We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 403 comments are related to the topic:
A German documentary about 911.
A German documentary about 911.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 403
|
By:
and the idea is spawned from a cottage industry of americans who are lunatics but have enough money to live inside a nuclear bunker and support themselves.
|
|
By:
Unfortunately Erse
Your fall short on your first sentence. Of course there is a conspiracy theory. In fact many theories. Your theory is the official line. Also another ignorant part of your post is this. WTC7 was not NEXT to WTC1 or WTC2. In fact WTC6 was between 1 & 7. With WTC6 still standing. |
|
By:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_(graphic).png
Here learn something. |
|
By:
"there is no conspiracy theory", i saw that when trying to tow the line of common sense. Obviously there are conspiracy theories as much as there are crazy people.
|
|
By:
and i like how everyone who favours a conspiracy theory is not quite an architect but seems to be able to ascertain that there is 'proof' the buildings should not have collapsed.
|
|
By:
that's a bit like you or i discrediting Hawking's theory of Hawking radiation without having nearly enough knowledge of how to.
|
|
By:
Of course there are crazy people Erse.
You need to remember that thousands of professional people worldwide have formed groups to question the official line on 9/11. The establishment does not investigate itself, it appoints insiders to rubbish any ideas of a cover up. |
|
By:
and i like how everyone who favours a conspiracy theory is not quite an architect but seems to be able to ascertain that there is 'proof' the buildings should not have collapsed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/ Architects for 9/11 Truth Erse. You are having a bad start to the day. |
|
By:
Sorry my mistake
Actually Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. |
|
By:
'thousands of professional people'. you can be a professional in chat-chat affairs if you like. you'd be called a professional but it doesn't mean you're going to be rational about the wider world.
you seem to have an aloof attitude about people that don't agree that 9/11 'was an inside job'. this seems to be asymptomatic. you can quote a bunch of architects that have made a website all you like, is there any science behind their cause? is it proving anything unequivocally? of course it isn't. and that's why the wider world takes the serious of events for what it was, a terrorist attack. perhaps those terrorists had their own political motivations (US inclined or otherwise), but a bunch of amateurs forming opinions that the towers were blown up by the U.S. government is just stupid. |
|
By:
Erse
Why not click onto the weblink and watch the presentation. You have obviously come on here to try and ridicule but so far you have only revealed that you did not know WTC6 was between 1&7. Also you are not aware of other scientific groups opposed to the official line. Go brush up on the `conspiracy theories` before you ridicule otherwise you will continue to fall short. |
|
By:
angel, let's clarify a thing or two that you have declared since my initial post.
>You are having a bad start to the day. You have no proof of this but you've presented it as fact. This is revealing. >Why not click onto the weblink and watch the presentation. You have no knowledge whether I clicked on the link or not. >You have obviously come on here to try and ridicule but so far you have only revealed that you did not know WTC6 was between 1&7. You are quite simply wrong. To assume I'm on here 'to ridicule' is yet another example of inflating the importance of your own opinion and whether I agree with it or not. >Also you are not aware of other scientific groups opposed to the official line. You have no knowledge of whether I do or not. >Go brush up on the `conspiracy theories` before you ridicule otherwise you will continue to fall short. Your assumption is wrong, and I won't take you up on your suggestion. |
|
By:
I wouldn`t expect anything else from you Erse.
|
|
By:
So did you know that WTC6 was between 1&7
 |
|
By:
> I wouldn`t expect anything else from you Erse.
of course not, my previous post pretty much laid out the notion that you just form opinions regardless of fact, so why would you be really interested in what i really think .... when you can assume it in your own head. don't let me rock your boat. spare me WTC 1, 6 and 7. i'm doing some work and my interest in this has ended. |
|
By:
spare me WTC 1, 6 and 7. i'm doing some work and my interest in this has ended.
Of course. Enjoy your day Erse. |
|
By:
Also another ignorant part of your post is this. WTC7 was not NEXT to WTC1 or WTC2. In fact WTC6 was between 1 & 7.
Stop being pedantic, he referred to 'buildings' and considering WTC7 was battered with debris it's reasonable to include it as one of the buildings 'next' to the two towers. He didn't suggest that all the buildings hit should collapse. Physics tells us what theoretically should happen, what about the firefighter recordings who said it looks as if it could come down? |
|
By:
please can we try and assertain how many people who are confirmed to be 'in the know' that the official stroy is a lie...
please add to this list and lets be extreemley conservative on the numbers to get a bare minimum.... The Brains/Planners = 2 (Bush & Romsfield) Missile Launchers = 1 The explosives planters = 6 The person who got a piece of plane fuselage out the boot of his car and planted in on the Pentgaon Lawn after the missile strike = 1 Running Total = 10 (receiving 0.23 trillion dollars each less expenses and presumably tax free) there must be at least a couple more...... |
|
By:
The bloke who glued a landing wheel onto the side of the missle
|
|
By:
Don
this is from Erse`s reply. the prevailing point i get from these conspiracy theorist followers is that 'experts' are proclaiming that known physics dictates that the buildings should have withstood a strike, or should have withstood prolonged fires, or withstood buildings collapsing next to them. Once again no building next to WTC7 collapsed. WTC6 withstood much more damage than WTC7 which was the equivalent of a football pitch away. Erse was made a statement which was incorrect. |
|
By:
Dubya took care of that in the shed at the bottom of the White House garden. Not even Laura Bush was allowed in there in the months leading up to 911.
|
|
By:
Dubya could not work out how to use the keys to the shed.
A member of his staff must have assisted him. |
|
By:
'experts' are proclaiming that known physics dictates that the building(s) should have withstood buildings collapsing next to them.
There's nothing incorrect with that statement. You seem to think that he's arguing that because WTC7 WTC6 should have come down, that's not what's he's suggesting Either that or you're being extremely pedantic over the use of 'next'. WTC7 was 400 feet away, that's about a third of the height of the twin towers? |
|
By:
No he is suggesting that we should not proclaim that WTC7 should have withstood buildings collapsing NEXT to them.
Once again no building collapsed next to WTC7. WTC6 suffered severe structural damage but did not come close to collapsing. Yet WTC7 collapses at near free fall speed into its own footprint. To question this is not going against any physics, in fact it is in favour of all known physics. |
|
By:
just to go back a little, can you enlighten me as to why they might want to demolish WTC7? is it because this is where the 'secret headquarters' were? if so, seems a kind of dumb place to locate them imo..
|
|
By:
Pedantic it is then, when a 1300 ft building sheds debris and collapses 400 feet from another 610ft building with only a 105ft building in the way it's safe to classify it as 'next'.
Technically the top 505ft of the WTC7 was next to WTC1 |
|
By:
Don you are forgetting "nano thermite cutting charges contained in sealed magnetic boxes that are simply "stuck" on to the main supporting steel columns accessed via the lift shafts".
The fact that you'd need at least 80 tons of thermite and that it doesn't even cut metal in a conventional way seems to have been over looked by the nutters on this thread,still don't let the facts get in the way of a bad story. |
|
By:
That seems to have shut them up
 |
|
By:
Hello everyone, thank you very much for your contributions to the debate.
A couple of times I have asked for your thoughts on Dr John Gross (lead investigator in the National Institute of Standards and Technology) denying the presence of molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings. It might be that very few are interested of course, or my comments just got lost amongst the other conversation, but aside from Angel Gabriel I don't believe anybody has offered their opinion of the short video link as yet. I would be most grateful if you could, please. Here's a handful of quotes from the many hundreds available on the subject: "Going below, it was smoky and really hot. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer, LERA. "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams, where it was molten steel that was being dug up." Richard Riggs, General Manager, Aman Environmental Construction, demolition company contracted to clean up Ground Zero. "There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six storeys underground that are still cherry red and the blaze is so far beyond a normal fire that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert for the National Operating Engineers Union. "When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said "I think you’d be interested in this" and they pulled off a big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing." Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center. Here is the link of John Gross again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY "First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness, who has said so." John Gross, lead structural engineer for the NIST investigation. I find it absolutely incredible that the organisation which officially declared that there was no evidence of explosives, thermitic or otherwise, are supposedly unaware of the presence of molten steel in the rubble of all three buildings. And continue to deny it was ever there despite irrefutable testimony. Are we supposed to believe that this man, of all people, was not aware of the presence of molten steel? I knew about it, you knew about it, most of the first responders knew about it. I can only assume that he is lying. What do you think, gentlemen? |
|
By:
Molten steel is one possible indicator of thermitic explosives. Not conclusive evidence, of course, but why lie about it? How can a person not be suspicious of such behaviour?
|
|
By:
Ignore the 80 tons then pokermonster
your 2 post above have been debunked conclusively so we can ignore those as well as they are incorrect. |
|
By:
Ignore the 80 tons? What do you mean, sir? And where have my posts been debunked?
|
|
By:
Pokermonster
I doubt very much that you will get any insightful response. No idea what GPT is reacting about. |
|
By:
What's your opinion on the John Gross video?
|
|
By:
Hello AG. I hope you are well, sir.
That qustion was to GPT, of course. Our posts crossed. |
|
By:
GPT.
I've just had a very quick read through of the thread and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot find any mention of 80 tons of anything or any opinions regards the John Gross link. What were you refering to, sir? |
|
By:
You tell us why lie about it if he knew about it's presence...given the numerous reports, it's not as if he says there wasn't any then everyone will take his word
He doesn't explicitly deny there was molten steel, he just acts ignorant to it's presence |
|
By:
Good afternoon, Don.
That's the point, sir. I find it impossible to believe that the lead invesigator of NIST was unaware of its presence. |
|
By:
I would contend that such ignorance constitutes a gross dereliction of duty.
|
|
By:
Oh well, GPT seems to have left. As must I now, I'm afraid. Maybe he'll pop back later.
Thank you for your company this afternoon, gentlemen. |