Washington Times - Questions over WTC collapse.
#1
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
Washington Times - Questions over WTC collapse.
so these guys are "nuts" as well right?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three
steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate
the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three
steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate
the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
#2
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NAMBLA HQ
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was watched on TV live by tens of millions of people, if not more. Whatever, just don't think it's credible given the circumstances that a demolition crew happened to be there so quick with the right instructions and authorisations, and parked up with their explosives and dodged all the falling bodies and police and firemen, and rigged the building.
Sorry but no fucking way IMHO.
Sorry but no fucking way IMHO.
Trending Topics
#8
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Graham S1, I really would like to know what you hope to achieve with all of this
There must be something more constructive you can do with your time?
I don't know, perhaps you really can topple the US government
PS - I don't think you have the quote in your sig right...
There must be something more constructive you can do with your time?
I don't know, perhaps you really can topple the US government
PS - I don't think you have the quote in your sig right...
#12
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
daz, Phil new DVD's on the way.
Since the first lot I sent ut, I've slowed down the burning speed, and a lot less are skipping/freezing.
why all this? to demonstrate how easily the public is lied to by both Governments and media. I don't want you ALL to give up your day jobs, and turn full time anarchists, (thats my job ) , simply, do not accept everything you are told straight off.
Since the first lot I sent ut, I've slowed down the burning speed, and a lot less are skipping/freezing.
why all this? to demonstrate how easily the public is lied to by both Governments and media. I don't want you ALL to give up your day jobs, and turn full time anarchists, (thats my job ) , simply, do not accept everything you are told straight off.
#15
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by The Gravedigger
It was watched on TV live by tens of millions of people, if not more. Whatever, just don't think it's credible given the circumstances that a demolition crew happened to be there so quick with the right instructions and authorisations, and parked up with their explosives and dodged all the falling bodies and police and firemen, and rigged the building.
Sorry but no fucking way IMHO.
Sorry but no fucking way IMHO.
And who was head of security at the towers? Marvin Bush.
#16
that DVD that Graham S1 sent out is foooking bad. it was a set up big time. even watching other programmes about it dont answer questions. watch the DVD. i have people i know who said shut up Rob about it b4 they watched it. now that dvd has been sent round a lot of people that work for my council and BAA @ Heathrow
trust me watch the DVD and your view will change...BIG TIME
trust me watch the DVD and your view will change...BIG TIME
#17
having a mid life crisis
Theories assumptions
If you dislike the amercians govermanet go live in China and complain about the tianmin (spL) square where they ran the stiudents with tanks.
Or Oh you would be couldnt
If you dislike the amercians govermanet go live in China and complain about the tianmin (spL) square where they ran the stiudents with tanks.
Or Oh you would be couldnt
#20
20K+ Super Poster.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex... and Birmingham!
Posts: 21,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Graham S1
daz, Phil new DVD's on the way.
Since the first lot I sent ut, I've slowed down the burning speed, and a lot less are skipping/freezing.
Since the first lot I sent ut, I've slowed down the burning speed, and a lot less are skipping/freezing.
Can I buy another?
#22
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Less why do you have to go live in china to think that the us government arnt playing by the rules???
They are a slimy bunch or red neck wankers who use money as a reason to kill thousands of people....
America have and always will think they are better then ever other country...
One thing, If the USA and GB think it is their job to keep an eye on other people stock pilling WMD whos job is it to watch over the US and GB, cos we are still building WMD and so are the yanks......
They are a slimy bunch or red neck wankers who use money as a reason to kill thousands of people....
America have and always will think they are better then ever other country...
One thing, If the USA and GB think it is their job to keep an eye on other people stock pilling WMD whos job is it to watch over the US and GB, cos we are still building WMD and so are the yanks......
#23
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the theory Reynolds supports is that is bears non of its findings on facts but pure opinion. The theory argues that the fires in the towers didn't burn hot enough because they "didn't look that hot" when in fact people like Thomas Eagar (professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT), and many many other fire and material experts from all over the world have agreed that they were.
I found a theory the other day that 767's never hit the towers and in fact 3d generated planes were superimposed onto the live video feeds on news channels.
Controlled demolition - My aching ass
I found a theory the other day that 767's never hit the towers and in fact 3d generated planes were superimposed onto the live video feeds on news channels.
Controlled demolition - My aching ass
#24
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by MWF
Controlled demolition - My aching ass
Originally Posted by MWF
The problem with the theory Reynolds supports is that is bears non of its findings on facts but pure opinion. The theory argues that the fires in the towers didn't burn hot enough because they "didn't look that hot" when in fact people like Thomas Eagar (professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT), and many many other fire and material experts from all over the world have agreed that they were.
Originally Posted by MWF
I found a theory the other day that 767's never hit the towers and in fact 3d generated planes were superimposed onto the live video feeds on news channels.
Les.. moving to China... doesn't sound like a bad idea actually. Better than sticking round in this country much longer. As John Simpson (BBC reporter) quoted in one of his books (I'd love my country, I would die for my country, I'm just not keen on living there )
Keith, Ryhs et al... the offer is still open if you want a dvd. Can't see how you can argue about something you haven't seen. You are not trying to disprove any of the things I'm saying, without using insults. Pretty childish really.
#26
Originally Posted by Graham S1
As John Simpson (BBC reporter) quoted in one of his books (I'd love my country, I would die for my country, I'm just not keen on living there )
#27
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Rhys
This is like a broken record!
Havent you got other subject to discus mate, or u just a one topic wonder?
Havent you got other subject to discus mate, or u just a one topic wonder?
https://passionford.com/forum/search...thor=Graham+S1
#28
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Graham S1
both towers fell at near enough (within seconds) the same speed that they would have done in freefall in a vacuum.
Originally Posted by Graham S1
Try telling that to the lady pictured in the opening where the plane went in shortly before they collapsed.
1. A 767 loaded with fuel hit each tower at high speed
2. A larger number of floors in each tower caught fire
3. Both buildings suffered structural failure around the point of impact and colapsed
4. An overwhelming number of experts said they saw nothing unusual
Now you, and others, can keep convincing yourself that there is a deeper mystery to it all but you'll just have to accept that thousands of people died in a brutal and crude conspiracy by terrorists.
You have to remember you are supporting a elaborate theory by a government that couldn't cover up a break in at a cheesy hotel.
Next you'll be telling me Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have fired the number of shots he did when he assasinated JFK.
#29
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Washington Times - Questions over WTC collapse.
Originally Posted by Graham S1
so these guys are "nuts" as well right?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three
steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate
the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2755-6408r.htm
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor
emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three
steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate
the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of
the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either.
The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Doesnt mean jack shit really. Its like Bob Geldof saying "Destroy eBay" and The Sun reporting he said "Destroy eBay" Its not based on fact and its not a story the newspaper agrees with
Fooking Nut Bags who think we care on this website anyway. But you keep going as you amuse me
#31
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 4,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the DVD and can i say if it was a demolition who the fuck they get to kamikaze the planes? Or did they offer them a warm welcome by God with a half price drinks voucher!
#32
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 6,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you amagine how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy? Could you honestly imagine them all agreeing to do this and keep there mouths shut for ever more and nobody notice the ring of detonators wrapped around the buildings it would take to down them? My boss was in charge of downing the flats in Oxgangs that was on National Geographic a couple of months ago and they are minature in comparisson and you couldn't miss the explosions that brought them down. Could you imagine the size of the explosion and how many witnesses, i.e. film crews there would be? Do you know how much explosives they use to do this and it ain't a case of planting a huge bomb at the bottom Is Bin Laden in on it aswell or is that George Bush sitting in the cave now some people
#33
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graham S1 have you every seen charges going off in a controlled demolition
With 911 there was no explosive dust cloud, no explosive noise, no outward blast face
Its complete bollox
With 911 there was no explosive dust cloud, no explosive noise, no outward blast face
Its complete bollox
#34
PassionFord Post Troll
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by Graham S1
both towers fell at near enough (within seconds) the same speed that they would have done in freefall in a vacuum.
Originally Posted by Graham S1
Try telling that to the lady pictured in the opening where the plane went in shortly before they collapsed.
Originally Posted by MWF
1. A 767 loaded with fuel hit each tower at high speed
Originally Posted by MWF
2. A larger number of floors in each tower caught fire
Originally Posted by MWF
3. Both buildings suffered structural failure around the point of impact and colapsed
Originally Posted by MWF
4. An overwhelming number of experts said they saw nothing unusual
Originally Posted by MWF
Now you, and others, can keep convincing yourself that there is a deeper mystery to it all but you'll just have to accept that thousands of people died in a brutal and crude conspiracy by terrorists.
Originally Posted by MWF
You have to remember you are supporting a elaborate theory by a government that couldn't cover up a break in at a cheesy hotel.
Originally Posted by MWF
Next you'll be telling me Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have fired the number of shots he did when he assasinated JFK.
Originally Posted by Rich w
Fooking Nut Bags who think we care on this website anyway. But you keep going as you amuse me bigcry.gif
Originally Posted by ImaRacing 700
who the fuck they get to kamikaze the planes?
Originally Posted by EIL132
Can you amagine how many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy?
Originally Posted by EIL132
shut for ever more and nobody notice the ring of detonators wrapped around the buildings it would take to down them? My boss was in charge of downing the flats in Oxgangs that was on National Geographic a couple of months ago and they are minature in comparisson and you couldn't miss the explosions that brought them down
Right, I'm off to play with my car for a bit.
#35
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically Graham S1 people like you -WANT- to believe there is a conspiracy, you want to think you know more than the common person and there will be nothing to ever stop you believing in what you choose to believe. Every bit of fact or evidence that ever comes you way, no matter how dubious or speculative that you think helps your case you will jump behind and support as much as you can, every piece of evidence proving otherwise you will invent reasons against it.
How long is it now since this happened? It was the most widely screened terrorist attack in history, thousands watched in person and millions watching live via TV. If there was there had been anything slightly dubious about what happened there would have been a wave of reports saying this straight afterwards.
Yet after all this time the only evidence conspiracy theorists have is still based on squinting at crummy compressed web videos, speculating critical factors based on circumstantial evidence and making up their own facts.
A picture of a woman standing on the opening of the hole in the towers does not prove the fires were not hot enough to warp steel. How about the people throwing themselves out the windows?
Comparing the damage to the Windsor building in Spain does not prove the towers shouldn't have colapsed, the Windsor building wasn't hit by a 767.
Basing theories on "Well somebody heard someone say they heard a bomb" when thousands others didn't also proves nothing.
I'm afraid the real conspiracy is the people who make this stuff up and try to get others to believe. Conspiracy theories have always been plauged by people who report facts that simply aren't true, they ploy niave people like yourself with what they claim to be evidence and dupe you with sensation into joining their cause. You are being conned into believing something so people can sell books and DVD's and get their names in the paper I'm afraid. This is the irony of Conspiracy Thories really, it's the believers who are often being lied to by the people they trust.
How long is it now since this happened? It was the most widely screened terrorist attack in history, thousands watched in person and millions watching live via TV. If there was there had been anything slightly dubious about what happened there would have been a wave of reports saying this straight afterwards.
Yet after all this time the only evidence conspiracy theorists have is still based on squinting at crummy compressed web videos, speculating critical factors based on circumstantial evidence and making up their own facts.
A picture of a woman standing on the opening of the hole in the towers does not prove the fires were not hot enough to warp steel. How about the people throwing themselves out the windows?
Comparing the damage to the Windsor building in Spain does not prove the towers shouldn't have colapsed, the Windsor building wasn't hit by a 767.
Basing theories on "Well somebody heard someone say they heard a bomb" when thousands others didn't also proves nothing.
I'm afraid the real conspiracy is the people who make this stuff up and try to get others to believe. Conspiracy theories have always been plauged by people who report facts that simply aren't true, they ploy niave people like yourself with what they claim to be evidence and dupe you with sensation into joining their cause. You are being conned into believing something so people can sell books and DVD's and get their names in the paper I'm afraid. This is the irony of Conspiracy Thories really, it's the believers who are often being lied to by the people they trust.
#36
15K+ Super Poster!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Wales, GB
Posts: 18,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate have you come to these conclusions your self? or just of TV programes who want to make it look like this to get TV ratings?
For fuck sake there was to massive planes that hit them!! DO you honestly thing most buildings would stand to it? If i had the money i would build a big building for you and you can fly a plane into it!
For fuck sake there was to massive planes that hit them!! DO you honestly thing most buildings would stand to it? If i had the money i would build a big building for you and you can fly a plane into it!
#38
Also some good structual info here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html
Going off subject a bit - but remember the Anthrax scares? That was short lived wasn;t it!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trusstheory.html
Going off subject a bit - but remember the Anthrax scares? That was short lived wasn;t it!
#39
Also you might wanna check this out:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
Kept very quiet that one
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
Kept very quiet that one
#40
Proven Legendary Status
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 6,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id like a moderator to BAN Graham S1,
Its just random shite. That has Fuck all to do with cars. Plus he can then go moaning to his co-conspirators about how "the man" gagged him.
We ALL win.
Oh and what MWF said
Its just random shite. That has Fuck all to do with cars. Plus he can then go moaning to his co-conspirators about how "the man" gagged him.
We ALL win.
Oh and what MWF said