Bush says fight against terror is 'World War III'

Originally posted by mad scientist
Erm, and is this meant ot some type of proof ? because it isn't. So were these firefighters skilled in demolition, have they ever seen a huge skyscraper collapse ? Ahh didn't think so.
I've heard plenty of people say things like " gee that sounded like a bomb " when in fact it was just a loud noise - doesn't make it a bomb because they say so. Describing it as "It was as if they had detonators " is just a desrciptive term, everyones seen enough controlled demoltions on TV.

First - did you visit the links I provided? I strognly Doubt that.

Second - were you inside or in front of WTC before the Collapse? I don't think so. These Men WERE - and they are telling you and me and everybody else what they saw and heard.

Third - don't you find it Interesting that the WTC towers collapsed like every other building that collapsed of controlled demolishion?

Fourth - I think that Fireman know a "Little" about explosions and collapse of buildings on fire, sine that is THEIR JOB!

We've all seen the footage of the WTC collapsing countless times, it does kinda look like a demolition, that isn't proof though. I'm sure they'd be many other cases of buildings collapsiong and it looking like a demolition.

Apprently you do not know that WTC towers were bult to withstand fires - especially if they burn for few hours. How come the Madrid skyscraper did NOT collapse after a Day or more of Extreme fires? How come it did not collapse like WTC towers?

Originally posted by Souljah
Apprently you do not know that WTC towers were bult to withstand fires

Apparetly you do not know that WTC towers had their fireproofing knocked off
in certain areas by the impact.

enr.construction.com...

The report also says, of the fireproofing knocked off
the steel, that "no fireproofing is designed to withstand
such devastating impacts."

This has been on the TV and can be easily found by GOOGLE.

ALSO - some very interesting failures in testing the 'fire proofed' floors -
prorev.com...

Despite promises by the Port Authority to "meet or exceed"
the New York City code, the federal investigation found that the trade
center had fewer exit staircases than required and that the Port Authority
never tested the fire resistance of the floors. It also found no evidence
that a rigorous engineering study supported the authority's repeated
public assertion that the towers could stand up to the impact of a fully
loaded commercial airliner. . .

And this tid bit from
prorev.com...

However, the tower floors were built not with 17-foot lengths of floor,
but with 35- and 60-foot lengths. When a 35-foot length was tested in the
furnace, the floor failed the fire-rating requirement.

[edit on 5/8/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Souljah
First - did you visit the links I provided? I strognly Doubt that.

Nope you're right, I assumed your quote from the transcript was the most relevant information, corrretc.

Second - were you inside or in front of WTC before the Collapse? I don't think so. These Men WERE - and they are telling you and me and everybody else what they saw and heard.

We all saw the same thing live on camera, kinda funny only these 2 men claim to have seen something - hang on, they're not claiming that it was a controlled demolition They said it was like one, as they would have seen them before it would hvae been a most apt description for them.

Third - don't you find it Interesting that the WTC towers collapsed like every other building that collapsed of controlled demolishion?

I have also seen buildings which haven't been knocked with a controlled demoltion fall in what appears to look like it's controlled. That proves nothing. Oh but wait, there has never been one bit of physical evidence even suggesting a controlled demolition.

Fourth - I think that Fireman know a "Little" about explosions and collapse of buildings on fire, sine that is THEIR JOB!

Right, so when was the last time they attended 2 of the worlds biggest buildings which had just been struck by passenger jets ? Considering that many of their frinds and colleagues died in those buildings they are being remarkably restrained.

Apprently you do not know that WTC towers were bult to withstand fires - especially if they burn for few hours. How come the Madrid skyscraper did NOT collapse after a Day or more of Extreme fires? How come it did not collapse like WTC towers?

Souljah, you haven't been doing much reading. For a start2 passenger planes hit the building with 50 tonnes of high octane fuel a piece, as far as I'm aware the Madrid skyscraper was not. Then of course the kinetic energy and shrpnel imparted by the plane crashes stripped the insulation of many of the main suporting columns. Last but not least have you bothered to compare the construction of the WTC with these other skyscrapers ? If not I suggest you look into it. The design of the WTC towers had alot to do with the collapse.

Also, one of the buildings titled when it collapsed a sure sign that a section on the corner gave way, far from what you'd expect from a controlled demoltion.

Originally posted by Souljah
I think that Fireman know a "Little" about explosions and
collapse of buildings on fire, sine that is THEIR JOB!

102 stories on fire that have are in the middle of a city and
have been hit by airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel are a bit
out of the ordinary for fire fighters and isn't something that
is usually taught at the fire academy. There aren't any fire
academies in this country that train to that level. Find
one, and show that NYC firefighters attended classes
there and I'll retract this statement.

Further - show proof that these firefighters have attended
demolition school (there are experts in the field) and I'll
even throw in a cyber bouquet of roses and a mia culpa.






[edit on 5/8/2006 by FlyersFan]

FlyersFan and mad scientist, how about you explain WTC 7, which was NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE!!

You 2 get on here and run your mouths about plane impacts knocking out fireproofing. Well, how about bldg 7? What knocked out the fireproofing in this case?

And, if their testimony means nothing, PLEASE tell me why the 9/11 Commission BLOCKED testimony that bombs WERE in the buildings?

Souljah, ain't it funny that when firefighters say there were bombs, they were crackpots, but when they say they knew bldg 7 would collapse or there were insane fires, the "official" lie buyers are all over that?

Bush's remarks are frightening (at least to me) but then again, most of his statements are. His attitude is balanced perfectly with his ego and this is also frightening.
He has been allowed to pursue his ever increasing ego trip.
Several times during the run up to the election campaign I can recall many others reffering to the Presidents position as "The next leader of the free world". I for one would be interested in learning where this new found title was seemingly automatically associated with the Presidents position.
He even has mentioned it himself during a speech taken from the following link...
Link

Now we are nearing the first presidential election since September the 11th, 2001. The people of the United States will choose the leader of the free world in the middle of a global war.

A snippet of news I found earlier today..
Blair: Nuking Iran Would Be Absurd

Asked at a news conference whether he shared Straw's view of any thought of a nuclear strike, Blair said: "I don't know anybody who has even talked or contemplated the prospect of a nuclear strike in Iran and that would be absolutely absurd, which may be a different way of saying what you have just quoted to me.

Maybe Tony is offering some good advice publicly, maybe Bush isn't answering the phone?
Jack Straw's comment was better in my mind saying that the idea was "completely nuts".
Lets hope Bush dosen't get pushed further into any corner!

No comments please about "well we only have two more years to put up with this"
Isn't that just as scary???

I would really Love to write more about 9-11 Topic but this is hardly the thread for that.

Suggested Read - ALOT of valuable information in there:

News Archive: 9/11

Wuh oh, donno if anyone else has said this, but this looks like an outright justification/preparation for a future large scale military operation...

They are god damned dangerous fools.

Originally posted by truthseeka
You 2 get on here and run your mouths ...

That's snotty. That's rude. That's ignorant.
Mostly that's immature. People having polite
and well informed conversation aren't
"running their mouths".

... about plane impacts knocking out fireproofing.

... because that's what happened. Read the reports.
You are just ticked because the facts don't fit into your
manufactured reality of some conspiracy. Deal with it.

Well, how about bldg 7?

What about it?? The discussion was on the towers.
OF COURSE #7 wasn't a victim of planes knocking out
fireproofing. I never said it was.
If you want to talk about building 7, go right ahead.

If it came down on it's own, or if it came down by human
design because it was so severely damaged by the shaking
of the towers coming down ... either way ... doesn't change
the fact that the towers came down due to the fireproofing
being knocked off ... due to the building NOT being built
to fire code (see the floor lengths as previously posted)
and due to the fact that militant Islamic extremists declared
war on America years before and the WTC was just another
hit against America by them.

The US government enabled the bad guys. Enabled by not
taking the threat seriously and by 8 years of Clinton military
and intelligence cutbacks. The Isrealis knew it was coming
and did nothing to stop it because they wanted America
to wake up and understand radical muslim terror.

Back to the original thread subject ....

We already are in World War III. It just hasn't gone nuclear yet.



[edit on 5/8/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Apparetly you do not know that WTC towers had their fireproofing knocked off
in certain areas by the impact.

Yes steal does melt at high enough temperatures and with enough time, BUT the steel in the WTC buildings was extremely thick, and would not have melted that fast, even without any fireproofing.

What was this fireproofing made of, since it was "knocked off" by the impact? It is made of foam wherever I have seen it. And that doesn't crack, break or fall off.

The jet fuel did not come close to the temperature of melting steel. And this was not ordinary steel, it was, how do you say, hardened steel.

Everyone has to agree that the fire was only in the top floors, so if the entire building was to have "melted" and collapsed all the way down, there would have been flames everywhere. BUT, there were not. Without this, the top would have fallen down onto the rest, and not continued falling at all, especially not at the speed of gravity.

People have heard "machines" driving around on some floors of the WTC towers, and hypothesized that someone was cutting most of the beams off, I believe that they were grinding up blocks of metal to make thermite with, and mixing it on the spot.


We here in Europe, have had TV-shows from we were little, on the shows that children watch, you know like sesamy street, etc. where we are taught that no plot is too crazy to be dismissed. It's not cozy TV-shows, the intelligence service have appearances in totally genuine settings, only with role model-children as some of the characters.
Anyway the moral/lesson of the shows have been proven right time and time again.

An intelligence agency that dismisses a possibility because it is highly improbable, has already failed its mission. The FBI didn't fail you, the government did.





Hey truthseeka, thanks hehehehe
see you later!

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Christian IX]

I read the topic of this thread and thought oh no, are we really still paying attention to the senseless spin spat out by dubya? What war on terror? And how stupid is the comparison of some hypothetical anti-terrorist operation to WWII...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

102 stories on fire that have are in the middle of a city and
have been hit by airplanes fully loaded with jet fuel are a bit
out of the ordinary for fire fighters and isn't something that
is usually taught at the fire academy. There aren't any fire
academies in this country that train to that level. Find
one, and show that NYC firefighters attended classes
there and I'll retract this statement.

[edit on 5/8/2006 by FlyersFan]

Actually, firefighers are trained to handle fires like the ones in the WTC buildings. Far, far worse fires have been handled. The fire within the WTC was mostly black, not blazing inferno; not to mention that the WTC fire only spanned across something like 4 floors; while other far worse fires have been as much as 20 floors and were still saved by firefighters (keep in mind that these were more intense, constant infernos as well, and burned for as much as 24x as long).

Yeah....the WTC fires were 102 floors of fire...not to mention those planes were built to withstand A LOT, including the impact of an airplane.

Originally posted by truthseeka

FlyersFan and mad scientist, how about you explain WTC 7, which was NOT HIT BY AN AIRPLANE!!

You 2 get on here and run your mouths about plane impacts knocking out fireproofing. Well, how about bldg 7? What knocked out the fireproofing in this case?

And, if their testimony means nothing, PLEASE tell me why the 9/11 Commission BLOCKED testimony that bombs WERE in the buildings?

Souljah, ain't it funny that when firefighters say there were bombs, they were crackpots, but when they say they knew bldg 7 would collapse or there were insane fires, the "official" lie buyers are all over that?

LOL, another complete misinterpretation, they didn't say there were bombs, they said it looked like detonators, get your facts right Geez, if the firefighters had said they'sd seen aliens int there, you'd believe that as well.

Oh yeah, so did anyone actually see any bombs, didn't think so. The fact remains you hvae absolutely no proof, so in the absence you take avgue commetns and trumpet them

Next thing you know, he might talk about something like forming a New World Order against terror.

Using a idea that is 'cool' and hip sounding but in actuality of happening is very flawed, and many consider immoral.

Some people just can't wait for WW3.

Originally posted by Omniscient
not to mention those planes were built to withstand A LOT,
including the impact of an airplane.

Did you mean that the buildings were made to withstand the
impact of an airplane?

prorev.com...

According to this site - the study on that was never done.
And according to this site - the floors were not built to code.

We could argue this all day. But the topic of this thread is
that W said we are in WWIII.