Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Fair enough. It still leaves me with questions though. You see, condensing is one thing but there has to be a vent for the condenser to work, it cannot just be a sealed unit if it has to operate something, for example operating the drive for the propellers. Apparently you cannot just shut down a reactor as we are led to believe so even sort of shutting it down in port would still leave it fissioning, not that I believe it happens, yet for me to accept nuclear power in how it operates I need to know the system in how it fully does what it does inside something like a sub. A sub is a sealed unit in itself for obvious reasons, so I'd also like to know how they refuel them, given the fact that in nuclear power stations, they are lifted from the reactor and moved to a spent fuel pool, whilst still submerged but how can they do this on a sub safely. This is more for Rikko but if you have any thoughts then fair do's. I could barely and I mean barely be swayed slightly by nuclear power stations but I'm having a real hard problem with nuclear subs. What's the bets this is a topic on cluesforum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'd say one reactor would act as a redundancy if one were to fail. The military do love a redundancy plan. Wolfy, the problem you're not getting is that there are far too many experts who state the planes did hit, far too much evidence that the planes did hit and far too many independent sources of information supporting the statement that the planes hit. And your side of the coin, it's conjecture. You're only looking for evidence that supports your belief and dismissing evidence that counters it regardless of it's veracity. You're claiming all the disparate sources of videos and photos are all liars, all the eyewitnesses are liars. The trouble is, for all these sources to be liars you would need a vast conspiracy and as you know the more people involved in a lie the quicker it's revealed. And you can say that only a few people started the lie and it spread, but mans nature is to question, so something as shocking as planes into a tower when nobody saw them wouldn't hold water. Not to mention the fact it's easier to blow up the towers, blame it on men with bombs instead of going through the incredible effort to fabricate the planes and convince vast swathes of people all over the planet that they saw something which they didn't. It's exciting to think their may be a big conspiracy... and questions about who crashed the planes, or if the government knew about it first are questions worth asking. Stating that there were no planes is ludicrous. I don't think it ludicrous at all.4 planes crashed that day, we are told and all 4 planes disintegrated into supposedly tiny pieces...no tail fins, nothing except at the Pentagon where they showed a small engine that was not off any 757 as it was far too small. Watch any footage of the planes going into the towers in slow motion and tell me in all seriousness if a plane is capable of doing that. I'd even be willing to relax my stance and allow the fuselage to go right in but we still have wing tips and a tail fin that melt in....wing tips...I mean, I can't understand how anyone can think plane wings can do cartoon type holes into steel buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7012 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Oh I'll explain it. The plane theory was used because it served a far better agenda which covered for a number or problems, the main one being, how do we go to war for oil. What can you do to scare the population into wanting terrorists out the way from blighting your life. Possible solutions. A. Set off some bombs in the wtc and simply blame terrorists...possible but not very effective because it doesn't serve a big enough scare purpose for the majority to scream, 'go to war and sort them out' It also doesn't give a viable reason as to why towers would collapse due to a few bombs when every man and his dog knows that explosives would have to be planted strategically all over the towers, so bomb going off at the top wouldn't cut any ice with the public in terms of a full on tower collapse. How can we sell the war to the pubic whilst getting rid of the 2 white elephant towers that are full of asbestos , plus destroying the whole complex , including building 7 which housed the law enforcement agencies, including all the evidence on corrupt big companies under investigation. The public need to be scared shitless that their freedom is massively under threat and be made to feel naked against terrorists, knowing that their safe country isn't as safe as they thought. CUE the plane theory. Have terrorists hijack 4 planes, armed with craft knifes to show how feeble the home of the brave really are, including trained pilots (all of them) succumbing to a few terrorists, none of which resembled Hulk Hogan in strength and intimidation stakes, yet still managed to kill or incapacitate all pilots using craft knives and somehow take control of the plane, whilst the others stand in the aisle waving scary craft knives at passengers, none of who they would know and some of who could be special forces trained or ordinary brave men who aren't afraid to tackle someone stood there with a craft knife. Well this is the story told right? Anyway, the plane theory was a go because crashing planes into the towers would make it more believable for the towers to fall whilst scaring the public into believing that nothing is safe because the might of the american air force was rendered useless in stopping 3 of the 4 planes hitting their targets. Crash the planes, bring down the towers and full wtc complex, make the american public scared and outraged and wanting revenge, whilst the asbestos problem in a building that was a white elephant and losing money hand over fist was eliminated, leaving Larry Silverstein to collect his insurance billions from a policy that he'd only taken out months earlier with a clause in it that says it should pay out in the event of a terrorist attack on the buildings. Everyone's a winner, except Joe public. And his answer to save him writing it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7012 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Parkys been chomping at the bit to get in here for days He's definitely a higher class of mentalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 What's the bets this is a topic on cluesforum? This topic might be on loads of sites..so what.I'm discussing them on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 @ wolfy If it was just a demolition why complicate the conspiracy to the extent of using the planes? Makes no sense. The number of loose ends multiplies with each plane making the conspiracy ridiculously hard to stealth. Hundreds of more people are involved inc air traffic crew, data printouts, response and countermeasures protocols....It gets mind bogglingly difficult to cover up...That's why it's pretty clear the planes were real as a simple demoliton/bomb attack is a much smaller conspiracy to cover up and still blame on the chosen enemy. Think a little bit eh? Parky, I can say the same to you...think a little bit more on this. You obviously question things, so go and scrutinise the plane footage. Saturate yourself in it all and then come back and tell me planes crashed into those towers. I'll say it again...planes do not fully melt into steel. Here's something else for you. do you believe a plane can go through that building and emerge out of the other side with it's nose fully complete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I don't think it ludicrous at all. 4 planes crashed that day, we are told and all 4 planes disintegrated into supposedly tiny pieces...no tail fins, nothing except at the Pentagon where they showed a small engine that was not off any 757 as it was far too small. Watch any footage of the planes going into the towers in slow motion and tell me in all seriousness if a plane is capable of doing that. I'd even be willing to relax my stance and allow the fuselage to go right in but we still have wing tips and a tail fin that melt in....wing tips...I mean, I can't understand how anyone can think plane wings can do cartoon type holes into steel buildings. Pentagon was hit by a navy cruise missile. It would be too freightening to ever admit that to the american population and reveal the level of the game that day. Hence the whole farago about a plane. Hence no proper wreckage and a tiny hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Oh don't you start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Parky, I can say the same to you...think a little bit more on this. You obviously question things, so go and scrutinise the plane footage. Saturate yourself in it all and then come back and tell me planes crashed into those towers. I'll say it again...planes do not fully melt into steel. Here's something else for you. do you believe a plane can go through that building and emerge out of the other side with it's nose fully complete? I've analysed 9/11 for at least 10 years with dozens of people, veterans, pilots, scientists, architects, explosive experts - you name it. It is like you're on page one of a book I read ten years ago. Planes hit those buildings that day with terrorists onboard. However the collapse of the buildings was and is still very suspiscious. There is good data reg thermite done by some Danish scientists. Check out the building work done a few months before 9/11 on the towers and check out Silverstein doubling the insurance. The no planes thing is complete bollocks. Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Pentagon was hit by a navy cruise missile. It would be too freightening to ever admit that to the american population and reveal the level of the game that day. Hence the whole farago about a plane. Hence no proper wreckage and a tiny hole. So there's one plane theory killed off right. Now if that theory has been fed to the public don't you think the other have as well. Don't you think it makes a lot of sense as to why NORAD didn't mobilise and fighter jets to intercept......because there were no hijacked planes, just rigged news footage. Don't you find it a tad strange how all news channels had experts talking about who done it and why , all done as fast as lightning.. Most witnesses were part of some news channel, whether it was the wife of an exec or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 This topic might be on loads of sites..so what. I'm discussing them on here. Well yes, it's been spoon fed to you from somewhere Mr Independent Thinker. Now, can you see why you are being so offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I've analysed 9/11 for at least 10 years with dozens of people, veterans, pilots, scientists, architects, explosive experts - you name it. It is like you're on page one of a book I read ten years ago. No mate, I'm well up on it, I've studied it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I've analysed 9/11 for at least 10 years with dozens of people, veterans, pilots, scientists, architects, explosive experts - you name it. It is like you're on page one of a book I read ten years ago. Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15467 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Parkys been chomping at the bit to get in here for days He's definitely a higher class of mentalist Aye. Agree with him or not, Parky's actually fun to talk to, largely on account of not being a complete dullard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well yes, it's been spoon fed to you from somewhere Mr Independent Thinker. Now, can you see why you are being so offensive? What do you mean by independent thinker? Did I ever say that I never look at stuff and it's all from my own mind? To question stuff, you have to look at the evidence out there and dissect what you believe is right and discard what you believe is off the mark..that's what I do and I don;t profess to be bang on with EVERYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Yeah, right. I'm sticking up for you here monkey heed. You meet all those types at conferances on 9/11. Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Don't you find it a tad strange how all news channels had experts talking about who done it and why , all done as fast as lightning. So why did they frame a Saudi? 'I don't know' doesn't cut it btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No mate, I'm well up on it, I've studied it as well. Well talk some sense then. The whole no planes thing is an intelligence plant to make tinfoilers look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What do you mean by independent thinker? Did I ever say that I never look at stuff and it's all from my own mind? To question stuff, you have to look at the evidence out there and dissect what you believe is right and discard what you believe is off the mark..that's what I do and I don;t profess to be bang on with EVERYTHING. So you're not 100% sure people didn't burn and fall to their deaths yet you think it's OK to publicly deny their suffering? Fucking Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well talk some sense then. The whole no planes thing is an intelligence plant to make tinfoilers look stupid. Aye of course it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 So why did they frame a Saudi? 'I don't know' doesn't cut it btw. Well it's gonna have to cut it because guess what. I don't know what was on their minds and why they did certain stuff with names and race, I think a seat in the room where it was planned maybe might clue you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Aye of course it is. You and steveoxo fell for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well it's gonna have to cut it because guess what. I don't know what was on their minds and why they did certain stuff with names and race, I think a seat in the room where it was planned maybe might clue you up. Saudi money is behind half the terrorism on the planet which the americans know full well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21450 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Saudi money is behind half the terrorism on the planet which the americans know full well. So? I still can't see a motive here Parky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) So? I still can't see a motive here Parky. It's very simple. The Saudi's are a very brutal dictatorship who have their own issues with Jihadi/fundamentalist elements within their own territory. They have always been paranoid about Iraq since the Q8 saga and also wanted to replace funding for terrorism via the hawalah money network operating out of the middle east with their own funds so they could get more control and direction over operations (that might one day be at their door). Edited October 17, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now