National service!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Any footage of damage to pentagon would / should be kept as tight as possible as it will reveal information to those who can use it as to the buildings reaction to penetration and the weaknesses and requirements to design any future attack. Building 7, landfill, insufficient structural integrity for the shock, simple, black boxes, the concentrated fire could easily have destroyed them, they're strong but like all human inventions fallible, grabbing all the data to hand on this I'm happy with who the instigators/driving parties were.
 
Aberdude,just got in from the fields with my organic cabbage and broccoli to find that you have been expressing your views and others are suggesting that you are seeing too much into things.

Have you ever had this discussion on your Cardiff board, making these well rehearsed thoughts of yours? I hope that if you did a re-run of the subject there you would get the same considered responses.
 
Aberdude - I only suggested it may be part of the landfill as I have not been so interested in those buildings that I have examined where they are - the twin towers were certainly on the granite rock of Manhattan and I know - from having been there that a lot of the rest of the world trade centre was built on landfill - that's all

Your problem is that you assume that if people whose job it is to keep things secret - and will always err on the cautious side (I hope) do not tell you everything then they are lying. Well how about using the other end of your telescope. Planes were flown into the twin towers and Pentagon by terrorists - ask them to release to you their details so that you can see whether they were set up or not - they must not have anything to hide as they finished their mission - when they have given you their material let me know and I will think about it :)

Oh and give my regards to Bin Laden and tell him he he lets me know where he is I will not reveal it to the security services.
 
Aber ,as I work in aviation for your info black boxs are in fact orange!! Also a high percentage of aircraft crashes the "black box`s are never found ,the ones that are found usually the data is damaged ! they work IE give helpful data about 20% of the time , thus not getting a black box recovered from an aircraft that dived into a skyscraper then got burnt to a toast, then had many tons of masonry fall on it!! I`m not surprised it died!!
Have a good evening mate<ok>
 
Thought it funded your property hunt in wales ,you only got on escape to the country, coz the CIA intervened!!!,, its obvious really!!



bit of home board conspricy theory;)<laugh>
 
Aber, as someone who spent a lifetime in constructural engineering, I can assure you that there is no reason to stop building on landfill sites. You wouldn't necessarily choose to do so, but in an area where there is such a high density of buildings land only becomes available from time to time. When it does you find the correct engineering solution to build on it.
 
aberdude said:
not if the picture you use is anything 2go by <laugh>...i suppose we are lucky you can make your sick pay panel every 6months or so <ok>
Click to expand...

Fair point <laugh>

But wouldn't we all rather shag around, get fat, smoke, drink and do drugs, all paid for by the state, than graft for half of what we'd otherwise have by doing it Frank's way?
 
Aber - get a map of New York dated around the late 1980s and then one for now - you can see for yourself that they have added a whole area of landfill right next to the twin towers site - I cannot believe you did not know this. All you have to do is look at the maps.

They built the land fill to a specification that would hold buildings of a certain height but did not necessarily expect aircraft to be flown into them

You ask for FACTS and I am giving you one. There is a whole bunch of buildings next to the twin tower site built on land that was not there 20 years ago - I know as I was there before and after. I also happened to be staying in the hotel between the twin towers when it was bombed in 1993 Now you can argue all you like about the competence of structural engineers but that is another matter. No doubt BBW - our resident engineer /wrtier can tell you more about the stresses buildings are built to withstand.
 
It did survive an strike for several hours!! it was the other hits that killed it ,you can design for one aircraft strike ,but you don`t exactly expect multiple strikes!!!
 
aberdude said:
yes they did expect air craft 2 hit or they took the procautions for this possibilty....that was straight from the horses mouth of the man that designed them.come on dude you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Actually "dude" I need not do better than that. I doubt that many buildings in New York or elsewhere pre 2001 were designed to withstand two civil ariliners being flown into them and then two massive buildings crashing to the ground - not really the sort of spec that would have been given to the building designers would it have been? Of course now it may be.

More to the point you - like many conspiracy theorists are quite canny. You propose a daft idea and then enjoy watching the rest of us rush around like headless chickens trying to disprove the silliness -and if the rebuttal is not 100% watertight you pick on the 1% and open the wound.

It does not work like that except in your funny little conspiracy circles. We have eyes and ears and see what happens and apply reasonable doubt etc to form an opinion. I would be very worried if the security services shared all their information with us - I sleep more soundly in bed knowing that terrorists are given the minimum of information possible - if the result is sad little people want to play conspiracy games then that is a shame.

I have said more than enough on the subject and will not be drawn more . You can add me to your list of niaive people who are duped by govenments if you wish - can't say your opinion about me is top of my worry list though
 
Yes - he's OK but he's like my kids were when they were small - they thought that by answering "why" to any answer they were being smart - but they grew up. Conspiracy theorists are great to have in a pub after a few drinks and you have a laugh but for example Aber "believes" without doubt that firefighters heard "explosions in the basement" but not that terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. I don't see his questioning powers being applied to these mythical firemen who supposedly heard explosions, nor whether those explosions were explosives or the sound a building about to fall cracking etc. Since in public debate it is hard to prove anythign 100% people can always raise questions - well jolly good but after a while it gets tedious and you realise that only a signed confession would satisfy them - oh no but it wouldn't :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back