9/11
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I don't think it would be a right or proper to give these ejits TV time, let alone, the day before the anniversary. 3000 people died in a cowardly attack by Al queda, nothing else. Anyone who thinks it was anything but that seriously needs some help. yeah right, the american government did it themselves as an excuse to invade irag, sorry, I forgot.....
One program on the subject that was however worth watching, was the firemans story, shown last week. That was bravery,courage and amazing heroism on a grand scale.
lest we forget
One program on the subject that was however worth watching, was the firemans story, shown last week. That was bravery,courage and amazing heroism on a grand scale.
lest we forget
I watched it - what I don't get is even if there was a remote chance that the US government was behind it why do the conspirators think they would go to all the trouble to rig the WTC with explosives or all the other so called cover ups rather than just employ terrorists to do what they did.
Surely that would be easier to keep secret than employing hundreds of people to carry out the 'cover ups'? I'm sure most of the conspirators just see it as a way of making money from royalties.
Next they will be saying we didn't land on the moon!
;-)
Surely that would be easier to keep secret than employing hundreds of people to carry out the 'cover ups'? I'm sure most of the conspirators just see it as a way of making money from royalties.
Next they will be saying we didn't land on the moon!
;-)
RogerP
Established Member
Richard T
Established Member
Of course they landed on the moon - otherwise they would never have been hassled by the aliens who have a secret base on the dark side. It's obvious when you think about it.
I think I might have been watching Richplanet TV a bit too much ..
I think I might have been watching Richplanet TV a bit too much ..
Was indeed fascinating.
The girl who hid behind her sunglasses most of the time had little argument in front of the experts and did I hear her say about there not being satellites in 2001 so mobile phones wouldn't work on a plane anyway!!
At least the big guy had the courage to say it had changed his mind!
Dave
The girl who hid behind her sunglasses most of the time had little argument in front of the experts and did I hear her say about there not being satellites in 2001 so mobile phones wouldn't work on a plane anyway!!
At least the big guy had the courage to say it had changed his mind!
Dave
RogerP":2tqddpoj said:.. which conspiracy theory has been forever silenced. ... of course they could have faked this too.Daven":2tqddpoj said:Next they will be saying we didn't land on the moon!
LOL - yeah I saw that in the week and wondered the same ;-)
Even though we have been measuring the distance of the moon from the earth by firing a laser at a mirror left there by the Apollo missions, they still think it was faked - maybe it was and it is reflecting off Elvis's belt
Dave
One Moon landing denier I know of claims that the astronauats simply circled the Earth.
I patiently explained that any radio ham or radar network would make that impssible to fake, his retort, I've been brain washed!
The woman in the programme last night made her point very clear, she staed that nothing would convince her that it was not carried out by the US government.
Roy.
I patiently explained that any radio ham or radar network would make that impssible to fake, his retort, I've been brain washed!
The woman in the programme last night made her point very clear, she staed that nothing would convince her that it was not carried out by the US government.
Roy.
bosshogg
Established Member
All of this just goes to show "there's nowt queerer than fowk"...bosshogg
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 5,295
- Reaction score
- 411
I didn't see this one, but it's a bit odd the way the 3rd building dropped into its own hole? Nothing crashed into that one?
I feel for the people who lost loved ones in that place and a wonderful lady I know lost 3 grandchildren in there so I wouldn't ever take the incident lightly.
This conspiracy theory is not the first the the Americans have been suspected of either!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
It's a bit long but a very interesting read. Let's take a whacking so that we can retaliate???
I feel for the people who lost loved ones in that place and a wonderful lady I know lost 3 grandchildren in there so I wouldn't ever take the incident lightly.
This conspiracy theory is not the first the the Americans have been suspected of either!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
It's a bit long but a very interesting read. Let's take a whacking so that we can retaliate???
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 76
Jonzjob":1z4zyhic said:
I looked at the detail of the WTC7 report some years ago, as I was debating it with other people who refused to believe it was terrorism. My memory is unreliable these days (and I'm not going to waste time on looking it up all over again) but the gist of it was that, the building had inherent weaknesses because its design was badly modified.
Late in the planning/design process they were required to accommodate a very large electricity sub-station above ground but low down at the back (behind its reception area). I think the facility served several of the WTC complex buildings.
If you look at the building plans, there was a lot of it essentially hanging out over space (the transformer hall). WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris when the towers collapsed, some of which damaged its structural integrity through direct impact damage, and other debris caused fires at crucially weak points.
Why it fell into its own 'footprint' I've no specific idea (it's not questioned in the WTC7 report), except that the major force acting on it during its collapse was gravity. The forces necessary to move significant parts of it sideways just weren't present (buildings usually collapse straight downwards, c.f. Ronan Point here). When chimneys topple, they're usually encouraged to do so by deliberately very asymmetric demolition.
E.
JJ. that was dealt with in the programme, the demolition man explained that a building of such a size cannot topple sideways, as soon as it does the whole lot comes down.
Basically the demolition boys rely on this to make certain that the building falls where they want it to.
As regards Pearl Harbour, if the Americans knew of an impending attack on Pearl they could have attacked the incoming aircraft. The incoming aircraft would have been an act of war even if they had not sunk a single ship.
Roy.
Basically the demolition boys rely on this to make certain that the building falls where they want it to.
As regards Pearl Harbour, if the Americans knew of an impending attack on Pearl they could have attacked the incoming aircraft. The incoming aircraft would have been an act of war even if they had not sunk a single ship.
Roy.
OPJ
Established Member
Yeah, I saw this program as well. Do the producers honestly expect viewers to take it seriously when they have a comedian presenting the show? Also, they could have mixed and matched the group a bit to perhaps include some older members. That girl also mentioned the word 'Illuminati', I seem to remember... :roll:
Whichever way you look at this, it was a huge tragedy for relatives and close friends of anyone connected with the thousands of innocent lives lost.
But, just as the BBC were able to spend some time with a number of qualified experts who could dispel any suggestions of a conspiracy/cover up, the sad truth is that, you can also find people with similar pedigrees who would tell you the opposite! :roll: There was a similar program on BBC2 the other week but, with less adolescence.
There was one point that nobody seemed to discuss though, which concerns the attack on the Pentagon... In the low-quality security camera footage that shows the plane impacting with the Pentagon (which, IIRC, the FBI only released to the public five-years ago?), there's a "convenient" section of missing film between the plane arriving in to view and the impact with the building. They claim this part of the film was damaged or something. Yet, without seeing what hit the Pentagon, no-one can confirm or deny that it was in fact a Boeing 747 and nothing else. That's the only thing I find 'suspicious' in all of this. If that video was complete, there would barely be a case to point the finger at the US government. And, unless I feel asleep and missed that section, it wasn't mentioned on the BBC3 program (at least, not in the final cut, anyway).
Whichever way you look at this, it was a huge tragedy for relatives and close friends of anyone connected with the thousands of innocent lives lost.
But, just as the BBC were able to spend some time with a number of qualified experts who could dispel any suggestions of a conspiracy/cover up, the sad truth is that, you can also find people with similar pedigrees who would tell you the opposite! :roll: There was a similar program on BBC2 the other week but, with less adolescence.
There was one point that nobody seemed to discuss though, which concerns the attack on the Pentagon... In the low-quality security camera footage that shows the plane impacting with the Pentagon (which, IIRC, the FBI only released to the public five-years ago?), there's a "convenient" section of missing film between the plane arriving in to view and the impact with the building. They claim this part of the film was damaged or something. Yet, without seeing what hit the Pentagon, no-one can confirm or deny that it was in fact a Boeing 747 and nothing else. That's the only thing I find 'suspicious' in all of this. If that video was complete, there would barely be a case to point the finger at the US government. And, unless I feel asleep and missed that section, it wasn't mentioned on the BBC3 program (at least, not in the final cut, anyway).
There was one point that nobody seemed to discuss though, which concerns the attack on the Pentagon... In the low-quality security camera footage that shows the plane impacting with the Pentagon (which, IIRC, the FBI only released to the public five-years ago?), there's a "convenient" section of missing film between the plane arriving in to view and the impact with the building. They claim this part of the film was damaged or something. Yet, without seeing what hit the Pentagon, no-one can confirm or deny that it was in fact a Boeing 747 and nothing else. That's the only thing I find 'suspicious' in all of this. If that video was complete, there would barely be a case to point the finger at the US government. And, unless I feel asleep and missed that section, it wasn't mentioned on the BBC3 program (at least, not in the final cut, anyway).
I think a fair number of the victims would disagree Olly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... _Flight_77
I think a fair number of the victims would disagree Olly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... _Flight_77
RogerS
Established Member
I've not watched it yet ...recorded..but having read the comments here, don't think I'll bother!
I must, however, stop listening to the Today programme as this morning I found myself in the car screaming profanities at that lying, conniving, double-dealing, odious, faecal, scumbag of a man..no, not John Humphreys.. but Blair, as he slid and slided under questioning. Why the hell that cnut has never faced a War Crimes trial I will never know.
I must, however, stop listening to the Today programme as this morning I found myself in the car screaming profanities at that lying, conniving, double-dealing, odious, faecal, scumbag of a man..no, not John Humphreys.. but Blair, as he slid and slided under questioning. Why the hell that cnut has never faced a War Crimes trial I will never know.
RogerS
Established Member
Digit":1r8ezhng said:
That's the one
