Political Crossfire Forums

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/25917/A_Finnish_Military_Expert_Views_The_Demolition_Of_The_WTC_Towers

I thought you guys might enjoy this.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

LOL! Yes I did. Quite entertaining and as full of holes as the usual conspiracy theories. Always fun when someone tries to make the case nuclear weapons were used and the proof is in the pictures. :rofl:

JohnnyQ · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 1316 Location: somewhere

I heard about bombs and thermite, but the nuke theory is pushing it.

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

yanniv wrote: I heard about bombs and thermite, but the nuke theory is pushing it.

I thought so to, the fall out would have been a little too much. Plus there are plenty of other explosives that could do that job.

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

Patriot911 wrote: LOL! Yes I did. Quite entertaining and as full of holes as the usual conspiracy theories. Always fun when someone tries to make the case nuclear weapons were used and the proof is in the pictures. :rofl:

I have to give you some ammo so you can get paid! :lol: 8:)

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

Silkheat wrote: Patriot911 wrote: LOL! Yes I did. Quite entertaining and as full of holes as the usual conspiracy theories. Always fun when someone tries to make the case nuclear weapons were used and the proof is in the pictures. :rofl:

I have to give you some ammo so you can get paid! :lol: 8:)
The first dozen or so times you called me an agent or implied I was an agent weren't exactly funny and it isn't getting better with age. Personal attacks and trolling are against forum rules. Your response was both.

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

Patriot911 wrote: Silkheat wrote: Patriot911 wrote: LOL! Yes I did. Quite entertaining and as full of holes as the usual conspiracy theories. Always fun when someone tries to make the case nuclear weapons were used and the proof is in the pictures. :rofl:

I have to give you some ammo so you can get paid! :lol: 8:)
The first dozen or so times you called me an agent or implied I was an agent weren't exactly funny and it isn't getting better with age. Personal attacks and trolling are against forum rules. Your response was both.

Did you know I didn't even read this article, I posted it specificaly because you would reply. You did so with arogance and flipancy. Now you resort to tatling, as you did when you complained to the moderators about me. :wink:

Dude, not much else to say about you. You proved my point and I am satisfied, furthermore your temperance is kind of rediculous.

I can't believe this is the kind of come back you have. What kind of sorry.... :twisted:

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

Silkheat wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Silkheat wrote: Patriot911 wrote: LOL! Yes I did. Quite entertaining and as full of holes as the usual conspiracy theories. Always fun when someone tries to make the case nuclear weapons were used and the proof is in the pictures. :rofl:

I have to give you some ammo so you can get paid! :lol: 8:)
The first dozen or so times you called me an agent or implied I was an agent weren't exactly funny and it isn't getting better with age. Personal attacks and trolling are against forum rules. Your response was both.

Did you know I didn't even read this article, I posted it specificaly because you would reply. You did so with arogance and flipancy. Now you resort to tatling, as you did when you complained to the moderators about me. :wink:

Dude, not much else to say about you. You proved my point and I am satisfied, furthermore your temperance is kind of rediculous.

I can't believe this is the kind of come back you have. What kind of sorry.... :twisted:

Hate to break it to you, Silk, but I've never reported you for anything. I didn't do it this time and I didn't do it in the other thread. PM a moderator or admin if you wish to confirm this. But obviously you didn't listen to whatever the moderators had to say as you are continuing to attack people and now you've admitted to troll posting to bait other people. This is also against forum rules. Are you purposefully trying to get suspended or what?

As for your "disappointment" in my response, why would you care at all? You didn't even read your own article so why would you be surprised at my response to the claim nuclear weapons were used? Do YOU actually think nuclear weapons were used to bring down the WTC towers?

Otacon · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

You can plainly watch the footage from the attacks and see planes crashing into them. No explosives were involved.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

Otacon wrote: You can plainly watch the footage from the attacks and see planes crashing into them. No explosives were involved.

:lol: Didn't you read the article? Napalm was used in addition to the planes because planes loaded with fuel don't go up in flames. :rofl:

Otacon · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject:

Patriot911 wrote: Otacon wrote: You can plainly watch the footage from the attacks and see planes crashing into them. No explosives were involved.

:lol: Didn't you read the article? Napalm was used in addition to the planes because planes loaded with fuel don't go up in flames. :rofl:

\/ \/ \/ Now, now, it was written by an expert, he knows what he's talking about! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

Silkheat wrote: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/25917/A_Finnish_Military_Expert_Views_The_Demolition_Of_The_WTC_Towers

I thought you guys might enjoy this.

Actualy, at first i tough the nuks were too much but i decided to reed the whole article just for fun...And to my surprisie it made much more sence than i tough it would. but the reality is, i don't care what explosives were used. What mather is we can see the explosions very clearly..

And Silk, don't worry about our friend Patriot trying to ridicule us, that's the only weapon he has, and that's why he abuse this little guy :rotf:...As for us, we have the truth on our side,..the fact is the towers felt at free fall speed, with no resistense what so ever. Only explosives can explaine that. Anyone with a brain would know that.

Notice I've not even mention WT7, and so did the commision. :wink: i didn't mention the plane that mysteriously dispeared into the pentagon either of which we have no picture,American Airline's put options, the many many fireman who heard explosives, the PNAC and their new pearl Harbor, Norad standing don't(good thing russia didn't attack that day), Mr. Sylversteen's PULL IT!, Bush sitting in a children's classs waiting/looking guilty, Iraq, etc...

he! Patriot! Let me do it for you.

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :wink:

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

Otacon wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Otacon wrote: You can plainly watch the footage from the attacks and see planes crashing into them. No explosives were involved.

:lol: Didn't you read the article? Napalm was used in addition to the planes because planes loaded with fuel don't go up in flames. :rofl:

\/ \/ \/ Now, now, it was written by an expert, he knows what he's talking about! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

he! you look like a smart fellow, so you think the fire brought down the towers? :? What about WT7?

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Quote: Boeing 707's, comparable to Boeing 767's, taking into account the fires caused by the aviation fuel

Oh really??? A 707 weights 150,000 lbs and a 767 weights 450,000. Also the design of the Towers was for a low on fuel 707 - not a fully laden craft

Quote: Laymen have no experience in observing differences in collapses, controlled demolitions and underground nuclear demolitions

And un named Finnish military experts have no experience in observing the difference between a Boeing 707s and a Boeing 767s

Quote: An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated.

So why didn't every other electronic device fall prey to EMP - Call me stupid, but maybe the local network ran through the tower that was falling...But thats probably too easy an answer

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

He! MG 1962, explaine to me how the towers could fall at free fall speed like there was nothing holding them. Without explosives that is. :wink:

Naaah! You cant. :roll:

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

Claudia Schiffer wrote: He! MG 1962, explaine to me how the towers could fall at free fall speed like there was nothing holding them. Without explosives that is. :wink:

Naaah! You cant. :roll:

That is because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed as has been clearly proven time and time on this thread. Just another CS lie among many. No sane person agrees the towers fell at freefall speed once they see the incontrovertible truth.

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

Patriot911 wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: He! MG 1962, explaine to me how the towers could fall at free fall speed like there was nothing holding them. Without explosives that is. :wink:

Naaah! You cant. :roll:

That is because the towers didn't fall at freefall speed as has been clearly proven time and time on this thread. Just another CS lie among many. No sane person agrees the towers fell at freefall speed once they see the incontrovertible truth.

Oh but they did, and even if they didn't, don't you think they fell just a ''little'' too fast. :lol: :lol:

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Quote: He! MG 1962, explaine to me how the towers could fall at free fall speed like there was nothing holding them. Without explosives that is.

Naaah! You cant.

Free fall collapse would have taken 8 seconds = 300kph

The towers took 10 seconds = 200kph

I think you should go learn a little about external facade bracing before you try again :)

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10374 Location: Kansas

Quote: Oh but they did, and even if they didn't, don't you think they fell just a ''little'' too fast.

No they fell exactly as they should have. The lateral bracing system was designed to take 1.3 Tonne above its own weight per floor. When the top hat system failed at the top of the building. Aproximately 45000 tones were resting on the last undamaged floor.

Exceeding its design capabilities by a factor 4000 percent. There was only one way to go from here, and thats down, and very quickly.

Given the towers were made up of some 95 percent air. There really wasn't a lot of resitence.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6869 Location: Denver, CO

You lie is easily exposed, CS. Since freefall is a constant, when the building fell nothing should have beaten the top of the building to the ground, nor should any debris have gone outside the footprint of the building. Why? Newton's laws of motion. Without some force to push the debris in a horizontal fashion, the debris could have only fallen down. If the building were falling at freefall speeds, the building would be falling at the same speed as the debris and the debris would have no force to push it to the side. The building did NOT fall at freefall speeds and thus provided the resistance for the debris to be pushed to the side. No honest person can look at the videos or pictures of the collapse and say nothing beat the top of the building down nor was anything pushed outside of the footprint of the building. I expect you will ignore this evidence as you have all the rest.