abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
I chose not to air my opinion in these threads anymore, as people disagree.
but what's your tendency?
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
How can people question the holocaust when there are personal testimonies to confirm it 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
I side with you Abdus, and the video.
Robbo, the question is, are the personal testemonies real, and how can you know for sure? 
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
same as to the 9/11. That was my point. Personal testimonies are taken into account only in some specific situations or in ANY situation? What is the veracity of the testimonials?
BUT, the Holocaust claims 5m+ jews killed. Personal testimonials won't be enough to confirm this though. IMO
[Edited on 23-12-2006 by abdus]
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eckmcmann
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Eckmcmann
quote:
Originally posted by Rob B
Have you watched it yet eck ? If you have do you see what i mean...
Aye I watched it all last night mate. It really does make you think doesn't it How do they explain the fact that a 110 story building collapsed from top to bottom in 9.5 seconds... That means there was NO resistance from any of the floors below. And I sincerely doubt they'd all collapse at one time due to "heat" 
stop being so fucking stupid. it collapsed the way it did because of the sheer weight of each floor collapsing and simply building momentum exponentially until maximum gravitational velocity is reached
So you are saying there would be NO resistance at all from ANY floor?
hardly enough to stop the inevitable. the trade center was built in such a way that this kind of massive structural failure from the central core spells almost certain disaster for the structure itself. the floors slapped the one below in such a fashion that it was not designed to handle the immense load. so once momentum had gathered, there was nothing on earth going to stop it
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
The bodies dug in mass graves
Anyone discrediting the holocaust is a moron... there is clear evidence that this occurred backed up by many personal testimonies!!
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
But you haven't SEEN them, that's the point, you're going on what you've been told, like in this case
(I don't disbelieve it btw, just illustrating abdus' point)
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
5m+ in mass graves?
using this point of clear evidence backed up by personal testimonies, why don't people take into account the statements of firefighters who WERE in the WTC and confirmed explosions...even in the underground
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
btw questioning something doesn't mean discrediting or not believing, just asking for 'real concrete' evidence.
|
Eck
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Apr 06
Location: Lundin Links, Fife
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by abdus
5m+ in mass graves?
using this point of clear evidence backed up by personal testimonies, why don't people take into account the statements of firefighters who WERE in the WTC and confirmed explosions...even in the underground
Exactly. One forefighter said he was knocked off of his feet... in the 3 level of the underground.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
But you haven't SEEN them)
Yes, many tv programmeshave shown films of the graves, films about the conditions showinfg those in the camps ect ect!!!
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
no, you've seen pictures, videos, stuff that can be faked...
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
Robbo, I don't know your background, I'm not in anyway trying to offend you or anybody, just asking some question for which I want concrete answers.
It's too easy to call something bullshit or whatever. But again that doesn't mean it is not true.
|
Mark1984_SRI
Member
Registered: 7th Feb 06
Location: Preston
User status: Offline
|
Just watched the whole thing Certainly makes you think  It made me realise how biased my opinion is when exposed to the news. Guess you tend to forget that all news is 'constructed' at some level.
|
ryzer
Member
Registered: 18th Mar 03
Location: Berkshire Drives:UGLY MUG
User status: Offline
|
jet fuel is extremely hot when ignited, about 7000 degrees c, definately not 700
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by ryzer
jet fuel is extremely hot when ignited, about 7000 degrees c, definately not 700
are you sure about that?
|
Eck
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Apr 06
Location: Lundin Links, Fife
User status: Offline
|
Funny how the man who has apparently given the best explanation for the events, who believes that it WASN'T explosive devices said that the heat was no more than 700 degrees c at any point of the inferno.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Had David Shayler and Annie Machon (his missus i believe) come around to our uni to do a talk (more to promote his book) but he had a 15min talk about 9/11 (after talking about his involvement with MI5) and he said some very plausible views, especially that the buildings were blown down using demolition.
He stated that the building opposite the twin towers, was actually blown down for an insurance fraud as the owner insured the building for $3billion (can’t remember the exact figure but was a stupid amount) a few days beforehand and there was plenty of evidence to support this. As well as there being satellite infra-red photos that show that the twin towers had xx degree hot spots 3 days after the "plane attacks" that wouldn't have occurred if it was due to kerosene explosion and that it shared similar signs to that of hot spots used during demolition using nitroglycerin.
Also how the pentagon section that got "hit by a plane" was empty at the time due to that segment being re-decorated and that if a plane had hit the pentagon, the kerosene wouldn't have vaporised the plane/engine/passengers (the current story) due to not producing enough heat. And if it was a missile, then to get passed protection systems (that would have shot the missile down, due to incorrect launch codes) it would have had to be a "friendly" missile (codes that the system would have recognised as being "safe").
He gave a lot of interesting views and opinions about this and to be honest, some of it sounds a lot more realistic to what the current story is set at, especially considering the amount of time/research that has been put into this by scientists/people in the field etc.
It's the same as Roswell; we'll never know what actually happened
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
or JFK. the same here: everybody knows he was killed. everybody saw it. But WHO masterminded it is still unknown...is this a conspiracy theory?  same applies with the WTC, it definitely came down, how and by whom is still unknown but there is reasonable doubt to suggest that the story is totally different to what the mdeia and reports have been filtering to the public
there is a BIG difference between collapsing and becoming dust.
[Edited on 23-12-2006 by abdus]
|
Bram
Member
Registered: 25th Mar 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by smack
 i love how everyone is taken in with these theroys. jumping on the bandwagon beliveing everything, said in these absoutle bulshit videos.
i think its also quite disrespectful to the unfortunate people who died that day 
Here, here 
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bram
quote:
Originally posted by smack
i love how everyone is taken in with these theroys. jumping on the bandwagon beliveing everything, said in these absoutle bulshit videos.
i think its also quite disrespectful to the unfortunate people who died that day
Here, here
thing is, there is plenty of evidence supporting these theories, yet there is no where near the amount of evidence that supports the current story given out by bush and his bods.
eitherway, it's the same as roswell....some people believe that it was little green men, some believe on something thats half way between green little men and not and others are too A-holed to realise that the public is kept in extreme darkness with what actually goes on in their country and the rest of the world.
like i said though, we'll never know what actually happened....
|
Eck
Premium Member
Registered: 17th Apr 06
Location: Lundin Links, Fife
User status: Offline
|
Its a fact of life that things happen a lot that we don't know about. For all we know things could happen every day that could threaten our lives, but it could be covered up. As Dom said, we'll never know.
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
sound travelling faster than light and people believing it (snowman says: )
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eckmcmann
Funny how the man who has apparently given the best explanation for the events, who believes that it WASN'T explosive devices said that the heat was no more than 700 degrees c at any point of the inferno.
its a fact that the strength of steel drops markedly with heat, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202F (650C). each Boeing 767 was carrying 30 tonnes of Kerosene, which would have ignited to a temperature of well over 800 degrees. far beyond the structural max limit of the steel core. Also, the sheer force of the aircraft smashing into the trade centers would have been enough to sever the load bearing columns. when the WTC was designed, it was taken into consideration that a 707 aircraft COULD crash into it fully laden at 150kts and the buildings would keep on standing. the 767's smashed into the towers at over 500mph, over 7 times the force of a 707 incident. but they kept on standing until the core was too weak to support the structure and down it goes. the fuel would have burnt out in around 10 minutes. 30 tonnes of the stuff!!
|
abdus
Member
Registered: 23rd Feb 06
User status: Offline
|
The force and fire were so big that even the core melted at the bottom of the building, near the base ALL the steel of the building became weak with an impact on the 90th floor.ALL? Even the basement one became weak with what? it is yet to be explained...
|
