Loose Change

[Hellbound]

Belz:

Yes, it definately would have been heard.

Another problem with the "briefcase nuke" "theory": it would have had to be in the lower basement levels, but the collapse of the building started at the impact area. A 1kt nuke in the basement would've started a collapse at the bottom, and also would've made the buildings more likely to fall sideways rather than down.

 

[kookbreaker]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=12058242&src=ActiveBuddy

So?

 

[geggy]

Bobkark...EPA, who the bush administration has a stanglehold of, lied to the ground zero crew and assured to them the air was safe to breath. Get it?

 

[geggy]

Actually, several witnesses have claimed the bomb went off in the basement of south tower at the same time the north tower was struck. I'll have to find several links to back that up.

 

[Grounded]

North tower collapsed because south tower collapsed next to it

Wtc7 collapsed because 2 towers collapsed next to it...

South tower collapsed because...

Uhh..uhhh.uhhh..uhh....wakka wakka hyuck hyuck

If a tower collapses because the one beside it fell, why didn't all of New York end up level?

Oh, not all the buildings are towers. My bad....

 

[geggy]

blah I meant the other way around.

But I doubt it's true because no one in the FDNY had any reactions during the second attack in the 9/11 documentry filmed by the 2 french cameramen anyway.

 

[Manny]

So?

He's just celebrating his buddy's victory.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, several witnesses have claimed the bomb went off in the basement of south tower at the same time the north tower was struck. I'll have to find several links to back that up.

Giggit, you're an idiot.

If a briefcase nuke went off in the basement, it wouldn't have been a few people in the basement who heard it go off (they'd have been killed in the blast and immediate collapse that followed), it would've been people several blocks away who heard it. The collapse would have started at the bottom of the building (the area where the explosion removed support), not at the impact site where the plane hit it. The building would have been even more likely to topple sideways instead of down, and it would NOT have stood for as long as it did after a briefcase nuke went off.

You're contradicting your own evidence that you've continually spouted in this thread...something you seem to do everytime another of your tedious and uninformed theories is shot down in a flaming pile of doggie poo.

If you really care about this, if you really believe this is important, prove it. Right now the only thing you're doing is convincing everyone who reads your mad rantings that the official version of events is true. If you really care, tkae the time and effort to learn what you're talking about. Study physics, study chemistry, study study architecture and engineering, study structural materials and materials science. Look for all the evidence, and compare it against actual science. Don't just pick and choose from conspiracy sites who's sum total of experise consist of the College of "What I can't understand is...", the School of "This guy told me...", the University of "But if...", and the Kindergarten of "If I can't hear you you don't exist!"

 

[bob_kark]

Bobkark...EPA, who the bush administration has a stanglehold of, lied to the ground zero crew and assured to them the air was safe to breath. Get it?

Read it again:

Both agencies have taken hundreds of samples to monitor environmental conditions since September 11, and have found no evidence of any significant public health hazard to residents, visitors or workers beyond the immediate World Trade Center area.

 

[Azrael 5]

Blimey a lot of pages here!
Am I missing something here..someone was waiting in the basement with a nuke or demolition charges etc. waiting in case some planes flew into it so they could make it look like a terrorist attack?

Or was it a double conspiracy..planes were used to help the demolition process?
Has anyone mentioned UFO's yet?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I keep responding to geggy because I know alot of people are buying into this CT nonsense, especially in Montréal. I decided that I won't stand for it.

BTW, like my new signature aggle-rithm?

Cooool!

 

[aggle-rithm]

If you really care, tkae the time and effort to learn what you're talking about. Study physics, study chemistry, study study architecture and engineering, study structural materials and materials science. Look for all the evidence, and compare it against actual science.

Better yet, geggy, invest in a freakin' dictionary! You clearly don't know the meaning of common words like "debate", "math", and "truth".

 

[Pardalis]

Actually, several witnesses have claimed the bomb went off in the basement of south tower at the same time the north tower was struck. I'll have to find several links to back that up.

So the explosive device was exactly set to explode when the plane hit? Isn't it more logical to assume that what they heard WAS THE PLANE HITTING AND EXPLODING?

Then again, no, don't answer, I know what you'll say....

 

[Mongrel]

Actually, several witnesses have claimed the bomb went off in the basement of south tower at the same time the north tower was struck. I'll have to find several links to back that up.

Haven't seen this but I'm willing to bet such phrases as "...Loud noise, like an explosion..." or "...and there was a loud noise, like a bomb going off!"

Really Geggy, people will use phrases like that because it's a really easy way to put across how bloody loud the noise was,
"There was a loud noise"
"How loud?"
"Very loud!"
Doesn't have the same emotional overtones or impact does it?
I'd wonder if explosives experts could tell the difference under similar circumstances, let alone a couple of average bods who work in an office.

 

[Stellafane]

My 7-year old son just came into the room demanding "What's so funny?" because he heard me laughing out loud at this thread. I see geggy is still running around blindly in his strange little field while all the cattle prods are going ZAP! ZAP! ZAP! It's sick to watch, but it's still far too hilarious to give up just yet.

Actually, all this might serve a more serious purpose than mere morbidly sadistic entertainment. If I ever run into anyone who even begins to hint that 9/11 was anything other than what the official story suggests, I'll point to geggy and ask "Do you really want to be on the same side as this guy?" That should set them straight pretty quick.

Gotta run now...need to decipher my latest instructions from the CIA encoded in the latest issue of My Weekly Reader...

 

[Mr. Skinny]

looks like I award myself 10 points then.

So Goggy, what do you think those links prove? No one here is going to contend that breathing in the dust from pulverized buildings (many containing asbestos) and the ash of thousands of people as well as fumes from burning buildings is going to be healthy.
Are you really contending that faced with a massive asbestos clean up bill someone thought that it would be cheaper to get hold of a small nuclear weapon? and use it to murder thousands of people, covering their tracks by arranging the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners? Just to avoid paying for a contractor to safely remove asbestos from the building?
Can't you see just how ridiculous you sound here smeggy?

Brodski is spot on here.

Even if the building contained asbestos, where is the proof that the owner was required to clean it up? If the asbestos is non-friable, it is not an inhalation hazard. There is non-friable asbestos in much of the old floor tile you walk on every day, as well as in the mastic used to secure it to the floor. Asbestos is in transite sheeting, and in lots of pipe insulation. As long as the stuff is secure and not flaking off in respirable form, there is generally no cause for asbestos clean up.

If required, professional asbestos clean up crews are considerably cheaper than destroying the WTC. We just had a clean up crew abate some asbestos hazards where I work not two weeks ago, and I recall no discussion about destroying the entire laboratory complex to avoid the cost.

Respirator problems would be expected for clean up workers at the site immediately following the collapse. Believe it or not, geggy, some of those people were trying to find living people in the wreckage, and probably went to work knowing that they didn't have the proper respiratory and other safety equipment.

You are truely unbelieveable, geggy.

 

[geggy]

Giggit, you're an idiot.

If a briefcase nuke went off in the basement, it wouldn't have been a few people in the basement who heard it go off (they'd have been killed in the blast and immediate collapse that followed), it would've been people several blocks away who heard it. The collapse would have started at the bottom of the building (the area where the explosion removed support), not at the impact site where the plane hit it. The building would have been even more likely to topple sideways instead of down, and it would NOT have stood for as long as it did after a briefcase nuke went off.

You're contradicting your own evidence that you've continually spouted in this thread...something you seem to do everytime another of your tedious and uninformed theories is shot down in a flaming pile of doggie poo.

If you really care about this, if you really believe this is important, prove it. Right now the only thing you're doing is convincing everyone who reads your mad rantings that the official version of events is true. If you really care, tkae the time and effort to learn what you're talking about. Study physics, study chemistry, study study architecture and engineering, study structural materials and materials science. Look for all the evidence, and compare it against actual science. Don't just pick and choose from conspiracy sites who's sum total of experise consist of the College of "What I can't understand is...", the School of "This guy told me...", the University of "But if...", and the Kindergarten of "If I can't hear you you don't exist!"

Heh...even more ad homien, smartass mocken in this thread. It doesn't have any effect on me which is why I'm still posting here. I'm learning and finding more info as I post. Some info relating to sept 11 that I find may be fabricated by desperate fools on both sides, but I don't know well enough about science to tell if it's true or not. Everytime I post something that could possibly be debunked, then you retort to even more insultings and focus on my weakness. True I don't know much about chemistry, engineering, etc. But I'm willing to listen to both sides of theories as to why the buildings fell. I'm more convinced by the controlled demo theory. I've studied on how building implosions work outside the "conspiracy theory" sites to get a better clarity of the imploding of wtc. The physics of the wtc falling is much too similiar to building implosions, straight down and free fall. Hard for me to take anyone here seriously when they throw in insults and stick to their story without even entertaining the idea that the buildings may have been deliberately imploded with explosives. I'm not here to play games as it seems most of you are, I'm just trying to suggest that the commission report and the FEMA/NIST reports is a total fabrication without being labelled a conspiracy theorist. True the building could have fell as the bomb went off in the basement to cut the core columns, but the thing is that wtc towers are extremely sturdy buildings, it would take a stripping and cutting of the entire towers that the blasting in the basement could not have be able to take it down alone. I've seen puffs ejecting at an accelerating speed out of the building as it fell, which characterizes explosive charges that were going off. Why deny it?

Bobkark...and your point is? EPA bs'd about the level of toxins in the air at wtc site. Not even providing respiratory masks to the workers and now thousands are faced with serious health problems and even death. My question is why would they lie about it?

 

[bob_kark]

Bobkark...and your point is? EPA bs'd about the level of toxins in the air at wtc site. Not even providing respiratory masks to the workers and now thousands are faced with serious health problems and even death. My question is why would they lie about it?

My point is that the EPA study you referenced refers specifically to the area surrounding the immediate World Trade Center area. In other words, it does not include Ground Zero. Secondly, it is the contractor's responsibility to provide their own respiratory masks, not the government's.

I still would like to know what explosive causes pools of molten steel days after the explosion.

ETA: It also specifically states:

Residents and workers returning to buildings where dust from the Trade Center has entered the building should follow proper procedures in cleaning buildings, but the general public should feel very reassured about the extensive environmental monitoring data that has been collected and analyzed. Rescue and recovery crews working on the Trade Center site should take steps to protect themselves from potential exposure to contaminants by using respirators and washing stations as recommended by EPA and OSHA.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm just trying to suggest that the commission report and the FEMA/NIST reports is a total fabrication without being labelled a conspiracy theorist.

My new sig

 

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
Bobkark...and your point is? EPA bs'd about the level of toxins in the air at wtc site. Not even providing respiratory masks to the workers and now thousands are faced with serious health problems and even death. My question is why would they lie about it?

geggy, I thought your links were to prove they lied about asbestos exposure. This was apparently to support your theory that the WTC owner was part of the "conspiracy" so as to avoid asbestos clean up costs?

It was pointed out that your own links say that there were asbestos levels above the safe level in many of the tests taken near the site, but that, as a whole the exposure levels for asbestos away from the immediate site were "safe".

Now you are shifting the goalposts to include all toxins and dusts, etc. (as we pointed out) but are now on a trip about lack of respirators, etc.

What say you to the responses about your "avoiding the asbestos clean up" theory? Do you admit that it's far-fetched?

You can't debate if you just shift to another conjecture or question every time you are cornered.

Edited for spelling.