Load mouth
Yes the Saudi’s are meddlers, but they are the good guys, just ask the Bin Laden family, as they were flown out on 9.11 while all other flights were grounded over the US.

As I have not lived in a world being “invaded” by Muslims for the last nine years, I accept I am out of touch with how it feels. There are many laws in the west that have been ignored, or don’t exist to protect the weak in society. The finance industry has literally bought the planet to its knees, but get a slap on the wrist fine of loose change they find in their couch.

How about a couple of lashes with the cane for the mongrels who shove the recently unemployed out of their home that they having been paying for, for years.

I understand that Shari’a law is over the top , but I think many are sick and tired of a certain class of smart arse, who have had the laws written in a way that means they can live high of the hog with little effort.

So, to my final points on this thread.

It started with a comment aboutTrump that seems to have been lost.
I watch the Sunday political shows in the US on the internet. Being as it was the 15th anniversary of the destruction of 3 steel and concrete building in New York, and a tuning of the tide, I thought some of the panelist’s comments were very poignant.

How does America come together whoever wins in November?
Why did no one get punished for incompetence, in 2001?
Why have we got such a ridiculously poor couple of candidates to choose from out of over 300 million people?

And “my” final question that no one wants to ever ask, How do three steel and concrete buildings collapse at free fall speed, when two are hit by aluminum tubes full of aviation fuel, and one is hit by nothing at all.

Chris

Because they were firstly wired for demolition.

The 9/11 conspiracies have long been debunked:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

Either that or it was the shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis all posing as our politicians.

Armchaair Critic
Thank you , but it was a rhetorical question to flush out the likes of.....

A J Philips
So you have posted one of a number of articles that purport to "debunk" the belief that I and many other have regarding the destruction of those three towers.

I suggest the next time you decide to post a link you actually fact check it first.

The flash point of kerosene is 210 c hardly likely to bother the steel beams that were in those buildings.
And how exactly does an aircraft built of aluminium sheeting cut steel beams or cables.

I could go on but I wont, because there are two schools of thought on this. One is as Armchair Critic says and those like your self who steadfastly refuse to question the ridiculous report presented by the US government as researched scientifically provable fact.

Please feel free to continue this discussion if you wish, but with your own researched words.
Chris

Hi Lefty,

Some people are going to keep asking about the twin towers. I vaguely recall that, when they were built, there was scepticism that they would stay up, since their supporting frameworks (I think they were somehow external to the buildings they were holding up) were thought to be too flimsy, but being of less weight was precisely how they could get so tall).

And presumably those thousands of litres of fuel would have weakened the integrity of the materials in the structure (without necessarily having to melt, by the way), and down she goes, floor by floor, bam, bam, bam. The shock would have destabilised the smaller building next door.

And if three buildings were wired for demolition (without anybody noticing), why wire up that third building ? Nothing was going to hit it ? You're not claiming, by the way, that no planes hit any buildings, are you ? It's all Special Effects ?

Move on. Al Qa'ida planned it, al Qa'ida celebrated it. It was a master-stroke of anti-Western symbolism, the two tallest buildings in the world (at least when they were built) brought down by Islamic ingenuity and cunning. People must have been so proud.

Joe

That’s right, Lefty One. Just one of many.

<<So you have posted one of a number of articles that purport to "debunk" the belief that I and many other have regarding the destruction of those three towers.>>

Here’s another article with references for each rebuttal: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11.

<<The flash point of kerosene is 210 c hardly likely to bother the steel beams that were in those buildings.>>

The article I linked to explained this, but you haven’t provided much of a response beyond mere assertion. The jet fuel would have burned for 10 minutes and at 426-815°C - enough to weaken steel by 50%. From then on, the fire was well on its way and no longer needed the jet fuel for kindling.

There was thousands of litres of jet fuel and nowhere near the oxygen or surface area required for that amount of jet fuel to burn up in a single puff.

<<And how exactly does an aircraft built of aluminium sheeting cut steel beams or cables.>>

With speed. It’s all physics. Here’s a ping pong ball going through a ping pong paddle at 900 mph:

http://www.tested.com/science/physics/453458-ping-pong-ball-launcher-blows-past-sound-barrier-through-paddle

<<I could go on but I wont, because there are two schools of thought on this. One is as Armchair Critic says and those like your self who steadfastly refuse to question the ridiculous report presented by the US government as researched scientifically provable fact.>>

Yes, I see this in anti-vaxxers and the anti-GMO mob too: happy to accept “evidence” that supports the conspiracy, but any evidence goes against it is all part of a big cover up. With that mindset, you’ll ensure that you never accept anything that contradicts a what you already believe.

Hollywood-style plots and secrets are more enticing than the drab mechanics of engineering disasters anyway.

<<Please feel free to continue this discussion if you wish, but with your own researched words.>>

You want me to paraphrase it all?! Why would I do that when it’s already fully accessible from somewhere else that doesn’t have a 350-word-limit? This sounds like the On the Spot fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/On_the_spot_fallacy).