Now Taliban jack Layton won't get a chance to negotiate with osama
|
|
|
Osama
- Thread starter DDON
- Start date
You are an Engineer. Surely you can recognize that the collapse of these two buildings was at the very minimum a controlled demolition. I am no conspiracy theorist since the US has ****** off a lot of countries. But if you watch the Trade center go down on video that is undoubtedly a controlled demo. I don't care what anyone says. No building that size collapses on it's own shortly after ANY kind of collision.
:lol:
nothing has felt right about the war on terror in general........WMD, 911, etc etc
Exactly.
Buried at sea? WTF? Searching for this guy for 10 years and it ends like this? Smells fishy to me. Even fishier that Obama is at an all time popularity low.
Here is what a building collapse looks like uncontrolled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
Controlled demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
9/11 Footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o
Which of the above two does the 9/11 footage look more like?
Whoa, a video of an 8 storey building collapsing in the Philippines.... this is truly enlightening.
Is that the propaganda that the Cons have been spreading since they started losing ground to Jack? In any case, had somebody negotiated (in good faith) with terrorists before they became terrorists, they wouldn't have become terrorists in the first place
Layton said he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban. This was somewhere around 2007, they were already terrorists. It was a blunderingly stupid suggestion which cost the NDP a whole whack of votes and made Jack look like an idiot without a clue. Sit down with the frickin Taliban? You gotta be kidding me.
The nickname is childish, yes, but it's not propaganda when it really happened.
The nickname is childish, yes, but it's not propaganda when it really happened.
The controlled demolition scenario is only a possibility for building 7, which was relatively low and wide (read stable) yet it collapsed flat, the whole thing at the same time despite the damage being highly localised. I suppose it's possible that it collapsed like that by happenstance, but it would have to be a rather odd set of circumstances that would lead to that style of critical structural failure.
The towers however kinda tilted and twisted and fell, as I'd expect with any uncontrolled failure.
Please go ahead an explain why the tower collapsed in a vertical controlled manner? I am actually not prejiduce to actual evidence. Please explain it with proper scientific terms and I will take your word on it. If you know anything whatsoever about engineering/construction you would know that structure would never fall that way from a lateral impact alone. Especially since it stood for a few minutes before complete failure. If you present a logical explaination I am all ears.
What's wrong with negotiation? Surrender is a form of negotiation, to give an extreme example.
The towers collapsed under their own weight and the momentum of the upper floors crashing into the lower floors. If you employ some critical thinking and ponder the mass of the structure above the impact points tumbling 20 feet downwards into the lower portions of the building, a lightbulb may go on in your head and you'll understand. To think that the buildings would simply fall over to the side like what happened in your Philippines earthquake video is so rudimentary that Im having trouble figuring out how you're able to put your pants on in the morning.
Let's not turn this into a retarded 9/11 thread please.
Let's not turn this into a retarded 9/11 thread please.
Neither. The WTC towers had airplanes sticking out of them and were on fire.
Why would you ask someone on a motorcycle forum for evidence of how the WTC towers fell, instead of all the hundreds of actual experts that have lent their opinion on this? If you want evidence, I think Google is going to be more productive than GTAM.
What's wrong with negotiating with terrorists? Seriously?
|
|
|
|
|