ANZACs and war and stuff

[bogan]

I can't pick a side to argue for. It's too fuckin funny either way!

Yeh I'm with Drew on this one. Half of the arguments would be considered immature on a primary school playground.

Also, wasn't this exact same topic being discussed in another thread not long ago? Doom is approaching if they figure out how to jump it into the more 'normal' kb thread as well.

[oneofsix]

I can't pick a side to argue for. It's too fuckin funny either way!

Go on pick a side and jump in, you can always switch sides just to confuse them. You know there will be a Govt cover up somewhere in there because someone fucked up somewhere, also with GW involved there are plenty of bad statements to pick on. As to the large conspiracy, there is just too much fodder.

[oneofsix]

I don't believe Building 7 was sufficiently damaged by falling debris and localised office fires to cause it to collapse.

A twenty story hole not enough damage? Localises fires that were big enough to obscure the back of the building?

[Drew]

Go on pick a side and jump in, you can always switch sides just to confuse them. You know there will be a Govt cover up somewhere in there because someone fucked up somewhere, also with GW involved there are plenty of bad statements to pick on. As to the large conspiracy, there is just too much fodder.

Just for another chance to argue with Katman, I'm going to side against the conspiracy.

I have extensive knowledge and experience with the 'State insurance' building here in Wellington. This is relevant to the argument, because it s modeled on the 'World trade center' towers.

The middle of it is a cunt to work on, the sheer size of the columns, beams, and bracing leave no room to do anything. The ceilings are hard up against air conditioning ducting, the walls are not strapped with timber or anything else, because the toilets and stair cases are too fuckin small as it is.

The outer walls and structure are no bigger or closer together than most buildings. On account probably, of office workers wanting to be able to actually see the outside world. They prolly also don't wanna feel claustrophobic. It's quite conceivable that part of the plane would make it through the whole building.

The only lift that goes from top to bottom of the building, is in the core. However, all seven lift shafts go all the way from the basement to the roof.

I think that we could all find something on the internet to back up any argument we want. So I'll abstain from that avenue, and stick with what I know from personal experience.

[Katman]

Well of course you are far more highly qualified to judge, aren't you...

I prefer to believe those who were actually qualified to judge and who clearly and in detail explained why and how.

Refer post #356.

[Drew]

Refer post #356.

"Experts" is a very fuckin reletive term. I reckon the same amount of energy researching these so called experts, instead of looking for doctored video footage, the number of "experts" would drop to near zero.

[Katman]

A twenty story hole not enough damage? Localises fires that were big enough to obscure the back of the building?

All I saw was a whole lot of smoke - not a lot of fire.

[Drew]

All I saw was a whole lot of smoke - not a lot of fire.

Fires fueled by stuff less flamible than wood are good like that.

[Banditbandit]

I can't pick a side to argue for. It's too fuckin funny either way!

Yeah .. I don't know why people cann't seem to accept that planes flew into the buildings ... and caused a big fucken mess that killed people ... not too hard really

I try not to get sucked into this sort of argument .. but then occasxsionally it just gets me ...

[oneofsix]

Fires fueled by stuff less flamible than wood are good like that.

Especially when viewed from another side because no one could actually get around that north side due to the rubble from the towers. But hey that's the basis of a good conspiracy, make people think of a good bonfire then comment on the lack of flames, ignore that soft furnishing fires produce more smoke than flame and that the viewing angle is wrong to be able to see what flame there is.

[Edbear]

Refer post #356.

Refer the above posts and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...umed-fire.html

[Katman]

Fires fueled by stuff less flamible than wood are good like that.

Yeah, I'm sure burning plastic produces a lot of smoke but does it produce a lot of heat?

[Edbear]

Yeah, I'm sure burning plastic produces a lot of smoke but does it produce a lot of heat?

Read the link yet?

[Banditbandit]

I don't believe Building 7 was sufficiently damaged by falling debris and localised office fires to cause it to collapse.

Which bit of that stement don't you believe ? THe bulding certainly collapsed .. it is not there any more and there is footage of it happening ...

You don't believe it was damaged enough to collapse ?? Well, are you suggesting that a perfectly good building simply self-destructs??

You don't believe it was suffiecnetly damaged by falling debris? No .. neither do I ..

Localised fires ??? Hell yes .. olny take one or two fires to heat and destory the steel around the single bolts that held the floor trusses in place to cause one or two to collapse ... then your whole building comes down exactly like it did ... The WTC Powers that be had already identified an issue with fire restance, and were workign to impriove that when Al Qaeda struck ... (The had only got a few floors doen in one building) .. adn they were also installing sprinklers .. not required in those skyscrapers ...

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, I'm sure burning plastic produces a lot of smoke but does it produce a lot of heat?

Hahaha .. light a ballpoint pen and let the plastic drip onto your hand .. that should tell you how hot it burns ...