Myth One: 911 was for the oil
What oil? Not much oil in Afghanistan.
Myth Two: Bush wanted to pipe oil or gas from the Caspian Basin across Afghanistan to the Indian ocean.
Oil is currently being piped from the Caspian Basin into Pro-West Turkey. There is no real need to pipe oil across Afghanistan. Given the volatility of the region who the hell would want to?
Myth Three: 911 was an excuse for invading Iraq.
No it wasn't. As part of the cease fire agreement in the first gulf war, Iraq had to abandon development of Weapons of mass destruction and open itself up to weapons inspectors. When Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors the US used the threat of WMDs being developed by Iraq as a pretext for invasion.
Myth Four: Buildings don't pancake or fall at near freefall speeds.
In spite of all the video evidence to the contrary some people actually believe this!!! Apparently some people put more faith in computer simulations then they do in actual “real world” situations. Anybody who knows anything about computer programming will tell you that it is impossible to include every single variable that is likely to effect the outcome of something as complex as the events that occurred on 911.
Myth Five: WTC7 was not damaged enough to collapse.
Contrary to popular belief WTC7 was well and truly clobbered when the twin towers collapsed. Severe structural damage plus out of control fires bought down WTC7. A fracture line was clearly visible before the building collapsed.
Myth Six: Demolition charges bought down the twin towers.
Demolition charges make a loud audible bang and produce an explosive discharge of debris that wasn't evident in any video.
Myth Seven: The towers were designed to survive an impact from a jet liner.
Yes ... but they didn't take into account the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel carried by these aircraft. Leslie Roberston, the chief engineer of the twin tower project, admitted as much. It was the plane crash in conjunction with the resulting fire that bought down the twin towers.
PeakOil is You
Recent Video on Peak Oil
Re: Recent Video on Peak Oil
by kokoda » Sun 03 Dec 2006, 07:24:35
-
kokoda - Coal
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Recent Video on Peak Oil
by dukey » Sun 03 Dec 2006, 08:20:54
erg
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth One: 911 was for the oil
What oil? Not much oil in Afghanistan.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth One: 911 was for the oil
What oil? Not much oil in Afghanistan.
Do you think the american people would have just let the US army go straight into iraq ? When the government was pointing the fingers at the taliban ?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Two: Bush wanted to pipe oil or gas from the Caspian Basin across Afghanistan to the Indian ocean.
Oil is currently being piped from the Caspian Basin into Pro-West Turkey. There is no real need to pipe oil across Afghanistan. Given the volatility of the region who the hell would want to?
They had been trying to build a pipeline for years. The plans strangely went on the fast track again after the invasion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Three: 911 was an excuse for invading Iraq.
No it wasn't. As part of the cease fire agreement in the first gulf war, Iraq had to abandon development of Weapons of mass destruction and open itself up to weapons inspectors. When Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors the US used the threat of WMDs being developed by Iraq as a pretext for invasion.
You can let fox news persuade you of whatever you want. But the truth is the weapons inspectors found nothing and they had been there for years. There was no immediate reason to go in. The bush administration knew all the imformation was fabricated.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Four: Buildings don't pancake or fall at near freefall speeds.
In spite of all the video evidence to the contrary some people actually believe this!!! Apparently some people put more faith in computer simulations then they do in actual “real world” situations. Anybody who knows anything about computer programming will tell you that it is impossible to include every single variable that is likely to effect the outcome of something as complex as the events that occurred on 911.
Steel framed buildings WONT. Even if you haven't a clue about physics. Do you think its plausable for a building to collapse in the path of most reistance (onto itself) at free fall speeds ? This is what happened with WT7. In the case of the twin towers, they were pulverised to dust even before they hit the ground. How do you explain the mechanism for that without explosives ? How do you explain the pyroclastic flow without explosives ?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Five: WTC7 was not damaged enough to collapse.
Contrary to popular belief WTC7 was well and truly clobbered when the twin towers collapsed. Severe structural damage plus out of control fires bought down WTC7. A fracture line was clearly visible before the building collapsed.
says who ? You can see the video evidence for yourself. The building had small isolated pockets of fire on a few floors. No raging infernos.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Six: Demolition charges bought down the twin towers.
Demolition charges make a loud audible bang and produce an explosive discharge of debris that wasn't evident in any video.
There is video evidence for this, just open your eyes.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth Seven: The towers were designed to survive an impact from a jet liner.
Yes ... but they didn't take into account the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel carried by these aircraft. Leslie Roberston, the chief engineer of the twin tower project, admitted as much. It was the plane crash in conjunction with the resulting fire that bought down the twin towers.
The twin towers were not raging infernos. Have you not seen the pictures of the woman standing where the plane had crashed on one of the towers. If it was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe she would have evaporated ! In fact look at the pic for yourself. See any ranging inferno ? lol
Where as the surrounding buildings took an absolute pulversing. Fires, huge steel gurders landing all over them, yet strangely none of them fell into a small pile in a symmetrically controlled demolition fashion. Then theres the thermate evidence which has been scientifically proven.
