Jet fuel burns at 500 degrees, the melting point of steel is 800 degrees. So obviously anyone who says that jet fuel melted the steel structure of the building is lying right? So there must be a cover up right?

At what point does steel lose it's structural rigidity? About 400 degrees. That's not mentioned in Loose Change. Why not? It would seem to be massively relevant to an arguement about jet fuel damaging the structure so why not include it? Could it be because it doesnt make for such a good story? Without presenting a counterpoint, ie that steel looses it's rigidity waaaay before it melts you have "evidence". Once that counterpoint is included you have **** all. The same pattern is everywhere in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Still wondering whether Rudeboy thinks 7/11 was an inside job by Mi6.

No, tell you what; you provide evidence that the towers were brought down purely as a result of fires.

Good luck; even the official enquiry has never managed to do that!

Here you go then, seeing as how you asked so nicely:

[url= http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/4 ]

In his statement, Mr. Ayres wrote, “I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.”

Mr. Ayres continues, “Steven Jones’ call for a ‘serious investigation’ of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned “cutter-charges” must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out.”

Dr. Steven Jones is in the forefront of independent scientific researchers investigating the events of 9/11. A former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, his research indicates that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed not as a result of the impact of airplanes, but rather the result of intentional, controlled demolitions using precisely timed detonations of pre-planted explosives. In fact, one of the skyscrapers, 610 foot tall, 47-story, WTC Building 7, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it disintegrated and fell into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. It is of interest to note that Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission’s "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” And in the almost six years since 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of Building 7’s collapse.

Of course, the physical evidence has long since been destroyed.

Oh, and Gnargnar; the steel melting thing's been done to death. The point at which steel loses it's integrity may indeed be 400c, but we're talking about steel that's wrapped in concrete and other materials, including flame-proof shielding. So, you'd need a lot more than 500deg c, to actually cause the kind of failure of structural integrity that the official report claims. Indeed, many scientists have challenged most of the claims made in the official story.

And as I said; most of it burned up in the initial splosion, leaving very little to actually do any further damage, other than to cause secondary fires.

See, you claim I spout crap, yet you come up with flimsy arguments yourselves, with bugger all 'evidence'.

And you call me 'dopey'?

Rude boy, evidence (substantiated and irrefutable) please..

Something of substance like this...

[url= http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm ]FEMA Report [/url]

And before you go there I know its being disputed by the lawyers representing the families of those killed, its so they can prove negligence on the part of the Port Authority in not upgrading the insulation sufficently quickly as recommended to them well prior to 9/11, curiously, a recommendation that underlines the danger to the buildings in the case of fire, due to insufficent insulation! (Thats so that they can claim compensation which is specifically excluded in insurance policies the world over in cases of acts of terrorism.) I reckon thats a conspiracy too! Poxy insurers...

Oh, and as someone pointed out earlier; I'm bored now, so I'm off to watch 'The Sweeney'.

Nighty night!

[img] [/img]

1 - 0 I believe

Thought he'd never get bored trolling.

Yeah, but think how boring it would be without him.

Thank you.

TBH, the FEMA report is no more believable than 'alternative' theories. Most of it is based on assumption and not factual evidence. As there was none to examine, as it had all been taken away...

So, through this, all we've 'proved' is that there is no proof that the towers collapsed due to the reasons the US authorities would like people to believe. And a very strong possibility indeed, that 'alternative' views could be right.

What interests me here, is the vehemence of those attempting to discredit my arguments. As though I mussunt believe owt but what I am told to.

Sorry, you believe what you want, and I'll do the same.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, whilst it is very true, that the corruption and manipulation of religious doctrine causes suffering and injustice in all corners of the World, the West cannot make any claims to be Just and Fair, when hundreds of thousands of people are dying, in the name of 'Freedom'.

Whilst life here may be relatively far more comfortable than in other countries, this does not mean our governments are not complicit in murder, torture and war crimes; in fact, the 'evidence' points toward the proof that they are. Maybe it's just easier, to kill and oppress foreigners in some far flung land, to gain tighter and more oppressive controls over your own populations.

All the better that we do entertain the notion that our governments are acting against Humanity, than to blindly accept the official line, merely to have a Quiet Life.

everytime any of you reply you're giving him another chance to pour more drivel into the forum.

Just walk away and don't bother responding in the future.

Well can't be bothered to read it all.
But as for the building collapsing one of my friend who makes a living as a civil engineer control officer told me two things.

First even the building "might" have wistand a plane crashing on it, it certainly wasn't a massive plane "fully loaded with petrol".

Second the collapse of the towers, rely on the construction of the building. They did no collapsed because of the initial impact, but because of the tremendous heat generated by the fire. Such heat would have melted the steel structure (he told me steel is about the worst material during a fire). When a couple of level collapsed, the increase of weight on the remaining structure was too high.

yes, i believe that the US gov or US agencies pulled off 9/11.

there are so too many dodgy dealings having taken place in the run up with regards to the buildings (selling and buying of 'World Trade Center', insurance take outs, etc.)

as for G W Bush, or Obama for that matter, are really in charge of what goes on? not the army of people/agencies that have been operating for years before either took office?

no other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire before the WTC buildings. sky scrapers have previously been hit by aircraft and have not collapsed. the Twin Towers were designed to withstand being hit by an aircraft. the fuel burnt off very quickly, hence the fireballs that are seen on impact. why should WTC 7 fall? and why did it fall the way it did? very uniformed. i've seen buildings being torn down. they fall in sections and then have to be helped on again. i've also been lucky enough to have seen a controlled explosion in munich. the building fell very quickly (almost freefall) and uniformly (like the towers).

why shouldn't the US give up 3000 of it's citizens? 3000 is a small number, even extending that to families and others affected, say 20,000, is a small number in the grand scheme of things.

governments will lie. governments want you to believe what they tell you.
it would be very easy for the US authorities to release video footage of the Pentagon attack. so far we only have one (maybe two) grainy videos showing only an explosion, no aircraft. at the crash site of the 'aircraft' - infact, saying it was an 'aircraft' that hit is true. it was a craft of some sort in the air. just not what we generally consider to be an aircraft- blah blah blah.... crahsite nothing resembling sections from an aircraft were found. no tail, wing segments, eingines(infact there are no marks on the building where you expect with refernce to the wings/engines. no impact marks from the jet/turbines which weigh around 1-2 tonnes). the aircraft managed to breach, i think, six walls or reinforced concrete upto 18 inches thick. the nose of a conventional aircraft is made of aluminium and is therefore not much stronger than the alu framed bikes you (i ride steel) ride.

it is also interesting hearing what the airtraffic controllers have to say. it is reported, although now denied by those in charge, that several un-scheduled flights took off at nearby airports at around the same time as the other planes.

if the goverenment want you to eat potatoes, you will eat potatoes....

juan, you're mate is wrong.

steel is not that useless a material when heated up.

i've just tried searching for the pictures that show the steel girders at the base of the buildings standing upright, not twisted, but with their ends 'sliced' at ~45 degrees.

[url] http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-3#molten-steel [/url]

no tin hats needed here. it is not as though we are being paranoid.

TBH, the FEMA report is no more believable than 'alternative' theories. Most of it is based on assumption and not factual evidence. As there was none to examine, as it had all been taken away...

Obviously not read it then.

I also quite like the way alpin has tried to introduce the Pentagon to divert the argument away from the Twin Towers. Nice one, but I stand by the original eat my shorts (unwashed) offer. Any one piece of evidence...

Incidentally alpin just have a think about how much trouble are governments get into over whistle blowers. Rigging up the Towers to collapse would take dozens of unhindered experts months upon months to do. I'm guessing that the folks who worked there may have possible mentioned it as they strung cables through their offices etc etc.

In my experience, if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish thens its probably a fish.

Well, I'm glad someone else has a more open mind to the events, than several on here...

Funny, how there's another thread going on about surveillance society (terrorism posters), yet some of those on here that have been particularly vehement in discrediting my views, jolly well have not piped up on that one...

I tend to take things with a pinch of salt, unless I've seen them with my own eyes.

All the footage I've watched of the towers collapsing, has been very, very similar to footage of buildings destroyed by controlled demolitions. And the collapse of Tower 7 really does not in any way lend credibility to the official reports.

Blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line.

I also quite like the way alpin has tried to introduce the Pentagon to divert the argument away from the Twin Towers.

What, like how you did, by trying to divert things toward the WMDs issue?

Have you fund concrete proof that the towers were definitely, 100%, brought down purely because of the airliners crashing into them, yet?

I believe you introduced WMD's.....

And if you don't believe the USA government would perpetrate such a horrific act of murder, on thousands of innocent people, then just look at Iraq. [b]We were told Saddam had WMDs[/b]

I then debunked your argument by pointing you to the Human Rights Watch ( you know independant charity) website where they have investigated the incidents in question and declared it a crime against humanity. Obviously they also are agents of the Demons Bush and Blair also.

Mind you lets not let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Now then as far as evidence is concerned, could I just remind you thats its you conspiracy folks who need to prove your argument, not the other way. Its you telling me which way is up, not the other way. I quite simply believe that the most logical conclusion is the right one. Now then about this evidence you can't produce ........

All the footage I've watched of the towers collapsing, has been very, very similar to footage of buildings destroyed by controlled demolitions. And the collapse of Tower 7 really does not in any way lend credibility to the official reports

Are you a civil/structural engineer? Have you read the structural reports on the collapse of the world trade centre? If you have and still reckon it was demolished from the bottom up then I'd suggest you submit your paper to the ICE and have it published as you have disproven quite a lot of the principles of building design. It's a bit like air crash investigation in that the way something collapses tells you exactly what has happened. You can follow the chain reaction of events based on the structure of the building and how it would react to an incident like being struck by a fully loaded airliner full of avaition fuel using Computer modelling of catastophic collapse senarios. Please stop spreading misinformation about a subject you know nothing about.

I've thought long and hard about replying to this thread but it's now gone from just general rubbish to total hatstand.

zeitgeist english.......... google it and fast forward to 40mins.

first section (first 40 mins re. religion, the next sections 911 et al.

ok, GW, why shouldn't we talk about the Pentagon in the same breath as the WTC? surely it is connected. why should the WTC7 fall? nothing to do with CIA headquaters being based there?

why should the bush family have so many connections with the bin Laden family?

why were the military practising what to do in the event of hijacked aircraft, leaving them with 8 fighters to cover the northern states, on the day of 911?

why were the british authorities practising what to do in the event of tube bombings on the day of the 7/7 attacks?

why should governments do this to their own people? because they are not directly affected? because it breeds fear, and fear breeds control?

why should we believe what the authorities tell us? i don't think that all in government are out to kill us, scare us, main us etc. but those in charge know more than is wise to let on and there are people above them. i'm not going to start citing Simon Ralli, the De vinci free mason theme, but there are groups that have more power than is reasonable...

why should anyone listen to us on an internet forum. but there are people out there who know their stuff when it comes to building stuctures, demolition, flying a plane etc.

G: I have no doubt Saddam Hussein was a very nasty man. The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq is fact (wonder where he got that idea from).

At the time the inspectors went in, there were no WMDs. There din't need to be really; any excuse to invade wooduv done. The presence of WMDs was irrelevant, really. The USA just needed any excuse to invade Iraq, and 9-11 popped up as the perfect, convenient reason. The fact that Bin Laden has had nowt to do wit Iraq was also irrelevant. The West needed to steam in and finish the job started several years previously. IE, the overthrowing of the (democratically elected) government, and the control of the nation's resources. Iraq is also a convenient launch-pad for any Western military action against any other Middle-eastern Nation...

Anyway.

As for the 'official report', well, I've skimmed through it, and it does not in any way actually conclusively prove what it suggests, as there was no evidence to prove the claims within it!

As for me being a structural engineer, well; I believe what my own eyes tell me, not some report produced by the very people who want us to believe their version of events. And I'll listen to what real structural engineers have had to say on the subject; ie, many do not believe the buildings collapsed simply from the effects of fire.

'Computer modelling'! LOL! 'Cos of course, that would provide 'proof', eh??

Now then as far as evidence is concerned, could I just remind you thats its you conspiracy folks who need to prove your argument, not the other way. Its you telling me which way is up, not the other way around. I quite simply believe that the most logical conclusion is the right one. Now then about this evidence you can't produce ........

You are very amusing!

In a crime situation, the investigators would need to provide incontrovertible proof that certain events took place, before they could categorically state what really happened. In this situation, as the 'evidence' had been conveniently removed, before investigators could examine it, then the claims of the official report are unfounded.

The tissue of lies created by the US authorities is a joke, and a disgrace.

[url= http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-16-Sun-2001/news/17011253.html ]Passports of hijackers found in 9-11 debris...[/url]

Come on. It's farcical. It would be funny, if so many people haddunt died.

Do yourselves a favour. Open you eyes, and your minds. Stop acting like sheep.

Come on. What about the London bombings. Don't you have the balls to say that it was a conspiracy too? Surely it must be?

Skipped over a few points there Rudy.

Now then is

The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq is fact

Incidentally I think you might find that Husseins consistent attempts to hood wink and mislead the weaspons inspectors may have had more to do with the invasion than anything else. Seems like it may have backfired on him somewhat.

In a crime situation, the investigators would need to provide incontrovertible proof that certain events took place, before they could categorically state what really happened. In this situation, as the 'evidence' had been conveniently removed, before investigators could examine it, then the claims of the official report are unfounded.

Trying to divert again? By removed, I take it you mean the painstaking way in which the rubble was sifted through and then taken out of the city, once the intial serach for survivors was finished.

Now you introduced the concept of "alternative theories" all I have done is offer to eat my (unwashed) shorts if you can produce some evidence to back up your fantasies. I'm still waiting, so how about a direct response to a direct question. Can you produce some evidence to support your suggestion?

The fact that there were attack scenario exercises taking place at exactly the same time and place of the actual bomb attacks, is either incredible coincidence, or something far more sinister.

Personally, I really, really, really don't want to believe that anyone could be so evil as to deliberately stage an event like this. It's too terrifying to contemplate. Bt this 'coincidence' is something no-one seems to be comfortable talking about.

[url= http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=821 ]

1. CIA Sponsored Exercise on the Morning of 9/11

On the morning of September 11 2001, within minutes of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the CIA had been running "a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building". The simulation was held at the CIA Chantilly Virginia Reconnaissance Office.

The Bush administration described the event as "a bizarre coincidence". The matter was not mentioned by the media.(AP, 22 August 2002)

The CIA sponsored simulation consisted in a "scheduled exercise" held on the morning of September 11, 2001, where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. (Quoted in Associated Press, 22 August 2002.)

The news concerning the 9/11 Chantilly aircraft crashing simulation was hushed up. It was not made public at the time. It was revealed almost a year later, in the form of an innocuous announcement of a Homeland Security Conference. The latter entitled "Homeland Security: America's Leadership Challenge" was held in Chicago on September 6, 2002, barely a few days before the commemoration of the tragic events of 9/11.

[i]Now then is

"The gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq is fact"
you admitting that I was right and that Saddam Hussein did have WMD's? Further to that is it also agreement that you did indeed raise the matter?[/i]

Obviously at some point he did have "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - for fairly small values of "mass". Similarly, he used gas against the Iranians. That's not the same as having weapons that can kill millions of people thousands of miles away, as was claimed at the time by Bush and Bliar. 45 minutes, anyone?

i believe everything i read on the internet,

them nasty boys ^ have got me all confuzled now.

steel is not that useless a material when heated up.

Well hot steel lose it mechanical properties (bend become softer)
Wood is apparently better (I know I was surprise too). As it keep is mechanical property . Depending on how long you want a wooden pillar to resist fire, you have to make sure it's big enough as there is a ratio of cm/hour/temperature of wood that got burned. So it' the diameter of the wood big enough to resist the "weight" plus some more width to "resist" the fire.

I'm still waiting, so how about a direct response to a direct question. Can you produce some evidence to support your suggestion?

Can you?

By removed, I take it you mean the painstaking way in which the rubble was sifted through and then taken out of the city, once the intial serach for survivors was finished.

No, I mean the way that all the rubble was loaded into trucks and driven out of the city, after the search for survivors was called off, before investigators had the opportunity to study samples. Much of the metal was recycled very soon after. Bit odd, woon't you say?

Want salt and pepper with those shorts?

Like I said to Rudy, he absolutely did have WMD's. No more no less. I'm certainly not going to get into a completely separate argument over that..... well not just yet anyway.

I wonder if that poor girl was thinking about conspiracy theories when those nutjobs were beating the crap out of her...