Bin Laden: Shoot To Kill

[philipp]

Well we can you you surround yourself in a world of fiction just from your avatar and signature, so I can't say I'm suprised.

I like fiction, I also like facts. And I am smart enough to distinguish between them, unlike some :-D

P.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Nope of course not, but you are advocating believing in everything we don't here on tv's. That includes Ewoks and Jedi's flying round the streets of London in the Millenium Falcon.

No, I just don't see why people continue to believe something that cannot possibly be real.

In a court, if the defense claimed that a building was built in a certain way which lead to its failure, and the opposition showed that it was actually built in a different way to their claim, and the failure was due to something else - would you be glad to see the defense side win?

 

[BREWSTERS]

I like fiction, I also like facts. And I am smart enough to distinguish between them, unlike some :-D

P.

So on the back of this comment, would you like to offer a 'fact' relating to the collapse of the towers?

 

[GreyWing]

No, I just don't see why people continue to believe something that cannot possibly be real.

In a court, if the defense claimed that a building was built in a certain way which lead to its failure, and the opposition showed that it was actually built in a different way to their claim, and the failure was due to something else - would you be glad to see the defense side win?

Answer me this question then, if the fire was left to burn, would it have brought down the buildings without the need for what you say is explosives?

 

[philipp]

So on the back of this comment, would you like to offer a 'fact' relating to the collapse of the towers?

A fact I can vouch for is that I used to work a few hundred yards from the towers and often visited a fantastic bar at the top of WTC1, called the Greatest Bar on Earth. It was very upsetting to see the towers destroyed.

I find the proliferation of nonsense troubling too, but what can you do?

I (probably) won't be making any more posts in this thread, as it's all been said before; and my personal and considered judgement is that the conspiracy theories are a load of bollocks. I'm sure there are some genuine experts' reports on the Internet, although the signal to noise ratio is poor.

Cheers,

P.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Answer me this question then, if the fire was left to burn, would it have brought down the buildings without the need for what you say is explosives?

Too many variables to answer that. Looking at previous fires in steel framed buildings though, no. Fire has never lead to the collapse of a steel framed building of this type.

 

[BREWSTERS]

A fact I can vouch for is that I used to work a few hundred yards from the towers and often visited a fantastic bar at the top of WTC1, called the Greatest Bar on Earth. It was very upsetting to see the towers destroyed.

I find the proliferation of nonsense troubling too, but what can you do?

I (probably) won't be making any more posts in this thread, as it's all been said before; and my personal and considered judgement is that the conspiracy theories are a load of bollocks. I'm sure there are some genuine experts' reports on the Internet, although the signal to noise ratio is poor.

Cheers,

P.

Gee, what a shock.

Can't attack the logic but are happy to label it bollocks anyway.

 

[GreyWing]

Too many variables to answer that. Looking at previous fires in steel framed buildings though, no. Fire has never lead to the collapse of a steel framed building of this type.

lol come on, those buildings were coming down anyway. There was no way those fires were going to be extinguished at that height. The true fact is that there was no need for explosives to bring them down. It's amazing they survived having at 100 ton jet flying into them at 400 mph.

 

[BREWSTERS]

There's no precedent to what happened to those buildings on that day and that's what affords your so called 'experts' so much license.

Not as much licence as the officials. Apparently they can disregard all manner of facts in their unnrelenting pursuit of making their theory fit the result.

Come on guys - no-one has yet said anything against any points raised - it isn't enough to just say it's nonsense or that the authors are crazy.

On top of that, the lack of any counter argument or facts in defense of the official story is starting to get embarassing. You might as well say "I don't know why I believe it, I just do".

 

[Systreg]

As far as I'm concerned, all conspiracy theorists are tin foil hat wearing nuts, I also liken them to religious freaks, who bang on about something or other and expect you to believe everything they say, and everyone else is wrong if they don't think the same way as them.

If I was ever a bit suspicious about something, all I would need to do is look at sites like http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm which makes conspiracy theorists look stupid.

Looking at previous fires in steel framed buildings though, no. Fire has never lead to the collapse of a steel framed building of this type.

Of all the other steel framed buildings that survived fires, how many of them had an commercial airliner crash in to them at high speed? It's none, so you cannot even start using other steel framed buildings not collapsing during fires as any sort or argument, don't bother replying to me, I don't give a monkeys either way.

 

[BREWSTERS]

lol come on, those buildings were coming down anyway. There was no way those fires were going to be extinguished at that height. The true fact is that there was no need for explosives to bring them down. It's amazing they survived having at 100 ton jet flying into them at 400 mph.

Oh, so if thats a fact, which other steel framed buildings have been brought down through fire?*

Ever seen the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid? Burned the whole building for over 18 hours - yes the building was gutted, but it didn't come near to falling down. The steel structure was barely effected. That fire was many times worse. There have been plenty of fires in steel framed buildings - the only ones that ever collapsed were the three on 911 - and one of those wasn't hit by plane.

Planes; skyscrapers are designed to take the impact of a commercial jet. Have you seen the central core of the WTC towers? Not only could it take the strikes, but the buildings could've been repaired. Just like the Empire State Building was after that got hit by a commercial plane.

If the official report is to be believed, then every skyscraper in the world would no longer be fit for purpose.

*None.

 

[mat]

I think you are the only one embarrassing yourself at the moment Brewsters.

You’re actually being quite disrespectful and arrogant to a number of us here. We aren’t stupid, we are able to take in facts and base our opinions on everything we see and hear just like you.

You have got to high on your almighty new world order horse, that you simply disregard anyone else’s view except yours. There is no point even starting to debate with you, as you slam people down the minute they try and challenge your arguments.

 

[BREWSTERS]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

Pointing to the NIST (official) Report does not prove what is in it.

Just so you can see exactly how they fudged the report, and what evidence they ommited, read this;

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

 

[BREWSTERS]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Yeah...if you'd bothered to look through the evidence on the link earlier, you would have been aware that Eager was the authour of one of the faulty theories addopted by the officials as they grasped at straws - like you are now really.

 

[mat]

By the way Brewsters.

Answer me this please...

If it really is a FACT that the planes could not possibly bring down the buildings, why would the government use this as their method if they are trying to fool everyone including experts from around the world?

 

[BREWSTERS]

As far as I'm concerned, all conspiracy theorists are tin foil hat wearing nuts, I also liken them to religious freaks, who bang on about something or other and expect you to believe everything they say, and everyone else is wrong if they don't think the same way as them.

If I was ever a bit suspicious about something, all I would need to do is look at sites like http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm which makes conspiracy theorists look stupid.

Care to pick anything from that site to try and make me look stupid? Honestly though, debunking911.com...you'd get more genuine info from the front headline of The Sunday Sport.

Of all the other steel framed buildings that survived fires, how many of them had an commercial airliner crash in to them at high speed? It's none, so you cannot even start using other steel framed buildings not collapsing during fires as any sort or argument, don't bother replying to me, I don't give a monkeys either way.

The impact effects some parts, the fire effects others.

 

[BREWSTERS]

I think you are the only one embarrassing yourself at the moment Brewsters.

You’re actually being quite disrespectful and arrogant to a number of us here. We aren’t stupid, we are able to take in facts and base our opinions on everything we see and hear just like you.

You have got to high on your almighty new world order horse, that you simply disregard anyone else’s view except yours. There is no point even starting to debate with you, as you slam people down the minute they try and challenge your arguments.

Mat, I haven't shown any disrespect to anyone who didn't show it me first - I've been quite sure not to from the start.

Secondly, if anyone offers anything other than a preconceived idea of what can or did happen, I'll happily debate it. Greywing has come closest so far, but even his belief is based on opinion and no more.

 

[BREWSTERS]

By the way Brewsters.

Answer me this please...

If it really is a FACT that the planes could not possibly bring down the buildings, why would the government use this as their method if they are trying to fool everyone including experts from around the world?

The planes were for shock value and to create confusion and also to hide the explosions. Can you imagine what uproar there'd have been if they just blew up the buildings and blamed Bin Laden? People would want to know how the hell he (OBL) could've done that under the noses of the US.

It was the psychological attack; http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/psyops.html

 

[mat]

Thats a bit of a half arsed answer Brewsters.

Im asking why would they use a method that is known as a fact not to be possible?

Its also worth noting that they didnt have to use those buildings...

 

[philipp]

Nevermind. Answer Mat's question.

P.