[MikeD]

I don't find a lot of the conclusions convincing at all. Reading it, it seems to me that writers have, by and large, come to their conclusions beforehand, and have written their accounts and criticisms in support, after the fact. Nor are any of the accounts I read by qualified aviation safety professionals (yeah, I know, they all have chips in their heads that the FAA uses to control them), and their 'commonsense' approach doesn't hold much water with me. Saying what obviously should and should not occur at such a crash site is pure Internet speculation, even when you start comparing it to Lockerbie. Totally different situations. Accounts of 'keystone kop' aerial security procedures fail to account for the chaos and fog of a totally unimaginable situation in its unfolding...pure amateur hindsight.

CIA controlled terrorists I might consider. Incendiary-launching remote control planes are laughable.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Like I said, those guys are mostly conspiricy nuts - I totally agree that they take the evidence and twist every possible far fetched scanareo out of it.

It's like any website or news report, or whatever in life. You don't have to take it whole sale or reject it entirely. This is not a black or white situation. You read, it you think about, and you see what makes sense to you.

Adverts for cleaning products totally over-hype the power of the product. You know it's bullsh1t but you still buy the product because it does, in fact, clean.

I read a bunch of these sites. They, like most media, have their fair share of crap contained within them,

BUT:

What about the lack of a hole in the Pentagon?

How can you say a Boeing hit the Pentagon and just did this?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Look to the right...big hole.

 

[Changleen]

Sorry - That's the official 'Point of impact'. See this:

Source: US Department of Defense

Here's a much larger view anyway - there are no other holes as you can see.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg

 

[RhinofromWA]

Sorry - That's the official 'Point of impact'. See this:

Source: US Department of Defense

Here's a much larger view anyway - there are no other holes as you can see.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg

Looks about right to me. Ever put a tomato through a hand dandy slicer dicer?

So the government paid off hundreds of families and took away their loved ones...to stage the crashes. All secretly.

Said FU to the WTC and it's occupants. Bush is said to have watch in his limo via closed circut TV the 1st plane crash.

Flew planes in to the towers remotely, and some sort of small remote bomb plane....where one of the massive bomds didn't go off.

Scheduled with airlines to make imaginary flight schedules to trick people asking the airlines for flight info and rosters.

Blame it on Muslim terrorists....who take credit for it...we must have paid them off too.

The more I think about it Aliens make more sense....or maybe it would be easier to just go and blow the stuffing out of what ever we were pissed off at.

 

[Changleen]

That's the point. Your anger was manufactured so Bush could get richer.

 

[RhinofromWA]

That's the point. Your anger was manufactured so Bush could get richer.

Baseless acusations......

Oh it wasn't him exactly it was his cronies.....

Oh wiate he would have to buffulo the entire goverment to pull it off.....

yet people still run that line of sloppy consperacy. It would be easier to jsut run more bills from the mint and pass it directly to an off shore bank account atleast then he would only have to buy off a couple people and no one would be the wiser.

Problem is the are infinite numbers of ways to do everything Bush is claimed to do(benefited from)....much easier, via covert, unseen actionsthat would be under the radar. When all the theories are lined up and questioned they don't hold up either. It is being marred in details that they don't address the bigger picture....

why was it done the way theorized? They don't know.

Who benefited? Bush, but we are not sure how. He could have made money so much easier....killed Saddam with a sniper bullit....snaked oil another way.

Does the theories cause more questions than answers? Yes, more questions once we take a step back and look at it all.

When it all is added together is the picture clearer? No.

 

[Changleen]

Dude - it's not exactly baseless! You seriously think a Jet liner crashing into the pentagon makes a hole smaller than the cockpit alone, leaves zero identifiable traces of that plane, in contrast with every other plane crash ever, and you write it off by saying 'Looks about right to me' - WTF? Where is your brain today? Try thinking just a little bit critically!

On top of that, why were the black boxes never recovered from any of these planes?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? How was debris found spread over a 6 mile area if the stortabout it being brought down by it's passengers is true?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? How come 9 of the 'Hi-jackers' turned up alive since? I mean, come on!

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

Can you give me a reasonable answer to any of these questions, rather than just saying that 'conspiricies are unlikely' - 'apply occam's razor' - 'it'd have been easier to..'?- All that is just avoiding the questions I am raising. Sure it would be easeier to do this or that, but that isn't what happened.

Sh1t went down on 9/11, and by taking a critical look at what happened, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of physical evidence that DOES NOT MATCH the official version of events, and worse than that, a lot of things happened which anyone seriously investigating these issues just would not have done. Instead of just slagging off so called 'conspiricy theorists', why can't you properly answer these quite reasonable questions?

Why is the hole in the pentagon so small?

Why is the wreckage from a plane that was crashed into the ground by it's passenger spread over 6 miles?

Look, I'm not going over it again, if you don't believe it fine, but in that case I'm sure you can give a logical answer to some of these questions?

 

[Lexx D]

Changleen, you may be crazy but I do agree certain things don't mesh. But I'm sure rhino will just ignore the questins and say "looks fine to me".

 

[RhinofromWA]

Dude - it's not exactly baseless!

Baseless was your allegation that Bush did this to get rich.

You seriously think a Jet liner crashing into the pentagon makes a hole smaller than the cockpit alone, leaves zero identifiable traces of that plane, in contrast with every other plane crash ever, and you write it off by saying 'Looks about right to me' - WTF? Where is your brain today? Try thinking just a little bit critically!

yes the hole can be that small....what mroe do you want from me....the wholfrom of the building is crapped out..the hole you pointed out was a whole.

On top of that, why were the black boxes never recovered from any of these planes?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

Should they?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? How was debris found spread over a 6 mile area if the stortabout it being brought down by it's passengers is true?

No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? How come 9 of the 'Hi-jackers' turned up alive since? I mean, come on!

you think the planes don't have a list of all ticketed passengers for thier flights I suspect it would take 20 minutes to know what names were used on the planes. A little longer for the government to see if some of them pop up in their data bases....I am sure the alias would be tied to each and every name

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

what forensic evidence are you looking for in the rubble of a huge building collapse that dwarfs the plane that hit it? Can you decifer plane stuff from office stuff once it burns long enough to soften the girders nad end the builiding into the ground?

Can you give me a reasonable answer to any of these questions, rather than just saying that 'conspiricies are unlikely' - 'apply occam's razor' - 'it'd have been easier to..'?- All that is just avoiding the questions I am raising. Sure it would be easeier to do this or that, but that isn't what happened.

Sh1t went down on 9/11, and by taking a critical look at what happened, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of physical evidence that DOES NOT MATCH the official version of events, and worse than that, a lot of things happened which anyone seriously investigating these issues just would not have done. Instead of just slagging off so called 'conspiricy theorists', why can't you properly answer these quite reasonable questions?

Why is the hole in the pentagon so small?

Why is the wreckage from a plane that was crashed into the ground by it's passenger spread over 6 miles?

Look, I'm not going over it again, if you don't believe it fine, but in that case I'm sure you can give a logical answer to some of these questions?

Again why is the hole the smoking gun? Is it impossible? Says who?

Are there holes in accounts of what happened? Sure. I bet if you were jumped in a dark alley with a buddy and both baten severly...your detailed accounts when put under intense detail would look like totaly different events..

 

[RhinofromWA]

Changleen, you may be crazy but I do agree certain things don't mesh. But I'm sure rhino will just ignore the questins and say "looks fine to me".

Nope.

 

[Changleen]

Thank you. If I'm crazy to ask questions about something that to me is so obviously out of whack than looney me up. You should have a read for yourself (google) about some of the other ****, I've really only scratched the surface here. Do bear in mind, as I pointed out earlier, alot of this stuff has been researched by, well, 'conspiricy nuts' and some of their conclusions are obviosly a little wild. But if you stick to the substance it's pretty clear something is going on.

Rhino - As for the 'reason' for this all I forgot about this:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

Have a read of that article. Once again, try and ignore the partisan **** at the beginning and end, and focus on the substance in the middle.

 

[Changleen]

Baseless was your allegation that Bush did this to get rich.

See above.

yes the hole can be that small....what mroe do you want from me....the wholfrom of the building is crapped out..the hole you pointed out was a whole.

So the Pentagon is made of some crazy strong super concrete eh? Try comparing that to other plane crashes and the damge they have cuased. I've even posted links to such evidence if you cared to look.

Should they?

Yeeeesss...If there is nothing to hide this is matter of public record...

No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?

Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh...

you think the planes don't have a list of all ticketed passengers for thier flights I suspect it would take 20 minutes to know what names were used on the planes. A little longer for the government to see if some of them pop up in their data bases....I am sure the alias would be tied to each and every name

You ignoe two of the major points - No arabs names on the Airlines schedules, so where did these come fom so fast and how are a bunch of the supposed hi-jackers still alive? That in itself means the investigation is not complete, but it's been stopped anyway. Why?

what forensic evidence are you looking for in the rubble of a huge building collapse that dwarfs the plane that hit it? Can you decifer plane stuff from office stuff once it burns long enough to soften the girders nad end the builiding into the ground?

Yeeesss.. Aluminium and Titanium are pretty easy to tell appart from steel!

Again why is the hole the smoking gun? Is it impossible? Says who?

Mr. Common Sense - But we might not be at home to him?

Are there holes in accounts of what happened? Sure. I bet if you were jumped in a dark alley with a buddy and both baten severly...your detailed accounts when put under intense detail would look like totaly different events..

Yes, but this is one of the most crucial, world changing events in the last centuary. Already hundreds of thousands of people have died because of it.
The Government story has holes in it. You admit that. So why do you not consider it necassary to find the answers to these, especially in the light of the fact that it makes them look like they're lying about the whole thing? Isn't this a little to serious to take 'on faith' even for you?

 

[MikeD]

Remember the Maine, I always say.

 

[Changleen]

Sounds about right to me. Wag the Dog mk 1. What's this? Version 254.2?

 

[RhinofromWA]

So the Pentagon is made of some crazy strong super concrete eh? Try comparing that to other plane crashes and the damge they have cuased. I've even posted links to such evidence if you cared to look.

flying soda can. Yes the Pentagon is pretty sturdy. I beleive it is be a little bit more efficiant at holding back an airplane than a glass wall of the WTC. I guess you think the airplane should have come out the other side of the WTC towers in much larger chunks than it did. Becuase all that is on each floor is temp walls and support beams.

Yeeeesss...If there is nothing to hide this is matter of public record...

Not everything is a matter of public record and readily available to the masses right way....correct? Especially when you are talking about material involved in an attack against the USA. Just a random thought.

Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh...

IF the wacked out theories were true, THEN yes.

You ignore two of the major points - No arabs names on the Airlines schedules, so where did these come fom so fast and how are a bunch of the supposed hi-jackers still alive? That in itself means the investigation is not complete, but it's been stopped anyway. Why?

Hmm if Bush planned this whole illablerate scheme to fool everyone I think he could plant names on the flights pretty easily. In fact it would be foolish if he didn't....now if someof these passengers used alias that the government had on file then, maybe then, they would have those known names available?

Yeeesss.. Aluminium and Titanium are pretty easy to tell appart from steel!

Aproximately hom much of that building was made of steel? How much Aluminum (ALOT) and yes probably part of titanium somewherein that building. Now picture all of that falling to the earth in one massive clump....not so easy to tell what fromwhat especially after it burns up some.

Mr. Common Sense - But we might not be at home to him?

Mr common sense bailed on you a long time ago my friend.

Come on that was funny!

Yes, but this is one of the most crucial, world changing events in the last centuary. Already hundreds of thousands of people have died because of it.
The Government story has holes in it. You admit that. So why do you not consider it necassary to find the answers to these, especially in the light of the fact that it makes them look like they're lying about the whole thing? Isn't this a little to serious to take 'on faith' even for you?

When your "answers" have larger holes than the ones already in existence filled with absolute specualtion and pure guessing then you have a problem.

Problen with the theories is they install fiction as fact to complete there theories.

 

[Changleen]

flying soda can. Yes the Pentagon is pretty sturdy. I beleive it is be a little bit more efficiant at holding back an airplane than a glass wall of the WTC.

So if, somehow in magic fairly land, the concrete of the Petagon held up to 200 tonnes of plane going at 250+mph and it didn't go inside, the same question is still valid - where's the wreckage? I suppose it 'vapourised'?

Not everything is a matter of public record and readily available to the masses right way....correct? Especially when you are talking about material involved in an attack against the USA. Just a random thought.

Or if the material proved there was no attack, that would be a good reason for holding on to it as well. The fact is such material in the past has been release, and there would be no reason not to release it this time. What are they going to stop people hearing? The terrorists give some 15 minute speech about exactly how they manged to overcome airport security? Come on!

And wait, were getting away from the point here:

No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?

Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh...

IF the wacked out theories were true, THEN yes.

So the evidence from eyewitnesses, with no axe to grind, and reports in the press:

Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky

show that the plane was spread over huge area. So the Government lied about it. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Like Bush doesn't lie about a thousand other things!

Hmm if Bush planned this whole illablerate scheme to fool everyone I think he could plant names on the flights pretty easily. In fact it would be foolish if he didn't....now if someof these passengers used alias that the government had on file then, maybe then, they would have those known names available?

Here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
is one of the official passenger lists. Pick the people from it who were actually Arabs and used false IDs. Was it Paul Friedman, 45, from Belmont, Massachusetts? Hmm, you look a little dark for a Paul Friedman... maybe Charles Jones, 48, Coputer programmer - yes, that Charles Jones in the Turban. Now you are theorising yourself and yours isn't full of holes, it is one - in your argument.

Aproximately hom much of that building was made of steel? How much Aluminum (ALOT)

Very very little, certainly none of the structure. And it would still been differentiable to a proper inquiry because of the vastly different grades used.

and yes probably part of titanium somewherein that building. Now picture all of that falling to the earth in one massive clump....not so easy to tell what fromwhat especially after it burns up some.

hardly any Titanium either, especially with the age of the building. And you clearly have no idea how hard it is to actually set fire to metal. And you'd still be able to identify the oxide anyway.

When your "answers" have larger holes than the ones already in existence filled with absolute specualtion and pure guessing then you have a problem.
Problen with the theories is they install fiction as fact to complete there theories.

My point exactly. Your answers are more hole-filled than my 'conspiricy'.

 

[RhinofromWA]

So if, somehow in magic fairly land, the concrete of the Petagon held up to 200 tonnes of plane going at 250+mph and it didn't go inside, the same question is still valid - where's the wreckage? I suppose it 'vapourised'?
Or if the material proved there was no attack, that would be a good reason for holding on to it as well. The fact is such material in the past has been release, and there would be no reason not to release it this time. What are they going to stop people hearing? The terrorists give some 15 minute speech about exactly how they manged to overcome airport security? Come on!

And wait, were getting away from the point here:

So the evidence from eyewitnesses, with no axe to grind, and reports in the press:
show that the plane was spread over huge area. So the Government lied about it. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Like Bush doesn't lie about a thousand other things!


Here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
is one of the official passenger lists. Pick the people from it who were actually Arabs and used false IDs. Was it Paul Friedman, 45, from Belmont, Massachusetts? Hmm, you look a little dark for a Paul Friedman... maybe Charles Jones, 48, Coputer programmer - yes, that Charles Jones in the Turban. Now you are theorising yourself and yours isn't full of holes, it is one - in your argument.


Very very little, certainly none of the structure. And it would still been differentiable to a proper inquiry because of the vastly different grades used.

hardly any Titanium either, especially with the age of the building. And you clearly have no idea how hard it is to actually set fire to metal. And you'd still be able to identify the oxide anyway.

My point exactly. Your answers are more hole-filled than my 'conspiricy'.

somebody needs a valium........

Crack pots are crack pots and the more time they have and the more crap they throw at their theories stuff starts to "kinda" stick. Filling an hole with another maybe does not make a fact or even an agruement.

You haven't really asked the question "could a plane make such a small hole" ou simple said nope. Seems how it is the basis of the pentagon scandal then you might want to try and mimic it. Where is the drone with teh bombs wreckage? Where is anything other than annonymous accounts and internet "experts" accounts on what should happen?

People survive their parachutes from not opening.....there is no easy way to explain it....when someone can die falling off their patio that is 3ft off the ground. Point is things don't always follow a set of rules....one assumes is always right.

Still nothing you have shown says that 9/11 was a conspiracy organized by the bush groupies...to richen his pockets....

To many leaps of faith that even the bible would have a hard time explaining.

BTW did you look what came out of the WTC (not first hand) dust is dust baby....I know what a pop can does in a camp fire....I can only imagine what happened there.

You still aren't convinced yourself though you push the idea that it is fact. You say read between the theorists ramblign to seek the trueth. Maybe the trueth lies between the extreme "reality" these crack pots duped up and what was fed from the Government.

No go wag the dog.

 

[Lexx D]

People survive their parachutes from not opening.....there is no easy way to explain it....when someone can die falling off their patio that is 3ft off the ground. Point is things don't always follow a set of rules....one assumes is always right.

So your argument for most changleens statements is strange things happen that's great. I'll remember that during any debate your in in the future.

Yeah, but strange things happen.

 

[Lexx D]

All things aside i find your blind faith in our Gov. interesting. You act as if they would never lie about anything.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Heaps of sound techical engineering data on the Pentagon incident:


Nothing Secret about Pentagon's Response to Aircraft Impact:
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_nothing_secret_pentagons/

Engineering Report on Pentagon Disaster:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

Building Design and Construction:
http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/newspentagonreport.asp

Engineer Study Reports Pentagon Was Built Tough
http://www.dod.mil/news/Jan2003/n01232003_200301236.html

Civil Engineer
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php

Study on 9/11 Pentagon Attack Contains No Surprises
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/030127.asp

New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

 

[Archslater]

Heaps of sound techical engineering data on the Pentagon incident:

Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

[N8 v2.0]

Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

That's ok. It's hard to argue with the engineering data on this.

Besides, do you really think Bush & Co could have carried off such a complex and well executed plan anyway? This goes completely against everything anti-Bush that's typed in lo' these many threads...

;p

 

[Changleen]

Nice N8, you've posted:

4 links to articles based on the same report and saying the same thing - 50 columns of the Pentagons first floor were destroyed. wow. Some contain report diagrams which contradict photographic evidence.

1 Broken link

1 Enr.com link with US government images that DIRECTLY contradict the photos taken after the crash and assuptions based on them.

1 link to a story about a 'physics model' that has already been debunked, and is also clearly wrong just at first glance since it uses an inacurate model of the Pentagon in the first place, and a plane with 'soft' engines that break up just as easily as the rest of the plane. It's also got some great quotes:

"We are discovering a new territory. We had some interaction with aeronautical engineers, and they had never heard of this kind of a simulation, with an aircraft hitting a building.
"This kind of a structure/aircraft interaction is not done commercially."

Hahahahahaha. Yes it is. I have a friend who designs planes. He's done this type of work. I've seen programs on the Discovery channel about this. Every major building has plane strike simulations done on it. This guy is so full of sh1t, just like your links.

 

[RhinofromWA]

All things aside i find your blind faith in our Gov. interesting. You act as if they would never lie about anything.

Not about everything....I am talking about this world wide conspiracy to mock the attacks of 9/11....

So Bush can line his pockets.

So since you beleive in the government lieing...well duh, I am not saying the goverment tells us complete and unaltered trueths. Then these wacko's theories must be correct? That is a scary sense of reasoning.

"Strange things happen" is no less beleiveable than these crack pots theories. And actually it should quench their thirsts for trueth since it seems every opinion is now fact.

I guess I have a bridge to sell you.....

and how do those people survive the fall fom an airplane? That is a bigger question to ask.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Hahahahahaha. Yes it is. I have a friend who designs planes. He's done this type of work. I've seen programs on the Discovery channel about this. Every major building has plane strike simulations done on it. This guy is so full of sh1t, just like your links.

Your "friend" sounds like someone Al-Q would love to have on thier side....you got a name of that friend? neaky: *rhino dialing the FBI*

j/k *phone is ringing*

 

[Changleen]

Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Neither of which say anything about that...

and what about this, from the Engineering News-Record (New York)

Wittich says the city has awarded contracts to two private scrap dealers to handle 50,000 tons of steel. The rest is expected to be used to create offshore artificial reefs or head for "upland" disposal. While the company obtained dredging permits in seemingly record time, environmental permits for steel disposal have yet to be issued. "The rate that the stuff can be brought to the reef is less than what's coming out," says Weeks President Richard S. Weeks. Wittich says larger steel debris, as big as 30 tons, may be used for slurry wall stabilization.

So much for an in depth analysis. The best I could figure, a tiny percentage of selected steel which was not fire damaged was given to a volunteer, unpaid team of amateur analysits.

Did you actually read these through? The first (the maths one) is a student's gross oversimplification with no reference to the complex structure of the tower, and still ends up with a failure mode which disagrees with reality. In the model, the tower colapses section by section with each previous section falling on the the lower all the way to the ground. There are two problems with this:
1) The towers actually fell at a speed associated with acceleration due to gravity - they took just 8 seconds to fall, which suggests 0 resistance from the structure below. The model guy assumes a more realistic situation but does not make the fall time calculation nor compares his situation to that one.
2) He makes no attempt to model the damage to the lower portions of the tower (very little or none) or to model the remaining strength. I've actually done finite element failure analysis before, (I am a materials engineer) and I can tell you that the maths he uses is pretty simple to describe the failure of a complex building.

The other article is fundamentally flawed, but even so, still takes up MY argument for the most part. It attempts to show how fire could not have caused the collapse, and makes some good points, but ignores conclusions that logically flow from its own arguments, such as: "Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

He neatly misses the point, as above, that the falling sections (with all their inertia) would be slowed by the material below them during their fall. Only a demolition can rationally account for this behaviour.

The best thing about this article, though is this passage:

No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.

Actually, ALL large buildings are designed to take the impact of an airliner, the WTC being no exception. I've already posted a link to an interview with the designers stating just that.

 

[Changleen]

and how do those people survive the fall fom an airplane? That is a bigger question to ask.

Is that really a bigger question that 'Is your Government the most corrupt, manipulative, coldhearted bunch of lying murders ever?'

I think not. I've only heard of one person actually surviving a fall from a plane. He ejected from a RAF Tornado but the parachute on the ejection seat/tub thing failed to open. He was extremely lucky and landed at the top of a steep grass bank, and the tub allowed him to sled down to safety.

Argh, you're dragging me off topic, damn you! :wink:

Rhino, you're STILL arguing that because some of these people believe in aliens, we should discount everything they say. That's just not true. I don't believe in God or the Bible, but it's still not a good idea to kill people. Surely a person of your intellect can see that there ARE holes in the official story and they are not being investigated, they are being ignored.

Ignoring for now my personal conclusions about the reasons for this, (Bush, world domination etc) surely you can conceed this?

 

[Changleen]

That's ok. It's hard to argue with the engineering data on this.

Especailly if you can't think for yourself...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Rhino, you're STILL arguing that because some of these people believe in aliens, we should discount everything they say. That's just not true. I don't believe in God or the Bible, but it's still not a good idea to kill people. Surely a person of your intellect can see that there ARE holes in the official story and they are not being investigated, they are being ignored.

Holes do not equate internationally coordinated conspiracies orchastrated to line Bushes pockets. That is my beef. If there are holes fine look into them but to then start gapping vast gaps (I often call them sanity) to arrive at an often MORE IMPOSSIBLE theory is the problem.

Ignoring for now my personal conclusions about the reasons for this, (Bush, world domination etc) surely you can conceed this?

Conceed that there are holes?...OK. There will always be holes...if someone looks at something long enough. Do you think someone can't refute and create another theory of what happened on 9/11 even regarding the drones that were to have been flown into the Pentagon? Bottom line is nothing they have is backable....that proves there theories to be the ultimate trueth. It is why the theorist continue on....you can't fully prove wrong one or the other. And if you did prove "a" point or two that still does not prove all the rest of the purposed links to a massive cover up.

The fact that they say they had sex with bigfoot then circle jerked with Nessie does nothing to help their case to be taken at anything more than ramblings. I don't go to nut house to seek tax help and I don't go for my conspiracy theories to guys that walk around with tin foil hats and still wear their Star Wars under'roos they got when they were 5yo.

*disclaimer* my cracks towards the mentaly "less than solid" individuals in that last bit, were meant in humor and by no means is to be taken seariously. I have no way to confirm that they did infact circle jerk with the Lock Ness Monster, but I have video of 2 out of 8 guys giving it to bigfoot. */disclaimer*

 

[RhinofromWA]

OK admit it the circle jerk with Nessy bit was pretty funny

well I laughed......:

 

[Changleen]

OK admit it the circle jerk with Nessy bit was pretty funny

well I laughed......:

I'm trying not to imagine a plesiosaur playing the biscuit game...

 

[Changleen]

Do you think someone can't refute and create another theory of what happened on 9/11 even regarding the drones that were to have been flown into the Pentagon? Bottom line is nothing they have is backable....that proves there theories to be the ultimate trueth.

Agreed, no aspect of their explanation of the reasons why this lie was put out has any solid backing. It is all speculation.
What is not speculation, is that the official story is filled with lies. That's all I'm trying to say. Where you go from there is up to you.

 

[Changleen]

And if you did prove "a" point or two that still does not prove all the rest of the purposed links to a massive cover up.

Maybe, maybe not. To me the most ridiculous lie is the Pentagon 'Impact'. It is so clearly false that a 200 tonne plane hit that building and made a teeny hole, then vanished without a trace. Assuming I am correct, which I'm sure I am, this then begs the question: 'So what did happen to that plane?' 'What happened to all those people?' and so on. I agree I have no evidence to back my theory that it was to do with Bush et all, but it's the obvious 'occam's razor' solution to me. Who else could pull off such a job? Why would the Government lie about it?

 

[Changleen]

I am talking about this world wide conspiracy to mock the attacks of 9/11....

Dude, I'm not trying to 'Mock' anyone. I'm just trying to point out the lies..