[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
guys these theories that support the 9/11 commission report are self contradicting. If you believe one of them then you have problems explaining the rest e.g. if it was like a river of water hitting the building...why the pancake collapse and why did the third building collapse... IMO its all nonsense.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=Shpira;794834]e.g. if it was like a river of water hitting the building...why the pancake collapse and why did the third building collapse... IMO its all nonsense.[/QUOTE] There is no contradiction here.
The "river of water" was a physics analogy used just to describe the [I]impact of the aircraft into the structure[/I] - and primarily the Pentagon.
The "pancake" thing was used to describe the [I]method of collapse of the structure[/I] - particularly the WTC buildings.
I'm not talking about the accuracy of the theories themselves, but they are describing two distinctly different events. Comprende?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;794719]now miro, would you like me or you to call mr kinder and record the conversation?[/quote] I've seen that email lots of times. Go ahead and call that guy. And guess what? Call John Hotard while you're at it, because I've got my own American Airlines employee mystery quote to back up my side. :lol:
[quote] Engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time... It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected. John Hotard, Corporate Communications, American Airlines[/quote] [url]http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked[/url]
Google John Hotard, and you'll find that he really is a spokesman for the airline and has commented on lots of things in various news sources. But really, I don't know if there was or wasn't a phone on Flight 77 - no idea. But guess what? I do know people who work at American Airlines corporate side in the Chicago area, and they still had plenty of planes that had active GTE airphone systems at the time of the attacks - but they were in the process of discontinuing them and did so in the subsequent years.
So yeah...so much about that.
[QUOTE=yesme;794719]please dude, you keep getting into subjects you have no clue about.
I never claimed that the calls came through at high altitudes and when the planes were at top speed.
And I never claimed that the cell phone calls could successfully handle the transfer between towers.
Thanks for totally missing the point and arguing about nothing...as if the rest of us didn't know that cell phone towers have to transfer callers. :roll:
If you go back and look at the info I posted, you'll see that the calls came from the plane at a time when it was at a pretty low altitude - lower than 8,000 feet. And obviously when the tower transfer happens, the calls would be dropped. Why do you think that only 2 calls made it through (who knows how many tried out of desperation) and even then only [I]for a matter of seconds[/I]?
Do you think the planes were always flying at top speed (or at high altitudes) at every single moment of their flight patterns?
[QUOTE=yesme;794719]btw, the A-10 warthog is one bad ass machine, i saw it's gun test fired at eglin, and i also got a couple spent shells. did not know about his theory of it shooting down a plane. link please.[/quote] I didn't read all of that bullshit, just enough to see that it's out there and that he puts his name with it...I'm sure you can find it if you look.
[QUOTE=yesme;794719]wtf are you talking about?[/quote] Stuff that you can't understand, apparently. There is nothing particularly complicated in what I wrote...maybe try reading it again? Dewdney's study was done in this way, and it's [B]not[/B] a realistic way to recreate what would have happened on those planes.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
i'll get back to you, just wanted to post this f-ing WIN for our team.
[QUOTE] Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
By Sibel Edmonds and Philip Giraldi September 22, 2009 [URL="http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/"]American Conservative Magazine[/URL]
Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.
A Department of Justice inspector general's report called Edmonds's allegations "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.
John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, [B]"If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it."[/B]
Continued at American Conservative Magazine online, [URL="http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/"]here[/URL].
[URL]http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
the bolded part is for the conspiracy theorist in me, which is why no one would believe it, not in merica!! we dont do that kind of shit to our citizens, who-rah!
[QUOTE]
Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged woman in US history making it a little it difficult for us, the public, to have a detailed understanding of everything she knows about al-Qaida and the 911 attacks, but she has given interviews and written a number of great articles and letters which enable us to put some of the pieces together.
Immediately after the release of the 911 Commission report, Sibel wrote an open [URL="http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=3230"][COLOR=#394ef9]letter[/COLOR][/URL] to Thomas Kean and the Commission in which she chided the 911 Commission panel for ignoring important issues related to the attacks, and she also made public some of her closed-door testimony to the 911 Commission.
For example, in that letter, Sibel identified specific warnings from April 2001 that: [INDENT]"1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months."[/INDENT]As we all know, this information was not included in the Commission report, and was barely mentioned in the US media even though it was confirmed in the [URL="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00321.htm"][COLOR=#394ef9]Chicago Tribune[/COLOR][/URL] and FBI Director Robert Mueller was surprised that he wasn't asked about it by the 911 Commission. In fact, according to Sibel, [INDENT]"(A)fter 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue."[/INDENT][/QUOTE]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]If you go back and look at the info I posted, you'll see that the calls came from the plane at a time when it was at a pretty low altitude - lower than 8,000 feet. And obviously when the tower transfer happens, the calls would be dropped. Why do you think that only 2 calls made it through (who knows how many tried out of desperation) and even then only [I]for a matter of seconds[/I]?
Do you think the planes were always flying at top speed (or at high altitudes) at every single moment of their flight patterns? [/QUOTE]
yes, after hi -jacking, planes were at top speed untill crash.
there is no way ANY cell phone made any call due to the handoff issue.not including the faraday cage like plane or the fact that cell towers dont point up.
[QUOTE]Or maybe you should read the study that Purdue University did on this to get a better sense of how this mass of mainly fuel behaved at high speed, "homie". [/QUOTE]
did you just say the Purdue study?
[QUOTE] Josh Reeves and Mike Swenson write, "The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed [URL="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf"]HERE[/URL]) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'" [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][b]Prof. Popescu who designed animation software himself points out FLAWS in the simulation:[/b] [URL]http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.pdf[/URL] on Page 6 we read: "One of the shortcomings of the simulation is that the dispersing fuel is treated by LS-DYNA as a non-volatile liquid. However, it created an explosion and subsequent fire. Thus, SPH elements should have a death frame associated that attenuates the mass of liquid over time. This and other fire-related effects should be revisited in future work." Another thing, is that animation shows bare columns without gypsum walls, furniture, etc. I ask: how could they confirm that fireproofing was dislodged if they didn't include all the other stuff, like walls, that covered columns? And where can I read a paper that describes this alleged dislodging scientifically? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I'm just saying...maybe they know something you might not (if that's even possible)?? [/QUOTE]
that was a nice little quote.
so the plane crumbled outside the building and the fuel flew into the building like a river eh?
and it took out all the inside columns and made that punch out hole 6 reinforced walls later?
and i take it the engines just turned to dust as well when they hit the wall?
[QUOTE]Maybe it's a "classic propaganda ploy" of you to claim silly things like this. Many people who saw the plane weren't in any "crowd". Nice try, though... I wonder how much research you had to do to come up with that. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Or maybe most serious aviation experts, pilots, and aerodynamics experts actually find it plausible and don't agree with your version of the "truth"?
I think that's more likely[/QUOTE]
or you could not know how the human mind works, i find that to be way more plausible
[QUOTE]Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd
There are of course those who have fallen under the hypnotic spell of the TV talking-heads and "experts" whom they worship as authority figures. Unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, no amount of truth can sway them from their preconceived prejudices. [I][B]They will even deny that which they see with their own eyes. [/B][/I]They are victims of a psychological affliction known as "the lemming effect". Lemmings are small rodents who have been observed to follow each other as they charge to their deaths into raging rivers or even off of cliffs. Lemminghood is an innate psychological phenomenon, present in most mammals and observable in common people as well the most sophisticated and educated elites. Lemminghood is not an intellectual phenomenon - it is [I]psychological. [/I]As such, no socio-economic class is immune to its strangulating effect. A grant- seeking university scientist can be a lemming just as much as a fashion obsessed teen-age girl. One blindly follows the latest trendy theory while the other follows the latest clothing style. What's the difference? Neither can resist the force of nature.
The power to fit in with one's social peers can be irresistible. To a human lemming, the logic behind an opinion doesn't count as much as the [I]power and popularity [/I]behind an opinion. Man, like lemming, behaves collectively. And it could be no other way. Naturally, the individual must be equipped with this trait. Otherwise, the smallest steps toward civilization could never have been made. Lemminghood is a survival trait, an inborn instinct in the majority of people. However, as with all natural phenomena, this tendency can be manipulated and used for harmful purposes. It is this lemming effect which enables entire segments of a society to lose their sense of judgment all at the same time.
This research paper will likely be wasted on many lemmings. For lemmings, [I]denial [/I]is a basic psychological defense mechanism used to not only shield themselves from unpleasant realities,[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][FONT=Arial]but also to reassure themselves that they will still fit within the acceptable range of opinion held by their peer group. Lemmings are absolutely terrified at the thought of being labeled as an "extremist" or a "conspiracy theorist". At all costs, their beliefs must always be on the “right” side of the issue and conform within the boundaries of their lemming peers. Lemmings simply cannot bear the burden of responsibility, or the social discomfort, which comes with thinking independently. They will resist any efforts to change their misguided beliefs with all their mental energy. We can try to open their closed minds and free them from their self-imposed blindness, but it’s not easy fighting the force of human nature. The chains of ideological conformity have too strong of a grip, and breaking them is a difficult task. With the limited resources at our disposal, it is next to impossible to compete with the media lemming-masters. The lie of the emperor is always believed before the truth of the peasant. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I don't suppose you know that the Pentagon is also a heavily reinforced concrete structure and that only the outside facade is made of limestone? And that it fell down 20 minutes after impact, as I've already stated?[/QUOTE]
yeah, you seem to have missed the point, the limestone would of been damaged in the shape of the plane, even if the whole plane did not go into the building, the limestone would of been broken where the plane hit it, also the windows in the area of the wings would of been broken also.
but ignore that and just say the building was reinforced.
[QUOTE]First of all, they do audits all the freaking time. Nothing new there.[/QUOTE]
they used to do INTERNAL audits, guess they were not that good or else they would not be missing 2.3 trillion, but i guess to you, those kinds of audits are the best ones eh?
[QUOTE]Nothing new there. And it's also not at all surprising to me that government agencies have weak internal controls and inefficient processes. This is always happening, and not just in government organizations. And that link you provided cites like $68 million, which is orders of magnitude off of $2.3 trillion. [/QUOTE]
the cell phones 68 million was what triggered the audit, guess you missed that, also the 2.3 trillion figure comes from the dod themself, so if you dont believe they lost that much money, your on your own with THAT conspiracy buddy.
[QUOTE]And you still don't understand that "$2.3 trillion transactions" doesn't at all mean "$2.3 trillion cash outflow". I suggest you go research some accounting (I have ;) ).[/QUOTE]
can anyone explain this to miro, as i have explained it 10 times and he dont seem to understand it comming from me.
he somehow thinks i believe rummy stole it all himself in one day, please explain, like i have that the stealing(losing) of the money took many years maybe as many as 20 years to get to that point(2.3 triilion)
maybe if someone else uses my exact words, then he will finally understand it.
[QUOTE]Oh, by the way...I'll let you in on a little secret: There is a place where the government really does steal a lot of cash - it's called the National Deficit, and they do it with the US Treasury. Its much more efficient than doing it through the military[/QUOTE]
hahaha
your so funny dood, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that MOST of the deficit comes from DOD SPENDING.
[QUOTE]The "river of water" was a physics analogy used just to describe the [I]impact of the aircraft into the structure[/I] - and primarily the Pentagon. [/QUOTE]
so it was a river of water at the pentagon, but a trickle of piss at the wtc?
whats funny is, they expect us to believe that 6 ton engines did not damage the walls or go into the building, but the jet fuel busted thru it all:roll:.......lmfao.
man, what some people will believe i guess.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]yes, after hi -jacking, planes were at top speed untill crash.
there is no way ANY cell phone made any call due to the handoff issue.not including the faraday cage like plane or the fact that cell towers dont point up.[/QUOTE] And yet there is lots of evidence that suggests that your statement is false. Even Dewdney admitted that it was [I]possible[/I] below 8,000 feet (not likely, not good quality, not lengthy...possible). You would have to be lucky to be at the right place and you wouldn't get a long convo before the tower drops you... but it is not impossible.
Nice job bringing up Faraday... it makes you sound really smart, but it doesn't prove much here in this context. Maybe it would if you want to talk about how the plane handles a lightning bolt.
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]did you just say the Purdue study? Josh Reeves and Mike Swenson write, "The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed [URL="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf"][COLOR=#d2d2d2]HERE[/COLOR][/URL]) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'"
that was a nice little quote.[/QUOTE] Actually, it was rather stupid. Please point out to me where exactly there is a contradiction in those two statements. The Purdue study is talking [I]only[/I] about the [I][B]physics of the movement[/B] of the plane mass through the building[/I] upon and immediately after impact.
The FEMA report is talking about [I][B]the actual damage[/B] that the jet fuel blast did (or in this case, didn't do[/I]).
They are two different things. Nothing in the Purdue study said that the plane did enough structural damage to bring down the building or produced shock waves, or whatever.
Comprende?
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]so the plane crumbled outside the building and the fuel flew into the building like a river eh?[/qupte] The plane did not crumble outside of the building. No one ever claimed that. That is not what the Purdue study said. Where did you come up with that ridiculous notion? :roll: Way to "straw man" your way out of having to try to understand anything of what they wrote.
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]and it took out all the inside columns and made that punch out hole 6 reinforced walls later?[/QUOTE] You are confusing a few things here, probably purposefully. That punch out 6 reinforced walls later was not the plane itself. By that time, it was in pieces. That punched out hole was very likely only from some component of the plane, most likely part of the landing apparatus, which somehow separated in trajectory from the body of the wreckage.
I sure can't prove it (no one can), but it seems a reasonable enough explanation - many magnitudes more reasonable than to claim that no 757 hit the building, yet the government tried to convince everyone that a 757 did (for what reason, you've never said).
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]and i take it the engines just turned to dust as well when they hit the wall?[/QUOTE] The engines suffered the fate of much of the rest of the aircraft; they basically disintegrated and burned [I]as they came through[/I] the wall. The remnants were there, but they were no longer all together in one big engine, as if no damage had happened.
Again, if you're such a genius about this stuff, then why don't you look at more impact pictures of past air crashes that have happened at high speeds and explain to me why there are oftentimes only small pieces remaining instead of complete engines and wings? How is that possible?
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]1. many witnesses that day at the pentagon WORKED for the government, were they planted? who knows, but if we assume the government knew about the attack(sibel says they did) and that they covered it up, planting of witnesses(like the cab driver) seems like the next step to make sure your(governments)version of events is what gets broadcast.
or you could not know how the human mind works, i find that to be way more plausible[/QUOTE] It's [I]hilarious[/I] to me that you claim this ownership to a near genius-level knowledge of the "workings of the human mind", and yet you support paranoid conspiracy notions that appear ridiculously obtuse, complicated, and impossible to carry out to the average person with critical reasoning ability. In order to make your story believable, you basically have to expand the conspiracy net to incude [I]everybody [/I]and you have to assume that none of them would ever let down their guard and tell the truth later.
It strains common sense that the government would hit the Pentagon in broad daylight with something and then try to convince everyone that it was a 757 for no real reason. What idiot would do realistically do this, and why? Even if there was a conspiracy, this makes no sense.
It strains common sense that the government could plant every single witness who spoke up about what they say that day, including many who [I]did not[/I] work for the Pentagon (again, maybe you should research those eyewitness reports). Don't you think someone would have stepped forward and said "No, I really didn't see a 757; I saw a cruise missile/AC 130/fighter jet/whatever"? How come no one[I] ever[/I] has come forward with that? Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable.
It strains common sense to think that the government had to concern itself with stupid, needless details, like whether the poles fell in a certain way, and that they would actually care to get some random cab driver involved. JUST ONE?? That guy is supposed to somehow be credible? That is beyond dumb. Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable.
It strains common sense that the government not only runs every vendor that works with the defense department, but also every part of the media network (NBC, ABC, etc.) and that no one there would ever peep a word. Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable.
I guess one can equate this kind of thinking with a great knowledge of "how the mind works" if you've brainwashed yourself reading way too conspiracy materials and lost touch with what is practical and realistic...
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]yeah, you seem to have missed the point, the limestone would of been damaged in the shape of the plane, even if the whole plane did not go into the building, the limestone would of been broken where the plane hit it, also the windows in the area of the wings would of been broken also.
but ignore that and just say the building was reinforced.[/QUOTE] Yeah, LOOK AT THE PICTURE of the building after the crash. The limestone was not only damaged, it was on the fucking ground when the entire facade of the building fell down 20 minutes after the impact! What is this bs about "limestone wasn't damaged"... it was obviously heavily damaged. Many of the windows were also damaged; some within the area were blast resistant (yes, I've seen the conspiracy crap on that, too).
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]they used to do INTERNAL audits, guess they were not that good or else they would not be missing 2.3 trillion, but i guess to you, those kinds of audits are the best ones eh?[/QUOTE] Almost all organizations do internal audits as well as external ones where they retain one of the major accounting firms to go through their books on some regular basis.
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]the cell phones 68 million was what triggered the audit, guess you missed that, also the 2.3 trillion figure comes from the dod themself, so if you dont believe they lost that much money, your on your own with THAT conspiracy buddy.[/QUOTE] I don't dispute that they lost track of the $2.3 trillion in transactions... But I don't think that means it was "stolen". Especially since you have no evidence of that.
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]can anyone explain this to miro, as i have explained it 10 times and he dont seem to understand it comming from me.
he somehow thinks i believe rummy stole it all himself in one day, please explain, like i have that the stealing(losing) of the money took many years maybe as many as 20 years to get to that point(2.3 triilion)
maybe if someone else uses my exact words, then he will finally understand it.[/QUOTE] Can anyone explain to yesme that not being able to track "$2.3 trillion in transactions" is NOT the same as stealing it?
Can anyone explain to him that he doesn't even know how much of that $2.3 trillion represents cash inflow to the DoD vs. cash outflow from the DoD vs. non-cash transactions, and that even if they were stealing it, "$2.3 trillion transactions" does not mean "$2.3 trillion in cash"?
Can someone point out to him that it is rather moronic to insist on these claims of "$2.3 trillion stole" when you have zero proof, except that you [I]think[/I] that the cost of planes is too high (even though you know nothing about it)?
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]hahaha
your so funny dood, if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that MOST of the deficit comes from DOD SPENDING.[/QUOTE] hahaha dood - guess what? Whatever the spending reason for it, the deficit comes from money that is [I]borrowed, usually through the Treasury[/I]. If that is the money you think they stole, then that is not the $2.3 trillion in transactions. Congrats, you're a genius! Now get your story straight!
[QUOTE=yesme;795353]so it was a river of water at the pentagon, but a trickle of piss at the wtc?
whats funny is, they expect us to believe that 6 ton engines did not damage the walls or go into the building, but the jet fuel busted thru it all:roll:.......lmfao.
man, what some people will believe i guess.[/QUOTE] I can see from this that you just don't understand that Purdue study.
The study did not say that the plane evaporated at the wall and that only the fuel went through "like a river".
The study obviously said that the plane and the contents all went through the wall and into the building, but that the aircraft disintegrated to the point where modeling it from a physics perspective was more realistically done as a [I]flow of materials[/I] instead of a single projectile going through. And the study said that most of the mass that drives this flow is the fuel, because that makes up most of the mass of the plane. It does not mean that the plane literally turned into a liquid river of some sort.
And the study pointed out that they made a model - models are always somewhat simplified approximations of the real world. That's what a model does: it determines the key variables and "models" the impact of those.
I swear...it really seems like you're just pretending to be obstinate about what they intended to say. It's not that complicated.
To be honest, I trust those physics PhDs a hell of a lot more than your "there should be an exact print-out in the limestone (that fell after 20 minutes)" theories. I think they have much more detailed knowledge of physics than you or I do, and I think the essence of their model makes sense.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^well said, I think Miro has presented pretty logically in his explanations in the above rebuttal and brings up a really solid point, which is that our gov't (and frankly no gov't) is sophisticated enough to cover up as well as conceal a setup up the magnitude in which yesme and RM claims it has successfully done, simply no way.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;795228]i'll get back to you, just wanted to post this f-ing WIN for our team.
the bolded part is for the conspiracy theorist in me, which is why no one would believe it, not in merica!! we dont do that kind of shit to our citizens, who-rah![/QUOTE] "win for our team"? ok :roll:
And what the fuck does this even have to do with the price of tea in China? :lol:
This is not evidence of ANYTHING that has to do with 9-11. This is not even of the same magnitude as 9-11.
I never said that everyone in the US government is an angel who are always nice to everyone and prays five times a day; I just said that I don't think that this needlessly obtuse and complicated plot is even close to realistic. And the evidence does not sufficiently support it.
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795581]^well said, I think Miro has presented pretty logically in his explanations in the above rebuttal and brings up a really solid point, which is that our gov't (and frankly no gov't) is sophisticated enough to cover up as well as conceal a setup up the magnitude in which yesme and RM claims it has successfully done, simply no way.[/QUOTE] Thank you! This is one of the fundamental points!... Why the needless complication of everything?
"They decide to detonate the WTC"...but they also had to fly 757s into the buildings just for the hell of it?
"A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon"...but yet 757s hit the WTC? And the government thought that they had to change up the plot in Washington and go to the extra work of faking all the evidence (down to the light poles and a taxi cab driver) to try to convince everyone that a 757 did hit, for some strange reason?
???
Huh? This shit doesn't even fundamentally make sense to a reasonably sharp grade schooler.
If they're gonna knock down the WTC, why not just blow the shit up and say the terrorists did it?
If you're gonna use 757s in NYC, what's the point of not using them in DC? Why would you waste your time with such a silly cover-up? For what?
I'm a believer in Occam's Razor: in the absence of compelling evidence, the simpler solution makes more sense than one that has needless (even conter-effective) complications to it.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
you guys are funny... I have been to busy this week to post anything. Florida how can you say that if you watched the Sibel Edmonds interviews?? I posted them a couple months ago where she was gagged by the Bush admin. You should watch that..
Also how can you stick up for the commission investigation when 6 out of the 10 commision members admit that they were mislead??
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]And yet there is lots of evidence that suggests that your statement is false. Even Dewdney admitted that it was [I]possible[/I] below 8,000 feet (not likely, not good quality, not lengthy...possible). You would have to be lucky to be at the right place and you wouldn't get a long convo before the tower drops you... but it is not impossible. [/QUOTE]
at what speed below 8k feet? it surely was not at 400mph+
[QUOTE]Nice job bringing up Faraday... it makes you sound really smart, but it doesn't prove much here in this context. Maybe it would if you want to talk about how the plane handles a lightning bolt.
[/QUOTE]
are you trying to compare a cellphone trying to call out of a plane, to a lightning bolt hitting the outside of a plane?:roll:
[QUOTE]Actually, it was rather stupid. Please point out to me where exactly there is a contradiction in those two statements. The Purdue study is talking [I]only[/I] about the [I][B]physics of the movement[/B] of the plane mass through the building[/I] upon and immediately after impact.
The FEMA report is talking about [I][B]the actual damage[/B] that the jet fuel blast did (or in this case, didn't do[/I]).
They are two different things. Nothing in the Purdue study said that the plane did enough structural damage to bring down the building or produced shock waves, or whatever.
Comprende? [/QUOTE]
sure, the only problem is, we all know, the aircraft fuel light almost on impact, most fuel was consumed in the fireball.
Comprende?
[QUOTE]The plane did not crumble outside of the building. No one ever claimed that. That is not what the Purdue study said. Where did you come up with that ridiculous notion? :roll: Way to "straw man" your way out of having to try to understand anything of what they wrote. [/QUOTE]
um, you do two paragraphs down, here i'll quote you.....
[QUOTE]The engines suffered the fate of much of the rest of the aircraft; they basically disintegrated and burned [I]as they came through[/I] the wall.[/QUOTE]
you do realize what engines are made from corrrect? tell me how hot it would have to be for the cobalt parts of the engine to burn(since they did not find any of these parts)?
[QUOTE]You are confusing a few things here, probably purposefully. That punch out 6 reinforced walls later was not the plane itself. By that time, it was in pieces. That punched out hole was very likely only from some component of the plane, most likely part of the landing apparatus, which somehow separated in trajectory from the body of the wreckage. [/QUOTE]
oh, i see, the landing gear made it thru it ok,but the 2 engines they just busted and burned up, yeah that makes sense.:roll:
what your ass will find if you cared to look, is that the black boxs and the engines are both made from the same metal, most engines 95% of the time survive.
[IMG]http://www.ridetherock.com/gallery2/d/9770-1/CrashSiteTrail09.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.check-six.com/images/Marshall/MU-crash-engine2.jpg[/IMG]
ok, so lets get this right.
the plane busted up and melted on the way thru the wall, BUT the people did not. a fire of above 650oC was needed to even think about burning up the engines, but the people and dna survived.
[QUOTE]Again, if you're such a genius about this stuff, then why don't you look at more impact pictures of past air crashes that have happened at high speeds and explain to me why there are oftentimes only small pieces remaining instead of complete engines and wings? How is that possible? [/QUOTE]
what pictures are you talking about? damn near 95% of all jet crashes i have ever seen have most engines or the majority of the engine still there(check 2 photos up top )
[QUOTE]It's [I]hilarious[/I] to me that you claim this ownership to a near genius-level knowledge of the "workings of the human mind", and yet you support paranoid conspiracy notions that appear ridiculously obtuse, complicated, and impossible to carry out to the average person with critical reasoning ability.[/QUOTE]
it's funny you should say that.
did you know that only 3% of the population took part in the american revolution? yep, most people thought george,ben and tom were a bunch of fruit loop conspiracy bastards.
take on the whole british army? make our own country? never happen, matter of fact that told them it was too complicated and impossible to carry out.
oh, look you just said that, how cute is that?
if we look back far enough, it seems the same thing was said to old chris before he set out to find america(well really a quicker shipping route, but instead found america)
[QUOTE]It strains common sense that the government would hit the Pentagon in broad daylight with something and then try to convince everyone that it was a 757 for no real reason. What idiot would do realistically do this, and why? Even if there was a conspiracy, this makes no sense. [/QUOTE]
well, lets take a master propaganda expert and hear what he has to say.
[QUOTE][URL="http://thinkexist.com/quotation/make_the_lie_big-make_it_simple-keep_saying_it/175795.html"]Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it[/URL]”[/QUOTE]
keep saying it, like how we heard the story 20000000000000000000000 times a day for the first year?
[QUOTE]It strains common sense that the government could plant every single witness who spoke up about what they say that day, including many who [I]did not[/I] work for the Pentagon (again, maybe you should research those eyewitness reports). Don't you think someone would have stepped forward and said "No, I really didn't see a 757; I saw a cruise missile/AC 130/fighter jet/whatever"? How come no one[I] ever[/I] has come forward with that? Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable.[/QUOTE]
wholly shit dude, did you just say that every eyewitness agreed that it was a 757 going into the pentagon and no one claimed any thing other then?
[QUOTE]Just after the attack, Mike Walter, journalist at USA Today, explained to the [URL="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html"]Washington Post[/URL] and [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.terrorism/"]CNN[/URL] that "it was like a cruise missile with wings".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It strains common sense to think that the government had to concern itself with stupid, needless details, like whether the poles fell in a certain way, and that they would actually care to get some random cab driver involved. JUST ONE?? That guy is supposed to somehow be credible? That is beyond dumb. Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable. [/QUOTE]
make it big, make it big, make it big
you really should do some reading on the mind, it seems the bigger, bolder, more impossible the lie, the easier it is to believe.
[QUOTE]It strains common sense that the government not only runs every vendor that works with the defense department, but also every part of the media network (NBC, ABC, etc.) and that no one there would ever peep a word. Even if there was a conspiracy, this is not very believable. [/QUOTE]
really? have you not heard of the cfr and their vows to never speak of anything outside of their meetings to anyone else? did you also know lots of media members are cfr members as well?
[QUOTE][FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=#ffffff]"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries"--[U]David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting[/U] [U]in June of 1991[/U] [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Yeah, LOOK AT THE PICTURE of the building after the crash. The limestone was not only damaged, it was on the fucking ground when the entire facade of the building fell down 20 minutes after the impact! What is this bs about "limestone wasn't damaged"... it was obviously heavily damaged. Many of the windows were also damaged; some within the area were blast resistant (yes, I've seen the conspiracy crap on that, too). [/QUOTE]
i'm loving the fact that the part that collapse should of contain the whole plane theory you got going on, let me show you ur mistake.
[IMG]http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/docs/impact.jpg[/IMG]
you understand now?
how come it did not damage the limestone facing?
[QUOTE]Almost all organizations do internal audits as well as external ones where they retain one of the major accounting firms to go through their books on some regular basis.[/QUOTE]
sure, now i will gladly accept your link to a report of an outside audit on the pentagon.
i have not found one in 8 years, but please, go ahead and show us your google fu sir!
[QUOTE]I don't dispute that they lost track of the $2.3 trillion in transactions... But I don't think that means it was "stolen". Especially since you have no evidence of that. [/QUOTE]
it was not stolen in the basic sense, again for you to misunderstand one more time. the dod overpaid companys that they would come to later sit on the board or owned stock in the company. it's an old scam and everyone but you seems to know about it.
[QUOTE]the deficit comes from money that is [I]borrowed, usually through the Treasury[/I]. [/QUOTE]
yes, borrowed thru the treasury and then given to the dod to spend, but the dod dont know where it went, but yet defense contractors stocks are up 150% with record profits.....lmfao.
[QUOTE]And the study pointed out that they made a model - models are always somewhat simplified approximations of the real world. That's what a model does: it determines the key variables and "models" the impact of those. [/QUOTE]
yes, models based on faulty data will provide you with snoopys the red baron as the terrorist, whats ur point?
the damn guy who did the study said it was flawed, but you want me to believe you that it was not flawed?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Miro you are def. out to lunch. The science just isn't on your side. Yesme's post above says it all.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[url]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp[/url]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795763][URL]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]
They claim on that site that the plane hit the ground first before hitting the Pentagon:lol: Surely that would of shown up on the telemetry. Shit I can't copy and paste on that page there are some great quotes
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795763][URL]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]
The fire chief quote actually contradicts the visual evidence.
If the plane was smashed into smaller pieces by the impact, what made that perfect circular hole in the earlier pictures in this thread?
I'm guessing the plane remained intact came to a halt then disintegrated. I'm guessing everyone is agreed if this picture is real that it is taken at one of the inner rings and the hole would have to of been made by the front section of the plane.
[IMG]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p253/71chunky/odds/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S1.jpg[/IMG]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=runningman;795698]Miro you are def. out to lunch. The science just isn't on your side. Yesme's post above says it all.[/QUOTE] Yeah...that means a lot, coming from the most credible "science expert" on the forum. :lol:
[QUOTE=chunky;795792]If the plane was smashed into smaller pieces by the impact, what made that perfect circular hole in the earlier pictures in this thread?
I'm guessing the plane remained intact came to a halt then disintegrated. I'm guessing everyone is agreed if this picture is real that it is taken at one of the inner rings and the hole would have to of been made by the front section of the plane.[/QUOTE] It does not at all necessarily follow that the hole was made by the nose or body of the plane.
I can't prove the exact second-by-second details of exactly how that hole came to be, because I just don't have the data. The best explanation I have heard is that the hole was made by some chunk from the landing gear apparatus on one side that somehow separated from the rest of the mass of the plane. But I can't say that is exactly what happened, because I don't have all of that data.
But what I can tell you is this: you can't logically go from statements like "we can't prove exactly which piece of debris cause that hole" to "there was no 757 that day" or "there was no aircraft" or "the government caused it all" - [I]especially[/I] when a lot of other direct evidence exists to say that a large airliner did crash there that day.
There is a hierarchy in terms of the directness with which evidence supports a conclusion, and these far-reaching conclusions just do not logically follow from that evidence of the hole. I don't care how many books you've read or how brilliant you think you are, it is just bad science.
A whole lot more direct evidence would be necessary for a rational person to make any of those conclusions.
I'll get to the rest later today.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=Miroslav;795796] But what I can tell you is this: to go from the fact that you I can't exactly prove which part of the aircraft caused that hole to far-reaching, unsubstantiated statements like "there was no aircraft" or "there was no 757" or "the government caused it" is a ridiculous and does not constitute good science. Much more direct evidence would be necessary for a rational person to make that conclusion.[/QUOTE]
For me, this says it all. Were there unexpected results at both the WTC and Pentagon sites? Obviously. Do they warrant further study to figure out why things happened as they did? Sure, why not. The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=Miroslav;795796]
It does not at all necessarily follow that the hole was made by the nose or body of the plane.
I can't prove the exact second-by-second details of exactly how that hole came to be, because I just don't have the data. The best explanation I have heard is that the hole was made by some chunk from the landing gear apparatus on one side that somehow separated from the rest of the mass of the plane. But I can't say that is exactly what happened, because I don't have all of that data. [/QUOTE]
Surley whatever made that hole was big enough not to of disintegrated impact. Which contradicts what the fire chief was told about the lack of plane parts at the scene
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^Fire chief is probably "in on it."
[QUOTE=toasty;795800]For me, this says it all. Were there unexpected results at both the WTC and Pentagon sites? Obviously. Do they warrant further study to figure out why things happened as they did? Sure, why not. The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.[/QUOTE]
Toasty, what would you know about presenting evidence for judgment based on a series of alleged events using witnesses and supportive information?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795807]^Fire chief is probably "in on it."
[/QUOTE]
You obviously didn't read your own link:lol:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^If I hadn't read it, I would not have posted it, come on chunky ;)
[IMG]http://2.media.tumblr.com/QA9JpdgnO8wky90bGTVRPkq0_500.jpg[/IMG]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795763][URL]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]
i cant believe you used this link, lol.
but let me say that the reason they give for putting down the sand on the lawn is hgihly suspect.
i mean who here thinks that a couple ton truck is going to be sliping in the grass.....lmfao
really? thats the best they could come up with? i park moving trucks on grass all the time, sometimes i park them on snow, thats if i'm feeling i wont need sand and gravel to drive a couple ton truck on something so slippery:lol:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=Miroslav;795796]I can't prove the exact second-by-second details of exactly how that hole came to be, because I just don't have the data. The best explanation I have heard is that the hole was made by some chunk from the landing gear apparatus on one side that somehow separated from the rest of the mass of the plane. But I can't say that is exactly what happened, because I don't have all of that data. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795763][URL]http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]
According to this website the hole was made by one of the engines punching through the second ring:what So the engine remained nice and circular through 2 walls then fell into little bits then disintegrated.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.[/QUOTE]
thats great
the scientific method and all.
so tell me.
when nist tested the metal and found none of it above a certain temp, why say the fire was 4 times hotter then the test results?
is that the scientific method?
how about when they tested them and found that the steel would of held more weight, with a hotter fire they they lied about for alot longer then the towers stood?
should that theory not be tossed out?
according to people in the field, part of the scientific method is to allow your data to be open for other investigators to test your theory.
is that not correct?
and if the theory can not be repeated, is it not thrown out?
maybe you better rethink agreeing with the government theory least you be laughed out of the scientific community.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=chunky;795817]According to this website the hole was made by one of the engines punching through the second ring:what So the engine remained nice and circular through 2 walls then fell into little bits then disintegrated.[/QUOTE]
funny thing is, the hole is like 5 times the size of the engine., must of been shady construction or sumting.
[IMG]http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/exit2.jpg[/IMG]
not really seeing anything of size to make this hole here either, engine or land gear, maybe if we wish real hard on a star.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Maybe I'm wrong here but if the engine is where the aircraft burns the fuel surely it has to be able to withstand the heat of the fuel burning
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;795818]thats great
the scientific method and all.
so tell me.
when nist tested the metal and found none of it above a certain temp, why say the fire was 4 times hotter then the test results?
is that the scientific method?
how about when they tested them and found that the steel would of held more weight, with a hotter fire they they lied about for alot longer then the towers stood?
should that theory not be tossed out?
according to people in the field, part of the scientific method is to allow your data to be open for other investigators to test your theory.
is that not correct?
and if the theory can not be repeated, is it not thrown out?
maybe you better rethink agreeing with the government theory [B][I]least [/I][/B]you be laughed out of the scientific community.[/QUOTE]
And you'd be laughed out of the English-speaking community. Alas, I digress.
Here's the point: I'm not the one that claims to know what happened here. I agree, there are some quirky things about how this all played out, but it doesn't follow from that that there was no plane at all or that the US was in on it. You cannot purport to rely upon science to bring you to the conclusion that the story we're being told isn't accurate, and then cast science into the ether when you take the completely unfounded next step to reach the wild-ass conclusions that you reach.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=chunky;795822]Maybe I'm wrong here but if the engine is where the aircraft burns the fuel surely it has to be able to withstand the heat of the fuel burning[/QUOTE]
your correct sir, min operating temp for those engines is 650oC. for hours.
the fire in the pentagon burned for 20 mins and was no where near those temps.
as we can see from this picture
[IMG]http://911review.org/images/snopes/119PentagonDamage450.JPG[/IMG]
you can see the burn line on the left hand side of the building on the inside, notice that on the third floor, left hand side, there is a stool, with a book open, pages are NOT burned at all.
pretty intense fire eh?
oh btw, a debunking of the snopes link for you florida.
[URL]http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html[/URL]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=toasty;795828]And you'd be laughed out of the English-speaking community. Alas, I digress.
Here's the point: I'm not the one that claims to know what happened here. I agree, there are some quirky things about how this all played out, but it doesn't follow from that that there was no plane at all or that the US was in on it. You cannot purport to rely upon science to bring you to the conclusion that the story we're being told isn't accurate, and then cast science into the ether when you take the completely unfounded next step to reach the wild-ass conclusions that you reach.[/QUOTE]
with all that now said.
does the government theory as i laid out in my last post, anything closely related to scientific method?
or should they toss that theory?
also, should outside experts be allowed to review the data?
oh, btw no one in america speaks proper english, so they would be laughing at you as well sir:)
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;795835]with all that now said.
does the government theory as i laid out in my last post, anything closely related to scientific method?
or should they toss that theory?
also, should outside experts be allowed to review the data?
oh, btw no one in america speaks proper english, so they would be laughing at you as well sir:)[/QUOTE]
Before I spend any more effort on this, perhaps you can answer a question I posed in another thread on this topic, to which I've never gotten a response as far as I'm aware:
If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77?
AFAIC, until that question is answered, it's kinda silly to continue to discuss whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=toasty;795841] If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77? [/QUOTE]
What your asking for is for people to speculate on something they cannot answer. But like I said in the other thread if the US Government where willing to release 4 stills of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon they could of released 4 in focus and with an aircraft actually in them. They must have literally thousands of them and it makes the story a bit more believable.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=chunky;795846]What your asking for is for people to speculate on something they cannot answer.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that you are unwilling to speculate on this point, but have no problem speculating on so many other things for this theory? The entire thing is based upon conjecture and speculation FFS...
Let's do it this way, without asking you to tell me specifically what became of Flight 77: if it is your opinion that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, then you should surely agree that the flight is not otherwise publicly accounted for. Soooooo, that means that one of the following must have happened, as I understand it:
If I'm missing an option, please let me know.
#1 relies upon the supernatural. #2 is completely unlikely and would be an incredible bit of luck for the perpetrators of this grand conspiracy. #3 is unnecessary -- if you're going to attack the Pentagon and want to make it look like a plane hit it, and you need to destroy the plane to cover up the fact that the plane didn't hit it, why not just fly the plane into the building? Reminds me of when, as a kid, I would pretend to vacuum the floor so it would leave vacuum tracks and make it look like I vacuumed the floor, when it would have been just as easy to just vacuum the damn floor. #4 is where I imagine most conspiracy theorists come down, but for me, it's just madness.
For me, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to Flight 77, the foundation of any further discussion is so flimsy as to be unworthy of serious discussion.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;795834][URL]http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Care to debunk this book?
Dunbar, D. and B. Reagan. Debunking 9/11 myths. 2006. New York: Hearst Books.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795863]Care to debunk this book?
Dunbar, D. and B. Reagan. Debunking 9/11 myths. 2006. New York: Hearst Books.[/QUOTE] if you have some online source for it, i wont be buying it, reading it and debunking it that way.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=toasty;795857]Why is it that you are unwilling to speculate on this point, but have no problem speculating on so many other things for this theory? The entire thing is based upon conjecture and speculation FFS...
Let's do it this way, without asking you to tell me specifically what became of Flight 77: if it is your opinion that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, then you should surely agree that the flight is not otherwise publicly accounted for. Soooooo, that means that one of the following must have happened, as I understand it:
If I'm missing an option, please let me know.
#1 relies upon the supernatural. #2 is completely unlikely and would be an incredible bit of luck for the perpetrators of this grand conspiracy. #3 is unnecessary -- if you're going to attack the Pentagon and want to make it look like a plane hit it, and you need to destroy the plane to cover up the fact that the plane didn't hit it, why not just fly the plane into the building? Reminds me of when, as a kid, I would pretend to vacuum the floor so it would leave vacuum tracks and make it look like I vacuumed the floor, when it would have been just as easy to just vacuum the damn floor. #4 is where I imagine most conspiracy theorists come down, but for me, it's just madness.
For me, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to Flight 77, the foundation of any further discussion is so flimsy as to be unworthy of serious discussion.[/QUOTE] EXACTLY. Great post. :Respect:
It's amusing to see people get worked up about their supposed expertise in every form of propaganda, covert ops, zulu mind tricks, etc...and completely disregard basic common sense along the way.
yesme, runningman...until you guys come up with a damn good explanation for this, based on sound logic and strong evidence, I'm inclined to disregard everything you say.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=chunky;795822]Maybe I'm wrong here but if the engine is where the aircraft burns the fuel surely it has to be able to withstand the heat of the fuel burning[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=yesme;795834]your correct sir, min operating temp for those engines is 650oC. for hours.[/quote] Oh please...really? Just how many large jet crashes at top speed into the sides of a large, reinforced buildings followed by explosions do YOU know of that keep the engines intact?
Just because the insides of a jet engine are designed to burn fuel at high temperatures does [I]not[/I] mean that it can simply survive such a high-speed impact, explosion, and fire. A few google searches will show you plenty of examples of high-impact planes crashes and explosions that result in pretty small debris and certainly nothing even resembling a whole jet engine. There are of course crashes where parts of the plane do stay intact, but there are also obviously many different variables affecting an accident.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;795863]Care to debunk this book?
Dunbar, D. and B. Reagan. Debunking 9/11 myths. 2006. New York: Hearst Books.[/QUOTE]
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I work with people who read the da vinci code and believe it must be real.:lol:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=toasty;795857]
Maybe there where only 3 planes with and the passengers of two of the planes where on the same plane. Did any of the planes take off from the same airport at about the same time.
I'm not saying I believe this or trying to start any rumours.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]Just because the insides of a jet engine are designed to burn fuel at high temperatures does [I]not[/I] mean that it can simply survive such a high-speed impact, explosion, and fire.[/QUOTE]
do you know what a black box is sir?
do you know what it is designed to do?
do you understand that the black box and the engines are made out of the same metal?
do you understand how stupid you sound now?
[QUOTE] 7 of 8 black boxes were not found for all plane crashes. Black boxes that record all flight data are stored in heavy titanium that can withstand almost all of the toughest physical damage. Many airplane parts are made of Titanium that has a melting point of 1,688oC. And high grade jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1,000oC. Many engine parts should be visible even after the crash event. [/QUOTE]
a b-36 engine that hit a side of a mountin(not as hard as a building i know...lol)
[IMG]http://www.internationalnaturalhistoryleague.com/Requiem%20for%20a%20B-36/crash8s.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.chayden.net/Catskills/VanWyck2004/DSCN0768.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://jetengines.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/concorde-crash-2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://arizona.sierraclub.org/trail_guide/Butterfly04L.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week4/15229824.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/FBIYNC.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41116000/jpg/_41116702_engine_ap416.jpg[/IMG]
show me something that says engines are NOT recovered in 95% of crashes, and i might believe you.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=toasty;795857]Why is it that you are unwilling to speculate on this point, but have no problem speculating on so many other things for this theory? The entire thing is based upon conjecture and speculation FFS...
Let's do it this way, without asking you to tell me specifically what became of Flight 77: if it is your opinion that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, then you should surely agree that the flight is not otherwise publicly accounted for. Soooooo, that means that one of the following must have happened, as I understand it:
If I'm missing an option, please let me know.
#1 relies upon the supernatural. #2 is completely unlikely and would be an incredible bit of luck for the perpetrators of this grand conspiracy. #3 is unnecessary -- if you're going to attack the Pentagon and want to make it look like a plane hit it, and you need to destroy the plane to cover up the fact that the plane didn't hit it, why not just fly the plane into the building? Reminds me of when, as a kid, I would pretend to vacuum the floor so it would leave vacuum tracks and make it look like I vacuumed the floor, when it would have been just as easy to just vacuum the damn floor. #4 is where I imagine most conspiracy theorists come down, but for me, it's just madness.
For me, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to Flight 77, the foundation of any further discussion is so flimsy as to be unworthy of serious discussion.[/QUOTE]
number 4, except they are all dead.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
why is 3 so hard to believe:?:. Do you actually think that your gov't would come out in the open ans say "tragedy today we had to shoot one of our planes down killing hundreds on board..":roll:
Plus Rumsfeld said they shot it down.