ANZACs and war and stuff

[Hinny]

Nope. That parameter wasn't installed on that model Boeing.

Can you explain the cockpit voice recording?
The phone calls from passengers?

Plenty of questions have certainly been asked about the phone calls from passengers since cell phones didn't work from aeroplanes then and the seat phones had been taken out.
A debunker said the calls weren't from cell phones they were from seat phones and offered a photo of seat phones in an aircraft of the same airline he flew in a year later that had seat phones as proof they could have been made from seat phones. I've flown in many aircraft with seat phones back in the days before 911. None of them worked. Does that prove none of the passenger phone calls were real? Similar standard of proof to the debunker I would have thought.

[Hinny]

Very good. Maybe you really do get what you pay for...

Anyway, Architects make pretty pictures, the guys that design the structures are Engineers.

Engineers said the fires caused the steel trusses to pull the columns inward in the twin towers.
They said fires caused the trusses to push the columns outward in the WTC7.
This one was interesting as it caused a larger column, buttressed by the rest of the building, to collapse rather than a perimeter column that had no support from the outside.
Is that logical? That it should work against the area of most resistance.

[Kickaha]

Do you believe that planes can 'vapourise' in a crash?

No, but a plane is a fairly flimsy structure, watch a few crash videos where they flew planes into solid objcts and there's fuck all left of them, but I'm sure all those bits of plane they found were planted,probably at the same time they wired the buidings for explosives

It would appear:
Never before have crashed planes vapourised; as both the Pentagon plane and the Shanksville plane are alleged to have.
Never before has a plane nose-dived into the ground and wreckage be found six miles away.
Never before have steel framed skyscrapers fallen down after a fire.
Never before has a kerosene fire and falling concrete caused steel to turn to dust.

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?

"Never before" have those things happened doesn't mean they wont ever happen again

[Drew]

And you think the failure of a single column could allow a building to fall in the manner that WTC7 did?

No, but it's not like there was a fire that did nothing to the building but damage that single column.

The huge unsupported floor span with that column gone, would have colapsed. That seems to have started a cave in of floors, and then once things were dropping pretty quickly, the exterior walls came down with reletive lack of impedence.

You asked me about this, and I provided links to the NIST site, that answered.

Who's ignoring stuff now?

[Katman]

Who's ignoring stuff now?

I don't think I'm ignoring anything Drew.

http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

"Relative lack of impedance" is hardly the same as free fall.

And besides, NIST are a government agency that were tasked with coming up with an explanation.

Hardly what you'd call an independent investigation.

[Katman]

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?

You haven't been paying attention, have you Warwick?

In 60 or so pages there's been a lot more discussed than just the incorrect use of one word.

[Katman]

The column in question is also quite a distance from the impact damage from the tower collapsing.

[Hinny]

So they use one word like vapourised and all of a sudden it means everything else said is rubbish? what if they'd said disentergrated would that make it right?

Disentergrated - you writing with an American accent now?

The word vapourised was used to explain the lack of evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
The plane apparently vapourised.
Even the engines burnt up in the fire.
Get a reality check!

[Robert Taylor]

The videos that play at the War Museum at Waiouru concerning those events bring tears to your eyes.
It is easy to see how US actions will be creating more 'terrorists' than eliminating them.
After reading the heart wrenching story of the result of a US drone strike in Pakistan I can certainly sympathise with those who may regard the US as the home of the devil and want to exact revenge.
It is ingrained into our psyche to exact revenge, through the modern media, and I suspect more so in many of the countries currently under attack from the US and its allies.

As for Churchill his stint in the trenches should hardly have been sufficient to right the wrongs. Falling on his sword would have been the honourable thing to do.
His behaviour it appears didn't get any better later on.
We now see the current US and UK govts. following his lead by ignoring the 'rules of war' - the Treaties and Conventions that are supposed to govern their behaviour.
To me that is as inexcusable as the modern penchant for kicking people when they are down in fights which appears to have led to the recent death of a young lad in Ak.
The age old 'Queensbury Rules' understanding that governed getting or giving a bit of biff when I was young has gone out the window. Similarly the Geneva convention is ignored by the monsters in power. W and his puppet masters had the Iraqis lay down their arms and then proceeded to try and wipe them off the face of the earth. John Pilger reported pilots struggling to find a target bigger than an outhouse. Obama seems to think he has the right to kill people around the world at his will. They justify killing their own people without any form of justice. It is bizarre! Remember the 'Butcher of Baghdad' - 'killing his own people'. Now we have the butcher of Washington killing his own people. It is as if he has been brainwashed and knows not what he does.
Mind control is probably more easily achieved in times of high stress. This may be what has happened.
The man with the big gun has a licence to kill - anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Don't need no stupid laws to tell him what he can and can't do. He's got Bebe for that.

With respect to England I guess you'd say that they are paying for their history, in many ways.

[Ocean1]

No idea, I'm neither familiar with the building nor qualified to comment.

Clearly you consider yourself more qualified than these guys.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Fascinating, how you can make that leap of... err, what is that, dude, that takes the place of logic in your head, that makes you believe the exact opposite of what's in front of your face?

[Katman]

Fascinating, how you can make that leap of... err, what is that, dude, that takes the place of logic in your head, that makes you believe the exact opposite of what's in front of your face?

So rather than seeing yourself as more qualified you find yourself easier led by the official story over and above considering the opinions of those clearly qualified to offer them.

[Ocean1]

Engineers said the fires caused the steel trusses to pull the columns inward in the twin towers.
They said fires caused the trusses to push the columns outward in the WTC7.
This one was interesting as it caused a larger column, buttressed by the rest of the building, to collapse rather than a perimeter column that had no support from the outside.
Is that logical? That it should work against the area of most resistance.

Depends on which side the heat's on. Depends on where and how it's supported.

And yes, they can displace almost as much load as they're capable of supporting, as you'd know if you'd ever tried to weld a cleat to the middle of a RSJ.

But as interesting as that is it's not why I'm lurking. I'm more interested in to what extent this: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/...s/EP102934.pdf manifests itself in situations where individuals don't have much interest in the outcome of the discussion, other than the mundane need to be proven right.

Seems, on the face of it to be rather a lot.

[Kickaha]

Disentergrated - you writing with an American accent now?

The word vapourised was used to explain the lack of evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
The plane apparently vapourised.
Even the engines burnt up in the fire.
Get a reality check!

No I was writing with poor spelling, big fucking deal

Lack of evidence?
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml
Hey look there's even pictures of engine bits and other assorted plane shit, must be planted
There's plenty of evidence but because it doesnt back up what you want the story to be you ignore it

[Katman]

......other than the mundane need to be proven right.

A desire for the truth has very little in common with a mundane need to be proven right.

[Ocean1]

So rather than seeing yourself as more qualified you find yourself easier led by the official story over and above considering the opinions of those clearly qualified to offer them.

Are you suggesting the official opinions are less qualified?

Actually, don't bother. I don't know what the real story is, I suspect it's close to the official version but I don't believe the effort required to prove otherwise is worth the doubtful return. It's also likely that the background noise generated by the conspiracy theory industry has made any definitive answer impossible to find.

Perhaps that's the feds, burying any last traces of evidence, eh?