The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
Page:
Why not? It wasn't random mutilation. There was a point to it, you know.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> - On a sidenote, I understand that if the planes had hit the towers
> even a half hour later, or at any time during working hours after
> that, the human cost would have been far worse.
> Not to say that excuses anything at all, it's still killing 3000
> people, but it could easily have been far worse. If the perpetrators
> had wanted it that way.
Your not honestly trying to say, the murderers of 3000, had a concience and decided any more than 3000 would be barbaric? I din't agree.
> - On a sidenote, I understand that if the planes had hit the towers
> even a half hour later, or at any time during working hours after
> that, the human cost would have been far worse.
> Not to say that excuses anything at all, it's still killing 3000
> people, but it could easily have been far worse. If the perpetrators
> had wanted it that way.
Your not honestly trying to say, the murderers of 3000, had a concience and decided any more than 3000 would be barbaric? I din't agree.
Belldandy wrote:
> No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable
> websites
No, but you are taking at face value what is told to you by officials.
> No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable
> websites
No, but you are taking at face value what is told to you by officials.
*Dbl post. Sorry.
Belldandy wrote:
> It's like a water tank leaking in a house. Water comes out, the
> ceiling can't support it, ceiling breaks taking parts of it down
> along with the object (the water) which the ceiling cannot take the
> weight of.
Or: it's like a watertank on a vertical pole that can't support it (the internal structure of a skyscraper) - the watertank topples to one side, perhaps also pushing the pole out the other way (depending on the stability of its foundations).
Wookie means that had the building gone sideways at all, the damage to surrounding buildings would have been far worse.
- On a sidenote, I understand that if the planes had hit the towers even a half hour later, or at any time during working hours after that, the human cost would have been far worse.
Not to say that excuses anything at all, it's still killing 3000 people, but it could easily have been far worse. If the perpetrators had wanted it that way.
Another thing - stop me if I'm wrong, but the flights were all internal ones, so passengers wouldn't need their passports. If they'd been carrying them, they'd have been kept in bags / luggage...
> It's like a water tank leaking in a house. Water comes out, the
> ceiling can't support it, ceiling breaks taking parts of it down
> along with the object (the water) which the ceiling cannot take the
> weight of.
Or: it's like a watertank on a vertical pole that can't support it (the internal structure of a skyscraper) - the watertank topples to one side, perhaps also pushing the pole out the other way (depending on the stability of its foundations).
Wookie means that had the building gone sideways at all, the damage to surrounding buildings would have been far worse.
- On a sidenote, I understand that if the planes had hit the towers even a half hour later, or at any time during working hours after that, the human cost would have been far worse.
Not to say that excuses anything at all, it's still killing 3000 people, but it could easily have been far worse. If the perpetrators had wanted it that way.
Another thing - stop me if I'm wrong, but the flights were all internal ones, so passengers wouldn't need their passports. If they'd been carrying them, they'd have been kept in bags / luggage...
Blank wrote:
> I'm not one of these people, these conspiracy theorists, but I would
> like to say that you seem contradictory here - calling them gullible?
> Aren't you being just as gullible?
No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable websites, who offer fantastic but largely flawed points of view. The sites are attention seeking at best, sick at worst.
> I'm not one of these people, these conspiracy theorists, but I would
> like to say that you seem contradictory here - calling them gullible?
> Aren't you being just as gullible?
No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable websites, who offer fantastic but largely flawed points of view. The sites are attention seeking at best, sick at worst.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who
> believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is
> stupid and guillible.
I'm not one of these people, these conspiracy theorists, but I would like to say that you seem contradictory here - calling them gullible? Aren't you being just as gullible?
> I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who
> believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is
> stupid and guillible.
I'm not one of these people, these conspiracy theorists, but I would like to say that you seem contradictory here - calling them gullible? Aren't you being just as gullible?
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who
> believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is
> stupid and guillible. All the so called websites full of evidence are
> crap, mostly filled with desperate conspiracy theorists and
> contradictory "evidence".
I agree with you here. No-one can say "This should have happened if an airliner crashed into a building thesize of the WTC", simply because nothing like it has ever happened before.
> I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who
> believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is
> stupid and guillible. All the so called websites full of evidence are
> crap, mostly filled with desperate conspiracy theorists and
> contradictory "evidence".
I agree with you here. No-one can say "This should have happened if an airliner crashed into a building thesize of the WTC", simply because nothing like it has ever happened before.
Here, Wookie, an obvious flaw in that website, one part is, with regards to the lack of military intercepts:
"Andrews Air Force Base is 11 miles from the Pentagon.
Andrews AFB had 2 combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
Scramble times (fighters airborne) are 2-5 minutes.
Travel time is under 1 minute."
They couldn't take off - Andrews is Airforce, not Air National Guard - the US Military cannot, under the US Constitution, take military action on US soil unless directly ordered to by the President. Planes had been scrambled at this point in New York - but Washington was not under attack at that point, no justification could be given for further alarming people.
Secondly, at that stage there were over 20 airliners unaccounted for and they were being told to divert to any airfield possible to get out of the sky. contrary to that website it was known one was heading for Washington! I know because I saw and heard the reports myself!
Thirdly, there is no way that, even had the planes been up, had the authorisation, that they could shoot the airliner down over the city, it'd be lockerbie excpet in a densely populated area...
I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is stupid and guillible. All the so called websites full of evidence are crap, mostly filled with desperate conspiracy theorists and contradictory "evidence".
The best one so far is the "acrobatic flight plan" well duh....the planes were hijacked enroute and had to be turned around, they're not cars for heavens sake... There is also much avoidance of the events in Pennysylvania...mainly because they also blow airliner sized hole in any conspiracy theory there is or was.
"Andrews Air Force Base is 11 miles from the Pentagon.
Andrews AFB had 2 combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
Scramble times (fighters airborne) are 2-5 minutes.
Travel time is under 1 minute."
They couldn't take off - Andrews is Airforce, not Air National Guard - the US Military cannot, under the US Constitution, take military action on US soil unless directly ordered to by the President. Planes had been scrambled at this point in New York - but Washington was not under attack at that point, no justification could be given for further alarming people.
Secondly, at that stage there were over 20 airliners unaccounted for and they were being told to divert to any airfield possible to get out of the sky. contrary to that website it was known one was heading for Washington! I know because I saw and heard the reports myself!
Thirdly, there is no way that, even had the planes been up, had the authorisation, that they could shoot the airliner down over the city, it'd be lockerbie excpet in a densely populated area...
I'm not going into anymore detail, except to say that anyone who believes that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack is stupid and guillible. All the so called websites full of evidence are crap, mostly filled with desperate conspiracy theorists and contradictory "evidence".
The best one so far is the "acrobatic flight plan" well duh....the planes were hijacked enroute and had to be turned around, they're not cars for heavens sake... There is also much avoidance of the events in Pennysylvania...mainly because they also blow airliner sized hole in any conspiracy theory there is or was.
The planes went straight through the buildings meaning that not one side was stronger than the other so the law of gravity suggests it would go straight down.
It didn't go totally straight down though, it didn't topple but it went down at an angle.
It didn't go totally straight down though, it didn't topple but it went down at an angle.
Page: