PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Conspiracy Theory



MrMez
20-04-2006, 12:33 PM
I love a good conspiracy theory, but id like to consider myself educated enough to not believe everything i see and read.

So a while back im watching this September 11th documentary on winamp. Without speculation, they go into amazing analysis on the whole event. Interesting i think, but whats the point. I start diging around and pretty soon i find there is this HUGE conspiracy theory out there on 9/11.

Ive now watched hours of footage on this, and while i dont agree with EVERYTHING these people say, a lot of it makes sense, and at the very least raises a lot of questions. Anyway, i really hope all these people are wrong, and after this video i think you will agree. Sadly i think they are right on many aspects sad.gif

Im not going to comment further on this, u watch it and make up your own mind.

http://mrmez.com/video/Face_The_Facts.wmv
28meg

Mr John
20-04-2006, 01:29 PM
It was totally an inside job, there's sooooo much concrete evidence out there it's not funny.
See my sig.

Crimmo
20-04-2006, 01:58 PM
you guys should watch a bit of penn & teller: bullshit

Dubs
20-04-2006, 02:01 PM
you guys should watch a bit of penn & teller: bullshit
[/b]i have sen this on a DL list, whats it like.....


Dubs

dugy
20-04-2006, 04:08 PM
ROFL-COPTER on standby.

All aboard!
(No box-cutters please.)

Mr John
20-04-2006, 04:09 PM
Crimmo, do you ride with your eyes closed too?

ScratchPervert
20-04-2006, 04:39 PM
It happened, we can't change that.

PREVENTION IS THE ANSWER


AREA 51 eat your heart out!

http://www.bizarrefun.com/FAH651B.jpg

Mr Bush j00 have some splaining to do!

9zero
20-04-2006, 06:32 PM
All these conspirists and people like that wonderful maggot Michael Moore carry on about this shit

Here is something to think about

George Dubya is a lot of things, he certainly hasn't been our best President but a mass murderer he isn't, he is lucky to get through any of his speeches without fucking up, so how the hell could he pull off killing so many innocent citizens without slipping up somewhere - and why would Bin Laded take credit for it?

Concrete evidence my bollocks

Jonchilds
20-04-2006, 07:16 PM
In todays world, information is more valuable than oil. The readiness of the media to accept the obvious stories is also quite startling, and they definately don't take a good enough look to tell both sides of the story.

These videos do raise some very valid points, such as why the video evidence of, and places nearby and surrounding the pentagon were so quickly collected, and never displayed. Such footage, if original would've been a very good justification for these incursions, and put alot of public minds at ease. So where is it?

The stories about explosives being placed in the WTC goes alot farther, with alot less credibility.

That said, I like to believe my own truths, but definately won't trade my liberties for anything at this point in time, especially since more people have died in road accidents than terrorist acts in any given decade, in just about any given country not in a land dispute.

That's my 2 cents, which thankfully for internet banking is still valid.

Foofie Foofie
20-04-2006, 07:30 PM
It was totally an inside job, there's sooooo ........
[/b]

LMFAO ! ..... i saw the topic , and thought of Mr John. Sure enuf ........

:laugh: They are coming for you Mr John !!!! lol



All these conspirists and people like that wonderful maggot Michael Moore carry on about this shit
[/b]

Seriously i was just today talking to Blubous about this redneck overweight disgusting pig of a yank. He has a whole different sprectrum on what reality is between us and his world .... he lies and spreads false propaganda , and it really is a shame cause as a documentarian , he should be able to cut the facts form fallacy. Sadly Hollywood points him in the direction he wants to go.

He would have one hell of a good time with Trevor Paddenburg , Michelle Roberts and Grant Dorrington.

azathoth
20-04-2006, 07:31 PM
George Dubya is a lot of things, he certainly hasn't been our best President but a mass murderer he isn't, he is lucky to get through any of his speeches without fucking up, so how the hell could he pull off killing so many innocent citizens without slipping up somewhere - and why would Bin Laded take credit for it?
[/b]

Because someone else is pulling the strings?

I'm in Jordan right now, and I hear a lot from the Muslims here this anti-semitic bullshit I have dubbed the 'Jewish Conspiracy'. i.e. that 'The jews have all the money', America is run by them and supports Israel and that September 11 was a plot to make Islam look bad. Hurhghrg :sick:

ScratchPervert
20-04-2006, 07:49 PM
I guess everyone has their own opinions of how countries should be run and what should be done in a crisis situation. Is the information from a reliable source, or is this just more pointing the finger by the media? Of course there are going to be things that are kept from the public eye prob for the sake of security reasons and as not to distress the public (before elections etc) a need to know basis if you will. I'm not denying that Mr Bush hasn't made mistakes and big ones and he has one of the worst accents I have ever heard, but we are only human we all make mistakes.



SEX, DRUGS, ROCK AND OR ROLL

Mr John
20-04-2006, 08:15 PM
Hey Saf, I'm so glad I didn't disappoint you. I doubt they're after me, I don't think they give a shit for the opinions of us little-folk.

Dugy, you're an engineer, can you fill in some engineering blanks for me please?
In the history of human endeavour only three steel-framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fires - and they all collapsed on the same day. Spooky huh? I think so. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 later on in the day.
All of these bear a remarable resemblance to the footage we've all seen of controlled demolitions.
Does anybody else find that strange?

Please don't cry "But the planes, the jet fuel"
1 The towers were built to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet.
2 Jet fuel is incapable of melting construction grade steel - else why would we need oxy torches?
3 In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber. Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor.

Another engineering blank - howcome the hole in the Pentagon was significantly smaller than the aircraft which supposedly crashed into it? And for that matter, why is there no evidence of the fuselage, wings, engines, luggage, seats, corpses in the aftermath of the event?

If you can't soberly address these questions without shouting "michael moore is a fat c*nt" then what does that say about your own ability to think independently? I personally dont' have any particular affection for him - but ad-hominem statements about his weight or appearance do not contribute anything except to illustrate the arguer's own ignorance.

How can you flatly assume that everyone but George W lies, he was kinda misleading on WMDs in Iraq thing, dontcha think?

Enough from me, I have researched this loads, the arguments and the counter arguments and I made up my own mind(however small you may think it is). You are free to make up your own mind, or to just follow where you are led.
Blue pill/Red pill - fuck it, as a questionably wise man once said, I'll take both of them ya freakin panzy.


Mr John

dugy
20-04-2006, 09:23 PM
.....oh you think you're gonna drag me into this do ya buddy..... :no:

I'm pretty sure you know I've said my piece on before. :wink:


DISCLAIMER: The following is only an opinion, mine, I'm not claiming to be an authority on the topic.


I have read "some" of the material out there, out of interest, not to with a "pro" or "anti" US sentiment.
I personally don't think that highly of them or the way they do things, but I see them as the lesser of two (or more) evils.
But that's another argument.

I've found the conspiracy arguments to be usually mis-informed, with "facts" skewed and twisted to assist the argument.
With total disgard for fact, common sense and the laws of physics.



RE: The Empire State Building surviving a plane crash. That thing is much more solid structure than the WTC.
It's a lattice of steel and concrete with a lot smaller areas of open span roof, with many more vertical supports.

The WTC. That was a modular building, put together piece at a time. The way the walls went up first, with floors suspended between them. Scary.
I have no idea what factor of safety they had in mind regarding the load each floor was designed to take.
Make a really funky model from JENGA pieces, then try and take a chunk out of the side. Crash. WTC.

Other examples of how a very small aspect of a big 'structure' can bring it undone.

Unsuitable bolts used in the titanic.
Cheap "O-rings" in NASA stuff.

Were they the work of the US govt.?


RE: The aircraft, that hollow thin walled structure designed to fly.....I'm not surprised is disitergrated when it hit a concrete structure like the pentagon.
Here's a link to a jet hitting a brick wall.....check it out. (unless it's a fake vid.)
http://dl2.dumpalink.com/media/0kzXrWdsdAFJ/QjpuZXxanjLj.wmv

Side note to the aircraft.
An email at uni went around of an F1 car hitting a wall and exploding into bits.
The engineering squid sitting at the desk next to me goes:
"Hahaha look at that, it fell to piece, the engineers didn't design that very well."
...I laughed....a lot.....and pointed out the F1 is designed to cut though air, as past as possible, not survive an impact like that.....that's what Volvo's are for.
Sure you could design a air-craft to survive an impact like that.....it's called a bunker-buster. (that doesn't go off.)
Or and F1 to survive the impact intact....but it won't win a race.
Or a building designed to survive an impact from an aircraft...but how much do you want to spend?
Or house's strong enough to withstand the impact of a P-Plater's kingswood.

*yawn*

Ok you got me.

I bit.

Wanker.

If Kawasaki designed a ZR-7 to survive what you put your though......it would wind up similar to HUMMER.

:tongue:

TurboR1
20-04-2006, 09:32 PM
Well lets line up a few facts here right away...

The majority of people who were killed yanks.... result.... who cares??? Theres plenty more..

United Airlines is hardly the best airline in the world... the fact that they havent flown into the WTC before is a miracle in itself.

It made great TV.... but after seeing the same planes, same buildings topple over and over again... well it became old news by about, oh, I don't know 2:00pm that day. They could have at least thrown in a couple of Cessnas or Beechcrafts into the mix... It wouldn't have been as spectacular, but would have offered up a gradual build up to the finale... A bit like a fireworks display.

But the worst and most true irritaing part of the whole thing was that there wasnt enough advertising prior to the events... In hind sight I could have sent a whole bunch of people I dislike there and watch them get burnt up on Jet A1 :thumbsup:

Oh well, at least I lost one wanker in Bali a year and a day later... sometimes the world gives ya one for free.

Tex
20-04-2006, 09:43 PM
Mr John I think everyone is entittled to their own opinions, But I think from a totally amateur uneducated (in these matters) position it's a bit hard to say that the evidence that you've seen is 'concrete' evidence.

9/11 was a terrible day in history, where innocent civillians were slaughtered by inhumain 'freedom fighters' :unsure: who are to cowardly to fight any other way.
At the end of the day after watching everything I can find on the issue I believe that there is no way possible that it was an inside job, but it's interesting to see once again the bullshit that people believe just because they see it on TV.....FFS !

it was in colour .....so it must of been true ! :biggrin:

TurboR1
20-04-2006, 09:54 PM
And another thing... why is it, no matter how hard ya scrub and clean you can never get all the concrete dust out of your car????

XSorXpire
20-04-2006, 10:05 PM
Here is something to think about

George Dubya is a lot of things, he certainly hasn't been our best President but a mass murderer he isn't,
[/b]
Bullshit
1- He is not our president
2- He is a mass murderer. He bombed and is still bombing the f__k out of innocent Iraqies.

F__k the seppo's they're war mongering fools.

chief wiggum
20-04-2006, 10:10 PM
turbo, you are just bad, bad, bad

of course the conspiracy theorie's true, there's too much evidence out there on the internet for it not to be...

bottom line is, if you walk into any discussion/argument with an open mind, you're more likely to see the truth somewhere along the way. the hard part is realising just when you're actually seeing it

ps - if you don't believe the yanks could ever do anything slightly naughty to get what they want, just look up operation northwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood). they may not have actually gone ahead with it, but you just never know, do you? *cue spooky music*

MrMez
20-04-2006, 11:38 PM
The worst part about all this for me is I DONT WANT TO BELIEVE this conspiracy theory. Hearing it has "warped my fragile little mind" (best cartman voice)

Interesting indeed how the ONLY 3 steel structure buildings to collapse from fire were all on the same day. Also... WTC1+2 had no opening windows. If this 'towering inferno' defyed the laws of physics and DID melt steel, how come it was cool enuf for ppl to walk around to the hole and jump out?

More to the point, (the point being: create a fake terror attack to push thru laws to have better control over the public) the government has never had such great control over its public (just look at our beloved road rules), yet the same shit happens regardless. Every year, convenient technologies like thumb scans, and facial reciognition cameras "keep us safe"

In the UK with their face reci cameras and satelites in cars, if u dont pay your taxes u cant drive your new car, and alarms go off in stores. This is not "planned for 2050", its there RIGHT NOW. US superbowl 2005, EVERYONE is face scanned.

Sure if ure not doing ne thing wrong "what have you got to hide", just as the Nazis said. Its increasing every day, our government is tightening the noose inch by inch.

So theres all this bullshit out there, "the government is taking control man!!", yet it seems to do FUCK ALL for many serious issues. Ppl STILL get bashed at train stations, and your bike STILL gets nicked from uni. If these "control devices" showed results, there would be no need for further control, right? But if they dont work, well then we are justified in adding more, just to "make you safe".

9/11 is not the issue here. Ask a few questions.

What has the govt done to 'add freedom' to my life?
What has the govt done to 'take freedom' to my life?
Many states refuse to allow Bush to install face reci cameras before 9/11. All agree after 9/11. Have the goals on 9/11 been achieved?

Ill give a quick analogy...

World War1/2.
Germans develop a cheap vege, grows ne where. Looks gross, a bulb or root, grows underground. They try feed it to prisoners. No boss, we aint eating that shit, f**k off, we would rather starve.
Ok, lets try another c-camp and another tactic. Fence off this vege in the officers vege patch. Now pretend we dont notice as the prisoners sneak thru barbed wire to "steal' this vege.
Potatoes.

Instead of "force feeding" us these bullshit new laws, why not create a 'diversion', so we end up begging to be 'protected' by our masters

BTW M Moore IS a fat f**k.

Hey this is just a rant from sum1 who would LOVE for all this to be bullshit. But i cant convince myself of it.
Do your own research, make your own mind up.

</RANT>

Foofie Foofie
21-04-2006, 12:41 AM
Please don&#39;t cry "But the planes, the jet fuel"
1 The towers were built to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet.
2 Jet fuel is incapable of melting construction grade steel - else why would we need oxy torches?
[/b]

John, You have never metal worked ..... fabricated have you ? . You dont need a engineering degree to know the next bit. If im working a piece of metal , and i heat it up to the point it glows , it will then loose half, sometimes more (depending on the material) of its tensile strength, and i have the ability to bend or shap it so easily , and effortlessly than before. Same thing happened here. The JET fuel was the catalist , it didnt melt metal, it halved the buildings load strength ..... but hangon , it should have possibly still stayed up right ? .... cause i mean we dont make it to the edge ? You have to allow some over-run when planning these things. Oh thats right ...... an airliner crashed into it , and took out a heap fo beams, supporting beams, and floors. Now add to it that the fuel halved its tensile strength , and your down to what ..... 40% of its original strength ???. End result ?. Well you know the rest .



3 In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber. Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor.
[/b]

Sep 11 "withstood the impact" of a airliner aswell. Did the one in 1945 go thru the whole side and shower it all in fuel then catch alight ? . Tensile strength .... ^^^



Another engineering blank - howcome the hole in the Pentagon was significantly smaller than the aircraft which supposedly crashed into it? And for that matter, why is there no evidence of the fuselage, wings, engines, luggage, seats, corpses in the aftermath of the event?
[/b]

This i agree with you , cause there was no plane. Planes do NOT entirly vaporise - it has never happened before. I have seen airliner wrecks at 600kph hit the deck ..... and things like wheels will never vaporise, funny , all the shit at the pentagon did however.



If you can&#39;t soberly address these questions without shouting "michael moore is a fat c*nt" then what does that say about your own ability to think independently? I personally dont&#39; have any particular affection for him - but ad-hominem statements about his weight or appearance do not contribute anything except to illustrate the arguer&#39;s own ignorance.
[/b]

Isnt it a irony ? You use my line, to proove that point ? .... yet your unaware how to even bend a sheet of metal with the aid of a blow torch .... who&#39;s ignorant again ?

To assume im ignorant cause i describe that fat pig of a bastard, doesnt mean im wise, nor a neanderthal, i had never let on my true knowlegde on the subject ....... you only need to look at how many anti Moore sites there are around, and see where they show you where he lied , or what he twisted , the real version ....... and his version. But thats all BS right John ? .... its a conspiracy to lower Micheals reputation ..... hahaha .

Foofie Foofie
21-04-2006, 01:01 AM
RE: The aircraft, that hollow thin walled structure designed to fly.....I&#39;m not surprised is disitergrated when it hit a concrete structure like the pentagon.
Here&#39;s a link to a jet hitting a brick wall.....check it out. (unless it&#39;s a fake vid.)
http://dl2.dumpalink.com/media/0kzXrWdsdAFJ/QjpuZXxanjLj.wmv
[/b]

Dugy, Same in theory, in pracice you must see the obvious differnces.

The jet is travleing at 800kph.
Its very light, has nothing "not needed".
Its only a couple cars long .... ok maybe more.
It hits a wall that doesnt move at all.


The pentagon incident was ...

A jet airliner travling probably half that speed of 400kph
It is extremely heavy, packed with shitloads of stuff that doesnt vaporise easily , if it doesnt burn up.
Its many times longer , wider and taller than the tested jet.
It hit walls that did move , that wernt plane proof.

So, again you would have to see that surely you would find atleast one wheel and tyre ..... you would find one engine that is FULL of solid inconel parts , that doesnt burn up or shit iself in massive heat or pressure, you would have black boxes, tail sections that rip off and land some 600ft away, stamped titanium bulkhead cross beams ..... anything , but there was ....... :no: nothing.

Pkunk
21-04-2006, 01:23 AM
A jet airliner travling probably half that speed of 400kph
It is extremely heavy, packed with shitloads of stuff that doesnt vaporise easily , if it doesnt burn up.
Its many times longer , wider and taller than the tested jet.
It hit walls that did move , that wernt plane proof.
[/b]

not to mention, if you look closely at the pics of where the plane has hit and "vaporised", office furniture remains intact.

so a plane vapourises, but a desk and chair nearby do not ?

hehe

silly goverments!

Foxthor
21-04-2006, 02:35 AM
The whole thing sounds a bit suss in my opinion, but the bottom line is none of us have been there to investigate it and most of the evidence was quickly taken away by the FBI and various others anyway. None of us know for sure what happened... but theres alot of things that dont seem to stack up.

The government is dodgy anyway for scarying theyr people with "weapons of mass destruction" that dont exsist so that they can enter a war for profit. Now was 9/11 a way of showing the people that "this is what happens if we dont take care of the bad people", i dont know.... but it makes you think.. doesnt it.

dugy
21-04-2006, 06:25 AM
Dugy, Same in theory, in pracice you must see the obvious differnces. [/b]
Absolutely. But I didn&#39;t have a sample vid for a jumbo full of people hitting a brick wall. :wink:

A plane hits the ground and is stopped over a period of x min&#39;s covering x km&#39;s and there&#39;s often still SFA left.
This plane was stopped in what 1-2sec over a distance of 10?m.

You refer to the heat halving the tensile strength of steel in the WTC.

Imagine the extrordinary amount of energy(heat) produced when you stop 200 tonnes travelling at ~400km&#39;hr in a few seconds.

It&#39;s strange that nothing was left over, but IMHO, not copmletely improbable.
(More likely nothing "discernable".)

But the comparing the possible explanations, of:

A) The impact was enough to obliterate a plane.

or

B) All the other crap.

"A" still seems more "plauseable".

TurboR1
21-04-2006, 07:16 AM
Absolutely. But I didn&#39;t have a sample vid for a jumbo full of people hitting a brick wall. :wink:
[/b]

Yeah we do... it was on the news for days... :whistling:

dugy
21-04-2006, 07:32 AM
Yeah we do... it was on the news for days... :whistling:
[/b]

I was waiting for that.....you&#39;re a shocker mate. :no:

But that footage isn&#39;t real remember. :wink: :laugh:

dr00
21-04-2006, 08:06 AM
personally i need some pretty concrete evidence before i go accusing governments of conspiracy on the grandest scale. no one here knows what happened, they are only going by what the media has told them... so it must be true! :yucky:

and michael moore is a fat fuck. even fatter with all the profit hes made from becoming the definition of the term "bullshit artist" :biggrin: no different to today tonight, just a lot better at it.

Dubs
21-04-2006, 08:51 AM
i just love the what ifs

i love hyper-potha-ma-thyzing about it all

coz after all, human nature is to be dodogy, you know, do something wrong try to cover it up and with the biggest brownest puppy dog eyes - look up and say "wasnt me"......

this has been a great read tho - thanx to all

pics would be better for me tho as i am at work and have only a 200meg a week limit, vids are just too big

buh bow


Dubs

Foofie Foofie
21-04-2006, 09:39 AM
Imagine the extrordinary amount of energy(heat) produced when you stop 200 tonnes travelling at ~400km&#39;hr in a few seconds.
[/b]

Dugy, for sure no doubt !! . However on one hand you have inconel items, the metal that the turbine blades and compressors (where the flame happens) in the turbines what is one of the hardest metals known to man to destroy ..... that vapoirised, but as Simon says , office furniture some 10 feet away made form MDF and chipboard didnt ? .

That was a missile attack.

dugy
21-04-2006, 09:57 AM
I won&#39;t argue with ya about the aircraft material, you know much more about them than I do.

So where&#39;d that plane go?

So the witness statements to seeing the plane are fake?
The signal picked up by the ATC&#39;s is fake?

For me to believe that it was not a plane that hit.
They would need to explain:

Where the plane went:
How it got there:
Why no witness saw it anywhere else other than ploughing in the side of the building.
Where the passengers are:
If there&#39;s such a teleportation device in existance;
Why it hasn&#39;t been used to beam all Micheal Moore into space.
(Maybe he wears one of them armadillo helmets.)


Again, IMHO, it&#39;s more plausable that the plane disintergrated, than disappeared.


And why haven&#39;t mythbusters build a full scale pentagon and crashed a plane into it yet. slackers.

dr00
21-04-2006, 10:43 AM
Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Rims found in building match those of a 757

Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html)

that wasnt very hard to find, but i guess if youre looking for conspiracies...

dugy
21-04-2006, 10:50 AM
:thumbsup:

ScratchPervert
21-04-2006, 12:46 PM
This is getting all to much for my pea size brain

:sick:



Theres way to much jet fuel around here to sniff ...... or is there ?


CONSPIRACY SOLVERED (ohhh weeee 00000oo)

Foofie Foofie
21-04-2006, 10:44 PM
Well DR00 that certainly pouts a whole new perspective on that thing.

Have you seen the Pentagon shockwave vid ? . Who to belive ..... but that link you sent it pretty clear cut .

CitizenErased
25-04-2006, 12:09 AM
I want to believe.


Nuff said.

*Cough*

Mr John
25-04-2006, 04:34 PM
dr00, that&#39;s an interesting list of facts many of which I can show to be misleading or at least dodgy - for example the remains of the APU turbine found is not from any Boeing - an expert from Honeywell(manufacturers of APUs for 757s), speaking off the record told AFP: "There&#39;s no way that&#39;s [the disc in the photo] an APU wheel.
Also, the crash was so violent that an entire 757 melted/incinerated/vanished yet there were enough human remains to yield DNA matches?
Puh-leaze

Anyway, I could go on but it would be quite redundant given the millions of lines of HTML already in existance.
I reccommend http://pentagonresearch.com for info on the pentagon.
Also http://911review.org/ has lots more 911 stuff

Many more links can be found at http://killtown.911review.org/

Saf, I meant no personal attack earler, I only meant to say that ad-homenim attacks(that is slagging people off instead of addressing their points) adds nothing to an argument.
Moving on: I freely admit that I have absolutely no experience working with with structural steel or construcitnt skyscrapers but I can read and I have read the testemonies of qualified and experienced engineers, physicists and demolition engineers, I hope you mind if I take their words over yours and Dugy&#39;s for the time being.

Let&#39;s go over it again. When the planes slamed into the towers most of the fuel was expended in huge fireballs, you&#39;d imagine that any remainig kero would have burnt off in less than a minute or two - we know it&#39;s not reluctant to burn.
So what was left burning after that was basically office furniture, carpets computers etc.
Upon impact the towers swayed for several seconds then returned to their proper equilibrium - indicating that structural integrity was not seriously compromised.
They remained standing, tower two for an hour after impact and tower one for about 75 minutes after impact.
In all this time the only fuel is office crap - and the black smoke billowing from the buildings indicates the fires were burning inefficiently and as such, relativly cool. In photographs of the towers before they feel you can clearly see people moving about at the crash zone - so clearly indicating that the fires were not very intense.
Far too cool to offer any problem to a building supported by 47 concrete encased structural steel support columns.
So the steel could not have lost any of its tensile strenth as you suggest.
Please remember that such buildings are constructed 5 times stronger than required. So each building would have to lose over 80% of its strength to fail.
Thus we have to rule out that fires had any hand in the collapses - like I mentioned before no steel framed tower has ever collapsed due to a fire - and Dugy, the modular construction thing is a furphy and quite meaningless.

When the towers fell they fell straight down - which implies that the 47 columns in each of the two towers somehow completely failed and telescoped unto themselves - unprecedented in the history of construction physics!

But like I say, all of this and much more is explored in the links above.

But if you still think I&#39;m completely wrong then I have very good news for you. This (http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm) website contains details of how you can win $1,000,000 US by proving that the buildings collapsed without the use of high explosives.
Looks like easy money to me! :thumbsup:


If you&#39;d like todebate this further I&#39;m interested, also I&#39;d be interested in feedback on the video linked from my signature.
Cheers


Mr John

dr00
25-04-2006, 05:45 PM
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

i think you underestimate fire a little.


In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature can reach over 300 degrees in rooms that are not even on fire; this is hot enough to melt plastic and kill the people in those rooms. [/b]

from http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/inju...house_fires.htm (http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/injury/factsheets/house_fires.htm).

at 1200 deg F the strength of steel is halved and theres more than enough fuel in an office with wooden desks, millions of pieces of paper plus plastic, carpet etc. to keep a fire going better than a typical house.

its not for anyone to prove that it happened without explosives, innocent until proven guilty is how id like to be treated and thats how ill treat this.

dugy
25-04-2006, 06:02 PM
dr00, that&#39;s an interesting list of facts many of which I can show to be misleading or at least dodgy[/b]
Come in Pot, this is Kettle.


and Dugy, the modular construction thing is a furphy and quite meaningless.[/b]
Go to a library and read up some PRE-911 info on the construction.
You&#39;ll see what I&#39;m on about. Grab a video. VHS. PRE-911.
While you&#39;re at it do the same for similar structures.

Get your info from a book, written before all this crap, it won&#39;t have a story to sell.

Another thought on the Empire State Building.....it was designed to also be able to support the strain of having airships moored to the top of it.....that "could" make a difference..... :wink:

But I guess when the 10yr old web nerds behind these sites think of that one,
they&#39;ll have another page how the yanks replaced old books with &#39;new&#39; old books to further the conspiracy.


I freely admit that I have absolutely no experience working with with structural steel or construcitnt skyscrapers [/b]
Yet you only believe the storys that suit your arguement.


I hope you mind if I take their words over yours and Dugy&#39;s for the time being.[/b]
No worries. Like I said, I&#39;m not an expect. I just love engineering related stuff....and facts, and a good argument nutting things out.
There&#39;s also "experts" who say the exact opposite.....so how does that work.
Could it be the people are slanting things to suit their arguement? Perspective. It&#39;s a funny thing.

Wave some money around and you could find an engineer willing to get on camera and say the earth is the centre of the universe, and that gravity is actually the weight of the sky pushing down on us.




Let&#39;s go over it again. When the planes slamed into the towers most of the fuel was expended in huge fireballs, you&#39;d imagine that any remainig kero would have burnt off in less than a minute or two - we know it&#39;s not reluctant to burn.
So what was left burning after that was basically office furniture, carpets computers etc.
Upon impact the towers swayed for several seconds then returned to their proper equilibrium - indicating that structural integrity was not seriously compromised.
They remained standing, tower two for an hour after impact and tower one for about 75 minutes after impact.
In all this time the only fuel is office crap - and the black smoke billowing from the buildings indicates the fires were burning inefficiently and as such, relativly cool. In photographs of the towers before they feel you can clearly see people moving about at the crash zone - so clearly indicating that the fires were not very intense.
Far too cool to offer any problem to a building supported by 47 concrete encased structural steel support columns.
So the steel could not have lost any of its tensile strenth as you suggest.
Please remember that such buildings are constructed 5 times stronger than required. So each building would have to lose over 80% of its strength to fail.
Thus we have to rule out that fires had any hand in the collapses - [/b]

Again mate, this info you refer to is coming from site supporting the conspiracy.
If you really want to know more about this still.
Get you&#39;re info from books in a library, not a website.

Like dr00 said you&#39;re underestimating the fire, books, paperwork, computers, desks, etc, etc.
There&#39;s lots of PRE-911 footage of office fires where the fire was so intense it deformed I-beams.

dugy
25-04-2006, 06:23 PM
Hmmmm.......I know of at least 7 other engineers on the forum......covering civil, mining & mechancial.

I wonder what their thoughts are?

Gryphen
25-04-2006, 07:00 PM
Quote from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the low-pressure compressor rotors of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.

TurboR1
25-04-2006, 07:25 PM
Latest reports from London...
http://www.aldunya.net/Images/London%20bombing.jpg
Indicate that the Bus and subway bombings were in fact carried out not by muslim extremists but rather a new underground sepratist movement. Lead by a ruthless criminal mastermind there are plans to attack other major cities accross Europe.
The general public is warned not to approach the following individual, recongnised by his trademark breifcase and full length coat, as he is considered extremely dangerous...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1720000/images/_1723907_padd_150.jpg

Stu
25-04-2006, 07:42 PM
Paddington Bear... I knew it!

I for one am not surprised by this. There was always something
sinister about the way he walked, kind of like the way you would
imagine a terrorist would walk.

Stu

dugy
25-04-2006, 09:02 PM
I read on the internet it was actually this guy, (here&#39;s a couple of secretly obtained photos.)

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/PSBdugy/3c_1.jpghttp://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/PSBdugy/Hasbro_Woodboard_Puzzle_Winnie_the_.jpg

But the damn yanky government want you to believe it was paddy.
(they need a cover so they can invade the UK, and europe to get some decent beer recipes.)

Foofie Foofie
25-04-2006, 10:06 PM
Saf, I meant no personal attack earler, I only meant to say that ad-homenim attacks(that is slagging people off instead of addressing their points) adds nothing to an argument.
[/b]

John, Maybe so ... i only described the man, what id do if he were standing infront of me aswell.


Let&#39;s go over it again. When the planes slamed into the towers most of the fuel was expended in huge fireballs, you&#39;d imagine that any remainig kero would have burnt off in less than a minute or two - we know it&#39;s not reluctant to burn.[/b]

Kerosine, or its close cousin known as JetA is a fuel that belongs in the slow burn region. It is a very controlable fuel, unlike say unleaded. Without going into too much detail, inside your engine you have a vicious flamefront , with increased compression , intake temps , delaminated carbon, radical ign advance etc etc , you get pre-ignition , or closely called detonation. Why ? , because unleaded fuels are violent, and rather unforgiving, and inside a engine the only way to make it less prone to just ... start burning, you need a slower ign fuel (higher octane, cooler burn), or a cool fuel like methanol for eg.

Did you know you can get say 400 something hp in a N/A V8 on premium unleaded ..... yet about 800hp on the same sized v8 with higher comp running methanol ?. Yet methanol is so controled, you can directly pour it into a fire and not get burnt, exactly the opposite of what one would think could happen.

So how is it so violent in a 16:1 N/A sprintcar engine .... yet timid enuf to throw into a fire ? . Pressure. This fuel requires MASSIVE pressure (16:1 comp) to get "jiggy with it" as will smith would say. The exact same thing happens for Kero, or Jet A (and its JETA1). In atmosphere it burns slowly, but in a turbine engine is it very controled, as it needs to be for the thin air and the massive compressors (the leading blades or sometimes sub leading blades known as fans , you see in a jet engine) that scavenge so much air for such a tiny combustion chamber.

Pic (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/turbo2.gif)

Anyways.... whats this to do with 9/11? . Well now you knwo how fuels in jet engines burn, at atmospheric pressure, they burn very slowly , and have a long burn rate, because they should be in much more severe pressure ..... kinda the same way kerosine lamps were common, and not volotile petrochemicals. They burn very slowly on a small amount of kero.

Now take a airliner, crash it into a building, douse 4 floors of kero with it, and ask me again .... if that kero is is or isnt reluctant to burn. You would say yes it is to somewhat , it will slowly slowly burn, as the vapour slowly burns, the kero stays very patiently there and keeps burning and burning. Take a empty coke can, fill it 1/4 full of kero, light it up. Come back in an hour ..... and guess what will still be burning?. We get about 30 mins in our fondue set with the meth burner, it takes about a 1/4 glass of meth spirits and that is more volatile than Kero, reason its used is that it has no smell (around food).

Mr John
25-04-2006, 11:29 PM
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

i think you underestimate fire a little.
from http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/inju...house_fires.htm (http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/injury/factsheets/house_fires.htm).

at 1200 deg F the strength of steel is halved and theres more than enough fuel in an office with wooden desks, millions of pieces of paper plus plastic, carpet etc. to keep a fire going better than a typical house.
[/b]
:cough: :choke:
You mean a carpet fire took down two skyscrapers?
who misundersimates fire?
I see your interweb quote and raise you:

the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.[/b]

As I mentioned earlier, only three steel skyscrapers have ever fallen because of a fire, and fuck me if they didn&#39;t all fall on the same day: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
Does anybody else find this odd?

Interesting facts re fires & buildings:
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city&#39;s history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours.
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours.
I could go on.
All of these fires were worse that those at the WTC, guess what, not one of these buldings fell.
Am I the crazy one?
These buildings are over engineered beyond the point where they can sustain fires and airplane colisions.
I&#39;m not making this up. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. He said:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.[/b]
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.

Saf, your poing about the coke can full of kero is interesting - so the aluminium can doesn&#39;t melt yet the skycraper does? Comeaaaaaaawwwwwwn
Anyway, I&#39;m fairly sure I saw a huge fireball as the second plane impacted, like so
http://www.attackonamerica.net/WTCPhotoSequenceReuters.jpg
So if there was amy fuel left over, dousing several floors say, it may possibly have burned away for a while but clearly without enough energy to melt a fondue set.

The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over.Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock.[/b]
Go on - melt that with some kero, carpet and photocopier paper...or....wake up neo.
Bear in mind this could be a case of me only believing stories that suit my argument?

OK, so, you still can&#39;t hear me, whatever, would you like some fries with your Official Story?
A clue for you:
The Official Story, an attack in the Gulf Of Tonkin, which started the Vietnam War was BS
The Official Story which brought the US to the first Gulf War was BS
The Official Story for the second Gulf War was BS - WMDs anyone?
Can anyone see a pattern emerging?
9/11 is the Offical Story for the war on Terrorism......

I&#39;m still awaiting answers to the question of WTC building 7 - which for those of you not in the know collapsed spontaneously later on the same day.
Here&#39;s an eyewitness account:

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it&#39;s reminiscent of those pictures we&#39;ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of 7 World Trade - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST[/b]

Also still waiting for someone to tell me how enough DNA survived an inferno which vapourised almost an entier jet plane - except for a questionable APU wheel, maybe a wheel strut and rim, a single piece of unscorched fuselage and not much else.

Gryphen, I&#39;ve read conflicting reports on the casing at the Pentagon - whatever it may be, where&#39;s the rest of the 57,975kg aircraft?

Foofie Foofie
26-04-2006, 12:17 AM
As I mentioned earlier, only three steel skyscrapers have ever fallen because of a fire, and fuck me if they didn&#39;t all fall on the same day: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
Does anybody else find this odd?
[/b]

Nope John, Only you mate.

You can quote as many building fires as you want, its not too relative cause your talking a fire in a "as built structure". You seem to really miss the fact a 747 flew into that whole structure, the structure absorbed its energy in ways of items tearing apart even a few storeys under the hit (saw that on a docco on the FBI tip where WTC is now and they found torn rivets / bolts 4 floors down) , then a raging fire brokeout.



All of these fires were worse that those at the WTC, guess what, not one of these buldings fell.
Am I the crazy one?
[/b]

In short , yes :) . Fire, and 747 loaded, at speed, impacting.



Saf, your poing about the coke can full of kero is interesting - so the aluminium can doesn&#39;t melt yet the skycraper does? Comeaaaaaaawwwwwwn
[/b]

Ever heard of a heat exchanger ? . Radiator ?. Coke can made of same metal , aluminium, and it radiates a shitload of heat from the kero inside. Its the fact it sheds this heat, that it doesnt melt. If your above line was correct, my alum pistons in my bikes and cars would all melt in a matter of seconds .... 1200+deg combustion temps will burn alum ....... or will they ??? .... if the piston is contacing a liner by a thin layer of oil and coolant on the other side of that, oil squiters from underneath the piston, and fresh air and fuel every 4th cycle ......

Back to WTC, spread the kero, into a building witout windows, on a structure that is a wind breaker, meaning wind can pass around and thru it at that level, blow on them flames what has now more oxygen = more burn = hotter and so on.

Hey, ill leave you to ponder of it tho .... i know you wont belive a word i say , so ill stop now as im tired :confused:

dr00
26-04-2006, 08:16 AM
this is getting a bit tedious...

those buildings you mentioned werent built in the unique way the WTC was. as saf said there is the minor matter of a 757 or two doing a fair wack of damage, and leaving a near full tank of fuel in each building. the steel components were rated at that because they were covered in fire retardant foam and fire retardant plaster board walls. these were blown away on impact of the planes. they were also not maintained as shown in the doco someone made about it all. the buildings were made to withstand a plane and they did, otherwise they would have fallen over straight away.

my point is you dont know, you cant prove it was a bomb (or many as it would have to be), no expert can prove it was a bomb, and its much more likely that it was just a terorrist attack that came off much better than any islamic extremist could ever hope.

and no one said the skyscraper melted, only that the structural was weakened by intense heat. im sure if saf&#39;s alum can was supporting a brick it would collapse too...

Gryphen
26-04-2006, 10:06 AM
We keep seeing conversations on the volatility of the JET-A fuel, and people automatically think of how kerosene burns in the house.

With the aircraft impacting the building one of the things that happened was that the fuel would have turned into an aerosol, shit if you vapourise engine oil it burns furiously, look at what happened with the oil fields in Kuwait, and that was crude oil.

So of course you expect to see and explosion of the vapourised fuel upon impact, but then the residual fuel continues to burn on the floors that were hit, this helps weaken the damaged structure, then as more load is placed on the remaining supports until finally their load limit is reached and they collapse. Plus part of the ingenuity of the construction of the WTC was that it was per foot lighter in construction than other buildings, that&#39;s what meant that it could be made so tall. Being lighter actually means that whilst it could support itself at those heights, it also means that it wasn&#39;t as strong as other buildings of the time.

It was built so that it wouldn&#39;t fall over if struck by an aircraft, which of course it didn&#39;t, but as it lost its structural integrity it finally failed and collapsed. I think it was an amazing bit of construction that it didn&#39;t fall over after being hit, and that it did last as long as it did before it finally collapsed. That fact saved a lot of lives in itself.

When you see them referring to the building in Madrid that burnt, for a start the building was not impacted by anything, it was purely a fire, so therefore all the support structures were not weakened and so only had to survive the fire. Plus the Madrid building was only 50 stories tall, and was of a standard framed construction, so the load was spread out throughout the building.

The fire in Madrid started in the 35th floor, so there was 20 floors above the fire. WTC Tower 1 was struck at the 93 to 99 Floors, so there were 7 weakened floors with 11 floors above the impact points, it lasted 102 minutes before it collapsed. The WTC Tower 2 was struck from 77 to 85, so had 9 weakened floors with 25 floors above the impact point, it lasted 56 minutes. As the average height per storey in the WTC was 12.5 feet, the area of damage was 137.5 feet for WTC1 and 312 feet for WTC2, to me that is a hell of a lot of damage and weakened structure, I&#39;m surprised they remained standing as long as they did.

Quote - One of those variables was the size and kinetic energy of aircraft that might accidentally strike the WTC. Mr. Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have stated that back in the 1960s they could not have planned for the jetliners of 2001. Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320, and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations ([16], page 17). The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. (The Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first 747s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the 747 were apparently not modeled in designing the towers). - Unquote

I think its weird that people are trying to find ways to blame the government of the USA directly for the attacks rather than blaming them indirectly for the attacks. The US govt, by its actions around the world has generated a lot of antagonism, and it was only a matter of time before that antagonism bought itslef directly to US soil.

I suppose as long as people are arguing about who did what it takes their minds of what is being done at the moment, so maybe the attacks weren&#39;t the conspiracy, but rather the conspiracy theories are in fact the conspiracy itself.

Mr John
26-04-2006, 08:28 PM
This is dragging on and on, eh?

Interesting stuff from FEMA Gryphen
Isn&#39;t it strange how FEMA was in New York the night before September 11? (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html)
It&#39;s interesting to note that the White House subsumed FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security set up after the 11 September 2001 attacks and as such is in a prime position to position the &#39;facts&#39; as it pleases.
Also, I love the "presumably calibrated their design to withstand it."
This is conjecture.
Here&#39;s the fact...again
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. He said:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

The term you&#39;re looking for is OWNED

Also, the fire-weakened-the-structure-argument is conjecture.
Raging fires, you say. Holy hell, raging fires? we&#39;d better get the hell out of here.
Sombody tell that woman to get away from all the raging fires
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman_enhance_small.jpg
Ok so maybe the raging fires are behind her and we can&#39;t see them.
Here&#39;s one. I bet you a slab you can&#39;t cause a shopping trolly full of bricks to fail with a raging fire of av-gas and carpets. Weaken it if you wish, take out some supports, I don&#39;t care crash a model plane into it. If you apply a moment&#39;s though here you know you&#39;d have to weaken the trolly&#39;s structure considerably - until it was barely hanging in there, and even then I&#39;m not sure the flames would do much.
I&#39;ll make it two slabs if the trolley is certified to ASTM E119.

Hint, you migh have better luck if you can get your hands on some thermite (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm) - which is awesome stuff btw. Smoke from a burning building/rubble is typically black - as was the smoke from the towers before they fell
As you can see in the following pic, the smoke from the rubble is white
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Wtc.arp.500pix.jpg
Dense white smoke is a signature of a thermite detonation

So, saf, yes, fire, and 747 loaded, at speed, impacting.
This did happen, and is not under dispute.
Fire - conjecture
747 - well 767, but let&#39;s not nitpick
At speed - lots
impacting - yes
The towers were engineered to withstand the (multiple)impact(s) of a loaded 707 - the largest jet liner of its day.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules)

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

Oh dear, I think I&#39;ve just kicked a gaping hole in the "kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact" FEMA argument. And what&#39;s all that crap in their argument about 747s - what&#39;s that got to do with anything?

Heat exchangers?? Goodness me, why didn&#39;t I think of that. Thanks for the mechanics lesson.
Do you do one on how carbies are designed to make fuel burn as efficiently as possible?
My last bike was air cooled, never siezed, stalled or melted, bulletproff donk!
Nuff said.

"as shown in the doco someone made about it all" - sloppy dr00, nil point for that effort.

Turbo, thanks for your imput though I do suspect you have a motive in fingering Paddington Bear.
Word is he ride&#39;s better than you :biggrin: :biggrin:

Did I miss anything?


Guys, I know my style of debate is possibly irritating but I&#39;m not making this stuff up - it&#39;s all there in black white and technicolour. I firmly believe that The Official Story is only that, a story, it&#39;s the story most people believe pretty much because like Tex said
"it was in colour .....so it must of been true !"[/b]

9zero
26-04-2006, 08:52 PM
Mr John - maybe you should look into being a lawyer - researching shit that you have no proof of who wrote it, and worse still actually believing it was written by some kind of super engineer, believing utter shite and reciting ridiculous &#39;quotes&#39; and well just other shite.

Lets go through some facts

YOU and no one else here that I am aware of was at the site and inspected or in any way had any official connection with the towers

YOU aren&#39;t an engineer so I fail to see how you can carry on like this

having said all this

I am not an engineer - and the only thing or things that I can say or talk about is what I have read - and I can&#39;t prove any of what I read so I keep to myself

something to think about?

Foofie Foofie
26-04-2006, 10:11 PM
This is dragging on and ....... [/b]

LMAO ..... another reply.

lee
26-04-2006, 11:02 PM
Do you guys know whats awesome about all this? ANZAC biscuits. I totally forgot about them, came home, and sure enough there was a tin of them. Fuck yeah. :wub:

Taz
26-04-2006, 11:10 PM
Mr John,


do a little bit of research of steel framed buildings.



at approx 400 degrees cent. they begin to flex and the steel becomes what in the building industry is called plastic. ( nothing to do with plastic as commonly known.)

The main danger in a steel framed building during a fire is collapse.

dugy
26-04-2006, 11:21 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:



do a little bit of research[/b]

Start here:

University of Sydney (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml)
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&sc=I100322)
University of North Carolina (http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engineering/index.html)
Stanford Uni (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html)
University of Illnois (http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/)
American Society of Civil Engineers (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057)
New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3354)
Another Engineer (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/)
And Another Engineer (http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055)

dr00
27-04-2006, 08:17 AM
"as shown in the doco someone made about it all" - sloppy dr00, nil point for that effort.
[/b]

:laugh: oh ok so it has to be on the internet like all your undisputable information otherwise i must be lying. well i actually found that bit of information here (http://www.iinet.net.au/~amcdowell1/wtc.html). now its on the internet it must be true!!

Mr John
27-04-2006, 04:06 PM
The towers were built to withstand the impact of 707 - agreed?
The physical mathematics of the situation dictate that Flight 11 struck with less impact.
ERGO the tower could take this hit and remain standing - which,in fact it did.
If you&#39;re going to argue this then you are clearly a much bigger fuckwit than you think I am.

So it was a combination of the impact and the &#39;raging&#39; fires you counter.
Hang on - teams of pretty smart & experienced engineers designed & built these incredibly complex towers factoring in all sorts of challenges and considerations, are you seriously suggesting to me that it never once occurred to them that if a plane did hit that there might be a resulting fire?

Now have a look at this & tell me again how steel is not cablable of withstanding an office fire - Avgas optional.
http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2002/11/13/WTCbeams2.jpg

Am I still going too fast for you?



..at approx 400 degrees cent. they begin to flex and the steel becomes what in the building industry is called plastic. ( nothing to do with plastic as commonly known.)
The main danger in a steel framed building during a fire is collapse.
[/b]
Maybe in your house where structural steel is confused with cheese.

I repeat, no other steel structured building has ever failed because of a fire, ever, despire hours of fire, anywhere, period.
I imagine it&#39;s one of the first things they think of - somebody correct me if this is wrong.

Dugy, thanks for the research tips.
Have you considered thinking for yourself rather than lazily linking & parrotting other people&#39;s work.
I&#39;ve checked your links, they&#39;re still trying to cobble evidence together to agree with the official story - probably pretty much because it was in colour on telly. Quoting dodgy FEMA reports and the dodgiest of all 911 Commission Report - both of which the White House had control over - will not win you any cookies.

Have you done me the courtesey of checking any of my links, here&#39;s a couple:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

dugy
27-04-2006, 04:40 PM
Dugy, thanks for the research tips.
Have you considered thinking for yourself rather than lazily linking & parrotting other people&#39;s work.[/b]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Wrong. Again.

Rather than quoting someone else&#39;s garbage, I was referring to you some sources of information, that are more credible than the ones you favor.
Sources, most of which, can establish their views on a more solid knowledge base, and that don&#39;t have a story to sell.

I have thought for myself.
My conclusion is the theories put forward by the &#39;conspiracy fans&#39; are far more inconsistent and technically flawed.
Their statements usually tend more towards proving a total lack of understanding of engineering than posessing any analytical merit.

You seem to be running out of information and having to resort to personal jibes.

tut tut tut. :no:



If you&#39;re that passionate about building construction, structral steels, building fires, collapse, etc.
Do some real research, in a library, with Pre-911 material.

Halo_2
27-04-2006, 05:39 PM
Ill let dugy and Mr John fight this but theres a few things i dont get

1. They attacked when there were less then normal people occupying WTC. That’s a good thing, but they would have WTC under surveillance so there plan would be commit the most devastation.
2. Phone calls were made from the planes, you can’t get a signal unless it’s a radio-based satellite phone.
3. They were insured for more then there worth.
4. It took two weeks to take over iraq, yet troops are still there.

Taz
27-04-2006, 06:12 PM
sorry halo have to disagree with point 2...you can get signals in planes as i forgot to turn mine off flying into melbourne and was going off in my back pack.

Fastgirl
27-04-2006, 06:32 PM
I think many of you may have forgotten what a horrific and tragic event this was. Could you imagine making the choice of leaping to your death? Imagine you have left for work that morning saying goodbye to your Wife, Husband, Girlfriend, Mum, Dad or your newly born baby. And then to make the decision to leap. imagine the despair and horror these two people endured as they fell. In your debates, remember with respect, remember with dignity, and remember these people. They are not a statistic. They are not a search engine on the internet. And they dont care who is right and who is wrong.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/indelect/jump01.jpg

Why not have a debate on how we could avoid any future horrors like this. Why not debate on what you can do in your everyday lives to make our world better.

TurboR1
27-04-2006, 08:41 PM
Why not have a debate on how we could avoid any future horrors like this. Why not debate on what you can do in your everyday lives to make our world better.
[/b]

Good point I take abseiling rope to work for just such occaisions

Mr John
27-04-2006, 10:07 PM
Awww, Mr John do bad. Sorry Dugy.
Hey, how about I let you overtake me next time we&#39;re out?

Can you point out the inconsistency in the theory that Flight 11 struck the North Tower with a scientifically proven lower force than the towers were designed to withstand and that as such the given reason for it&#39;s collapse is false? Factor in that the resulting fire would have been considered in the event of such an impact.

Post here, pm, txt, call, email

So Halo_2, regarding point 1, I think it&#39;s more interesting that a practically empty wing of the Pentagon was struck - it was under reconstruction. All the top brass offices are on the opposite side of the building, I would have thought they&#39;d have made a jucier target.
I think point 2 is at least questionable. I&#39;m not doubing Taz but I had a quick look into it.

The speed of an aeroplane often exceeds these (typically phones are designed for use in a fast car) which means the mobile will fail to register to the network and retry registration repeatedly. - source Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft)

"Wireless communications networks weren&#39;t designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they&#39;re surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground - Source (http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm)

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude" - Source (http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/)

Does anyone else following this thread have stories?
Some of you are pilots, can you make a call at altitude?

A valuable riminder Fastgirl, I think what happened that day is nothing short of horrifying.
I&#39;m not crapping on here to try to win nerd points on the internet - I am somewhat passionate about this subject because I don&#39;t think the questions about why those people died have been answered satisfactoraly.
If the official story is false, as it appears to be to me, then the greater tragedy is the US government&#39;s implied complicit involvement.

The thought that the US government allowed or caused the deaths on September 11 to occur and subsequently used their deaths as an excuse to embark on a campaign of war is even more horrifying.
Please prove me wrong.

chief wiggum
27-04-2006, 10:48 PM
i&#39;m barracking for mr john here, mainly cos everyone else seems to be against him. but also cos i dont trust any government, least of all the us govt, especially with some of the dodgy characters they&#39;ve had running it recently. they do have a bit of a history of not quite telling the whole truth.. :ninja:

so who&#39;s taking bets on the eventual winner of this debate?

Gryphen
28-04-2006, 12:31 AM
http://www.fire.org.uk/BBC_News/news/_593490_747_amsterdam_flats150.jpg

A lot is made about a &#39;lack&#39; of damage to the Pentagon. The pic above is what happened to an 11 storey Apartment block when a 747 hit it. Surprisingly little damage as well considering the size of the aircraft, and the fact it plummeted nearly vertically out of control into the building.

Oh yer and there were no recognisable parts left either.


Facts for WTC:

767-223ER 387,000 lb max weight, 870km/h cruising speed, 90,780 L of fuel
(790 km/h Flight 11 speed when it hit the North Tower)
(950 km/h Flight 175 speed when it hit the South Tower)

707-320 333,600 lb max weight, 896 km/h cruising speed, 87,000 L of fuel

WTC was designed to survive a 707-320 (the largest aircraft of its day) impact, where the aircraft was on approach to the LaGuardia Airport and lost in fog, mainly because thats&#39;s what happened to the Empire state building, a B25 bomber struck it on the 79th floor in 1945.

The difference between what is was planned to survive and what happened is immense, a 707-320 on approach to La Guardia travels at 290 km/h, the buildings were struck by heavier aircraft carrying full fuel loads at 790km/h and 950 km/h respectively.

Rooster
28-04-2006, 12:52 AM
Apparently Cyclone Larry was a plot by the American Government to ruin the banana crops in Queensland. Thereby driving up the banana prices to 10$ a Kilo. This would have the pass on effect with people spending more, being poorer and therefore demanding wage increases which in turn pushes up inflation and makes the aussie dollar weeker an dthe US dollar stronger.
I believe it, theres no proof against it. So it must be true. I mean, the US is responsible for every other tragedy and disaster around the globe isnt it?
I often wonder why people think that governments and individuals within them are smart enough to dream up a &#39;conspiricy&#39;. Wouldnt it have been easier some other way!?
Conspiricy theories!? :down:

PS: I was actually on the top floor of the WTC less than 6mnths before they were struck. It horrifies me to think it couldve been me or somebody i loved. I have vivid memories of the WTC. If a plane hit it going that speed with that much fuel, somethings gonna break. They were designed in the 1960&#39;s and built in the 70&#39;s, nobody could ever foresee or test for what happened that day. If it were to be a conspiricy then George W Bush will have made it to the No 1 most evil mother fucker who ever lived, not just the most stupid.

BadKitty
28-04-2006, 01:29 AM
WOW....I learnt more from this one thread then I have in all of my physics and chem classes put together............ bloody hell!!

azathoth
28-04-2006, 01:29 AM
Why not have a debate on how we could avoid any future horrors like this. Why not debate on what you can do in your everyday lives to make our world better.
[/b]

Why can&#39;t we do both? If we there is a conspiracy, and people believe so and we ignore the issue. It could also happen again. Don&#39;t you think this could be potentially worse?

I&#39;m willing to entertain the idea that there is a conspiracy, Mr John makes some persuasive arguments and has some interesting data to back his theories. But I&#39;m still not convinced that humans have that ability to cooperate on that level. Surely if there were people involved in such a conspiracy there would be some evidence of it, people make mistakes, people defect, many who co-operated might not have been comfortable in the end with doing such a thing and decided not to and leaked information. Is such a monumentous conspiracy really effective for what they want to accomplish? The cost benefit equation doesn&#39;t seem to work out.

dr00
28-04-2006, 12:56 PM
just out of curiosity Mr John, if we look past your flawed arguments, personal insults and inane ramblings for a moment and give you the benefit of the doubt, what benefit was there in the US government doing what you say it did? it had a massive negative impact on their economy for a start, and their reason for the war on iraq was weapons of mass destruction not sept 11.

try and keep it relatively short and simple if possible...

Mr John
28-04-2006, 02:53 PM
...and their reason for the war on iraq was weapons of mass destruction not sept 11.
try and keep it relatively short and simple if possible...
[/b]

Show me the WMDs.

Short enough?

dr00
28-04-2006, 02:57 PM
short enough indeed, but you forgot to answer my question...

Mr John
28-04-2006, 04:03 PM
Longer answer - still very short, just for you - warning, it may contain traces of flawed arguments, personal insults and inane ramblings.

Wars cost billions in arms purchases and construction contracts, right?
So there are billions to be made, right?
So I ask yourself who&#39;s making these billions.
Part of the answer lies with Kellogg, Brown & Root(Halliburton) - here&#39;s a sample:
* $7 billion contract to put out oil fires in Iraq, which could include production and distribution of Irai oil
* 10-year Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract from the Pentagon, with no cost limits
* $115 million to design and construct an embassy compound in Afghanistan
* $37.3 million to build 816 detention cells at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, where terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan are held
* $2 million to reinforce the U.S. embassy in Uzbekistan.
* $30 million contract for "security upgrades worldwide"

Dick Cheney(current vice pres for those who don&#39;t know) is a former CEO of Halliburton.

Bush is an oil man, he formed and ran an oil company for a while - Arbusto(this is the spanish word for Bush!).
He still has strong ties to the oil industry so when the oil industry wins, Bush wins. Do you need me to remind about Iraq&#39;s oil reserves?
Incidentally Arbusto was in part financed by Salem Bin Laden - you&#39;ll never guess who&#39;s dad he was.

For some people the economy is irrelevant, the impact on the average joe citizen is irrelevant - the pockets into which these billions pour are far more important.
Azatoth is correct to point out that the cost/benefit equation doesn&#39;t seem to work out - until you think about who it is that benefits.
This is pretty much just the tip of it but you get the idea, and I did it without arguing, insulting or rambling.
Can I have a cookie?

Now consider the offical story and ask who benefits.
Supposedly some evil dude in a cave has a great laugh at the US&#39;s expense &#39;cos, wait for it, "They hate our freedoms"

Gryphen
28-04-2006, 04:22 PM
They still didn&#39;t need to expend all the monies in Afghanistan though, they could have used the WMD excuse to attack Iraq anyway, thereby saving about 80 Billion dollars, they&#39;d still be making exactly the same amount of money, just with less expense.

Using 9/11 as a cause celebre would in actuality be extremly expensive and not at all cost effective, if as you say the bottom line is money, they are not going to waste billions when they don&#39;t have to.

As to the Bin Laden name in the middle east, they are one of the if not THE biggest construction/engineering comapnies there, travel through Dubai and then onto Egypt and you see the name on just about every construction site, the Bin Laden family is one of the richest in the region.

Mr John
28-04-2006, 05:00 PM
Larry Silverstein bought the lease rights to the WTC complex 6 months before 9/11 for $3.2Bn

Now consider this report from Forbes.com in December 2004:
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.

I&#39;d call that cost effecive?
Scare the shit out of the US population and make a killing to boot. Brilliant!!

This is the same Larry Silverstein who can be seen on this video (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv) describing his decision to &#39;pull&#39; WTC7
Here&#39;s a transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, &#39;We&#39;ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.&#39; And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As you can probably gather, Pull is an industry term meaning - litterally to pull the building down - with charges, which take weeks to plan, prepare and lay.
If this is not what I think it is then please explain to me what it really is.

Yes, BinLaden, huge group and Yes, Osama Bin Laden same family, like I say, son of Salem.
The same Osama Bin Laden about whom GW said on March 13 2002

"I don&#39;t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don&#39;t care. It&#39;s not that important. It&#39;s not our priority."[/b]
Que?

MaxxRR
28-04-2006, 05:04 PM
"it was hoons, they wheelied past me on the freeway, like human catapults shot out of a cannon at the world trade centre, i say we ban motorcycling because they impinge on our freedom" - Grant Dorrington.


He actually said that, i heard him. :yes:

Gryphen
29-04-2006, 11:34 AM
Larry Silverstein bought the lease rights to the WTC complex 6 months before 9/11 for $3.2Bn

Now consider this report from Forbes.com in December 2004:
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.

I&#39;d call that cost effecive?[/b]

So now its just all a plot by Larry Silverstein? Spend $80 Billion to get an insurance payout of $4.6 Billion, which to Larry reaped a total profit of $1.4 Billion?

So you believe that there are hundreds of people in highly placed positions that are willing to kill thousands of their own people for a profit, and that all of these people involved also have enough personnel who will also kill their own people so these &#39;leaders&#39; can make their profit, and all these people, possibly in the thousands are so incredibly dedicated to the plan so as that none of them are comming forward to admit what they have done, that there is a perfect web of secrecy about the whole deal?

The fact that so many people can keep their mouths shut for longer than a month is actually more unbelievable than the whole conspiracy theory.

Shit all Osama Bin Laden has to do now is release tapes and information of his dealings with the US Government in regards to 9/11 and the whole damn American, and most of the rest of the 1st world, governments will collapse, we&#39;d have a great period of Anarchy.

Funny but even after all this time we still haven&#39;t heard that from him.

Ever heard of Occam&#39;s Razor (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity) where the simplest explanation is usually the right one? The conspiracy theory is so convuluted and involved, whereas the terrorist theory is by comparison simpler.

I for one believe that the terrorists are responsible, I hate the governments, and I think they are doing what they always do, taking advantage of the situation, but I don&#39;t for one second believe that they have created and carried out this whole scenario from begining to end.

The govt&#39;s are like vultures, somebody else does the killing, but they reap the rewards.

Mr John
29-04-2006, 03:29 PM
Gryphen, I&#39;ll get to your latest point in a moment. First, you raised a couple of other points, let me address them.

El Al flight 1862, a 747, lost both starboard due to suspected corrosion of the fuse pins and the plane began to bank sharply out of control. Radar tracking indicates that in its final moments it was turning so tightly that it must have been practically vertical when it struck.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/route.gif
Your photograph of the crash scene bears testimony to this, as you can see the impact zone is vertical, not very wide.

BTW, I found some photos of the plane debris stored in hanger 8 of Schiphol airport, it appears there was quite a bit more recovered than from the pentagon
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/report-181.jpg

By contrast the plane which supposedly hit the Pentagon was level, and should have left a wider impact signature.
Confusingly, photos of the pentagon taken shortly after the strike are inconsistant with this basic assumption.
The initial damage can be seen in several photos, the hole is estimated to be about 12 feet wide.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/Pentagon3.jpg
Close up of the hole
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/Pentagon4.jpg

The wall of the pentagon collapsed about half an hour after it was hit, this picture was taken before it fell. It&#39;s not too hard to make out the hole, which is not really all that big - barely the width of a 757&#39;s fuselage.
I find it strange there is no sign of damage from either the wings or the tail section, the walls and windows on either side of the hole are almost completely intact. Barely scuffed!
Even after the wall&#39;s collapse there&#39;s no evidence of any the damage you&#39;d expect.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
In the following composite of the damaged area & appropriately scaled/angled superimposed plane you can see that there simply is not enough damage considering the width of the aircraft.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/pentcrash.jpg

Another thing I missed. Can you substantiate your assertion that the buildings were only safe against slow jetliners?
These huge highly redundant structures were opened in 1970(North Tower) and 1972(South Tower). They we designed to stand for decades and had already survived hurricane force winds without issue. The Boeing 747 was put into service in 1970 - surely the tower&#39;s engineers would have considered the growing size, speed and weight of jet liners and would have made appropriate compensations.
I have no idea what kind of force a 140Mph wind asserts on a structure 205&#39; square rising 1360&#39; from the ground but I would not be surprised if it was greater than a plane hit.
Not even the official story says that the impacts took the towers down, apparently the &#39;unforseen&#39; fires were the culprits. The towers took the hits, swayed for a moment, and remained standing.(getting tired of repeating myself)
As I&#39;ve repeatedly pointed out, the structures of the buildings rendered them pretty much impervious to the impact of large jets - pencil puncturing mosquito netting, remember?
If you take a crucial piece from a Jenga tower it falls straight away, not later after you&#39;ve made a cup of tea. Neither does it collapse upon itself - that&#39;s just silly. When it falls it falls to the side.
And yes I know they&#39;re hardly comparable structurally, relatively speaking the towers would of course be way stronger.

Back to your latest post, dr00 asked me for a short answer, so I gave one. There is another, shorter answer: Oil.

But you&#39;re right, the whole thing was not just a plot to make Larry Silverstein & a few corporations wealthy. There is a much longer answer involving oil, dollars, euros and empire. In the scheme of this answer the dollar benefits I&#39;ve already mentioned are mere pittances and the end of the scheme is still a long way off.
I&#39;m sure Osama Bin Laden has no interest in discussing who was actually involved, he&#39;s a stakeholder in the whole shebang.

Occam&#39;s razor is a useful guide but nobody has ever said it provides proof positive.

BTW dr00 was bagging Michael Moore earlier, I understand Moore doesn&#39;t think too hilghly of him either -
source (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/churchsign.jpg)

dugy
29-04-2006, 05:07 PM
:laugh:


I have no idea what kind of force a 140Mph wind asserts on a structure 205&#39; square rising 1360&#39; from the ground but I would not be surprised if it was greater than a plane hit.[/b]

You worked out the K.E. of a flying plane didn&#39;t you?

Surely you can do the sums for that one. :tongue:
You could google......but you may need to resort to a uni or engineering website........

:thumbsup:

dr00
29-04-2006, 07:32 PM
i cant be bothered reading the repetitive recitals from conspiracy websites but apparently the width of a 757 fuselage is 13&#39;, the same size as the hole, but we already went through that earlier... i think this topic can be closed now before mine, dugy and gryphens houses fall down from banging our heads against brick walls. :tongue:

Mr John
29-04-2006, 07:57 PM
Dugy, I s&#39;pose I could, but this is nit-picking and doesn&#39;t affect the validity of my broader thesis.

&#39;sif I did the K.E. calculations, I&#39;ve got the internet, why have a dog and bark yourself?
You&#39;re welcome to challenge them though :thumbsup:
While you&#39;re at it you can show me your calculations for the wind force on a face of a tower.
Ta

Alright then dr00, don&#39;t bother. You weren&#39;t really following anyway, just chucking distractions at me. Run along and let the grown-ups talk.

TurboR1
29-04-2006, 09:29 PM
Why is it that no matter how many pairs of socks I buy i never seem to have enough?

Its a conspiracy I say! Quick go forth while so many mysteries of the universe remain unsolved.

Gryphen
29-04-2006, 11:06 PM
http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif

Dyno
30-04-2006, 06:24 AM
I think it&#39;s a problem that people can watch/read reports produced by people who want to create a certain perception. It&#39;s difficult to ascertain whether or not those facts we are filling our heads with are truth. Whatever the truth, the opponents who want to perpetuate falsehoods will create believable and convincing arguements to counter it.
Think for yourselves

dugy
30-04-2006, 02:09 PM
Gryphen: :laugh:


Mr John: What is your &#39;broader thesis&#39; anyway?

"America is bad m&#39;kay." ?
Got anything else to blame on the US?

Bird Flu?
Tidal Waves?
Drought?
Fires of London?
Irish Potato Famine?
Adolf Hitler?
Alien Abductions?
AIDS?
Asthma?
Skin Cancer?
Are the US behind the hole in the Ozone layer to sell more sunscreen?
Brisbane Lions winning 3 grand finals in a row? (Surely nothing is beneath them yankys?)

All funded by the Space Race which is why the Moon Landing was fake?

Surely a case could be put forward for all of those with fabricated/twisted facts.
Cleverly cropped photos. Like the one of the unfortunate women in your pic, where the uncropped pic shows the fire a few floors up.
Irrelevant comparisons.
Heresay.
Etc.

If there is intelligent life in outer-space, they&#39;ve probably figured it&#39;s best to give us a wide berth for a few millenia.

Mr John
30-04-2006, 07:44 PM
My hypothesis is simple: the official version of the deaths and events that occurred on Sept 11 is extremely doubtful. I&#39;ve tried using science; documenting eye witness accounts; referring to numerous websites and printed, audio, video and photographic material; maths; other examples where this kind of thing has occurred etc.
Logic and reasoned argument have not been hallmarks of your counter to my thesis.

What have you got for me for the advancement of your own hypothesis?
I presume that in denying my thesis that the following is your thesis: A bunch of dudes with sharpies brought down 4 planes, slamming two into large steel and concrete fortified buildings which toppled to the ground in less than two hours. This was perpetrated by ‘terrorists’ who are so hateful of &#39;our freedoms&#39; that they compassionately allowed passengers to make technologically improbable (and entirely unsubstantiated) calls home to loved ones from the plane. This was masterminded by a well documented crony of the US govt, oops, I mean, a nasty man far away who lives in a cave in a dirt poor country.
Your thesis is flimsy.
The official version reads like a fairytale narrative that has galvanized latent xenophobia and jingoism to meet politically undisclosed and morally treacherous ends. Heroes in planes, baddies with beards, passports that survive calamities which topple buildings, a benevolent and innocent country was attacked. This is the fanatically maintained, unproven narrative on which you rest. Am I the one who is naive here?
This enormous tragedy in US history cost the lives of thousands but because questioning and reasoning are so frowned upon culturally, it was only worth a $600,000 to investigate (by contrast $40,000,000 was spent investigating Clinton’s sexual indiscretions) and was repeatedly roadblocked by the commander in chief.
On the strength of his dialectic, war is waged on some of the poorest nations on earth with plans underway to attack more. All to find a man who was a known collaborator with US officials.
And cf the whole &#39;oooh you think there&#39;s a conspiracy so you must be wrong&#39; argument: Aren&#39;t you accusing &#39;terrorists&#39; of &#39;conspiracy&#39; - you just like this &#39;conspiracy&#39; more than the one I&#39;ve postulated because it&#39;s dark people from &#39;over there&#39; somewhere and they don&#39;t like us having money and &#39;freedom&#39; which we really like having. I&#39;m not talking leprechauns, aliens, scientology and fairies here, but serious stuff that involves a lot of cover up. Hey, if there is nothing to cover up, why shut down investigations? Maybe, if you are as affected by the denial of natural justice for the victims you might, like me, want a bit more investigation and questioning too. How much money are we in Australia still spending trying to find out what happened on the Westralia, the HMS Sydney, the Claremont serial killings, the pursuit of the Bali bombers etc.
We&#39;ve turned apathy and denial into an artform here in Australia. If we question anything we have to prove so much more than those who believe hook, line and sinker, official reports of governments(this kind of battle should be familiar to everyone who rages against pointless traffic regulations and blatant revenue raising). We can&#39;t keep an attention span if it confronts our ideological concerns. We get bored. The govt lied about AWB - well, no worries mate, everyone else is doin it. Boring - more sport please.
When we raise moral and political questions, we have to be prepared to confront the undeniable, uncontestable fact that our governments, and governments everywhere, tell lies to their populations. Such as: refugees threw their children overboard; that no government minister knew about the AWB treason; that Carmen Lawrence really can&#39;t remember anything; that refugees are terrorists; that Iraq had WMDs; that Saddam was collaborating with Al Qaeda ; that we had a reason to join in the US’ warring; that our government gives a stuff about dead soldiers.
To call our political and military institutions to account is our right and the moral imperative of citizens everywhere. Especially when people, are treated abominably in our name and killed in our name and the lives of proud patriotic service men and women are endangered.
To stay shackled in Plato&#39;s cave, denying the light of reason into our intellectual lives is a life of idiotic voluntary incarceration.
But hey, a lotta people like it in the dark.

That being said I heartily appreciate the opportunities we posses to articulate our thoughts on such matters and to debate them openly. In the course of this debate I have gained many further insights into many facets of these events and I hope that some people taking an interest in this thread feel like they might have learned more too.

Gryphen
30-04-2006, 08:37 PM
I know what I have learnt MrJohn...

That no matter how straighforward something is you are still going to go the long convoluted path, you haven&#39;t looked at the information objectively, you&#39;ve taken all your anti-govt and anti-USA bias with you into you research and accepted as fact, information which purports to be truth but is in fact overzealous anti establishment propaganda.

You even provide information on one hand and disregard it or even expect the exact opposite in another part of the discussion. You go on about the pencil and the mosquito netting, and use that as an analogy for the aircraft hitting WTC, but then you carry on about there being insufficent damage at the Pentagon. You can&#39;t have it both ways. Or is it that the buildings were of different construction types and therefore obviously the analogy is only suitable for the WTC?

Here&#39;s a news flash for you MrJohn, I hate Politicians, I hate the Govt, and I really dislike the USA, but I didn&#39;t take that with me when I started reading about 9/11.

If conspiracy theorists could actually settle down to one set of criteria, and instead of having a dozen different stories and possible scenarios then they might sound more believable, but as they can&#39;t even agree whether it was a jet or a missile that hit the pentagon, and still try producing witnesses that claim to have seen either, it just goes to show how unreliable the witnesses they found really are.

If the US Govt, now were to release video footage that did show a 757 jet slamming into the Pentagon, would you believe it or, would you then claim that it was obviously a fake?

I suppose in fact that Osama is dead, and its the CIA or other US Govt department that keeps creating the audio files and releasing them, just to keep us beleiving in the devil?

I suppose its actually a plot by either the World Wide Jewry or the Priere De Sion to have us eventually accept a one world govt.

dugy
30-04-2006, 10:24 PM
My hypothesis is simple: the official version of the deaths and events that occurred on Sept 11 is extremely doubtful. [/b]
I have, everyone has, weren’t you paying attention.

Ok, here’s another one. PopularMechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1)


I&#39;ve tried using science; documenting eye witness accounts; referring to numerous websites and printed, audio, video and photographic material; maths; other examples where this kind of thing has occurred etc.
[/b]
Your source’s of info have been anything but reliable.
You choose to believe info on site’s hosted by people who’s hobby it is to pollute the internet with conspiracy theories.
Instead of sites run by universities, scientist’s and engineers.
Have you gone to a library yet and researched the effect of fire’s on buildings, pre-911 books, or how that combines with ~80% of the external load-bearing members having been severed?
IMHO: A civil eng, with a PHD, having done extensive research in to the mechanisms of fire in a building, maybe throw a materials paper or two in there, top it off with 25yrs experience, is still going have trouble trying to genuinely figure out what went on. Considering all the unknowns and assumptions.
Let alone the people quoted, least of all the quote “Site Construction Manager”, shit they may as well have gotten a quote from the Sanitation Engineer (Cleaner).


Logic and reasoned argument have not been hallmarks of your counter to my thesis.[/b]
As compared to what….your definition of logic?



Here&#39;s a news flash for you MrJohn, I hate Politicians, I hate the Govt, and I really dislike the USA, but I didn&#39;t take that with me when I started reading about 9/11.
[/b]
^^WHS^^ - Oops. Repost.


If conspiracy theorists could actually settle down to one set of criteria, and instead of having a dozen different stories and possible scenarios then they might sound more believable, but as they can&#39;t even agree whether it was a jet or a missile that hit the pentagon, and still try producing witnesses that claim to have seen either, it just goes to show how unreliable the witnesses they found really are. [/b]
That’s pretty much it.
If they didn’t dribble try to sensationalise everything, and where they lack information fabricate it / manipulate fact, or when having lost a point, do an about-face and try a new angle. Then they might be a little more believable.


…diatribe of governments being naughty…[/b]
No newsflash there. That’s not what we were discussing. On some of those topic’s I’d probably be more inclined to agree with some of your theories.
Re: Boat people and Ms Amnesia. From what a few family members that were close to that told me in confidence. There’s a lot of info there that didn’t get made public, some due to gov’t, some coz it won’t sell papers.
What that made obvious there is that unless you have first hand involvement in something you read on the internet or see on TV…..you probably don’t know shit, and you really never will know how much of the picture you have.


Maybe you should get into government and set the dodgy fu*kers straight.



Back to the building, until you actually do some real research on this topic, like I keep repeating myself, you’re not going to have the background information to determine fact from fiction but it will, like Gryphen said, be your prejudice’s making the decision.

Like Fastgir1 and Tex, it&#39;s a shame that most people will have now overlooked the horrible tragedy that is was, and the more prevalent memory becomes this kind of dribble.

gsxrando
01-05-2006, 01:03 PM
this is great, i have blown most of the day reading, watching & listening to all your educated and well founded opinions on the 9/11 disaster. Keep up the good work, a great conversation starter thats for sure... Im not to sure what to think based on the evidence given, but you dont have to be a structual engineer or a rocket scientist to figure out that those planes didnt bring down the WTC&#39;s alone.......... I hope for the American ppl and the rest of the world that it was a sinister act from a foreign party and not the American Government.

Mr John
11-05-2006, 11:05 PM
Stay tuned

More soon ;)

dugy
11-05-2006, 11:13 PM
Stay tuned

More soon ;)
[/b]

Aww you fuggin cock-tease.

I saw this had been bumped and got all excited. <_<

:lol:

Taz
11-05-2006, 11:58 PM
Mr John

I have been to saudi and jordan.....


i was there with a friend who was an electrical engineer.

at night we were locked in a compound with extreme security nothing at all to do with military...my mate was there to help with electrical stuff to make life better for them at their payment and request ( tenders were let)

we were locked in because we drank alcohol...not in saudi but in australia and because we were not of their faith and did not want to join their religion.

they wanted to kill us for this reason alone no other

nothing to do with the US more than 15years before 9/11

so dont give me shit about conspiricies and the like.. i was on fucking holidays there to see a country different from mine.

i was breathing their air

it is a feeling i will never forget....this was not just the adults but the hate from children as well.

aussies are very easy going especially towards other nationalities... just go to melb/sydney as i have been and went to school with them... but kick us in the balls and we get pissed off.

and dont be so superior in your attitudes towards us dumb stupid uneducated ones as we dont just beleive everything on tv because it is on tv. we just know that once it has happened NOTHING will change the past

TurboR1
12-05-2006, 06:40 AM
Please let this thread die like sooo many crispy WTC office workers...

Gryphen
12-05-2006, 10:02 AM
http://www.cardmaster.com/card/Good%20Luck/Animated/hammer.gif

Foofie Foofie
12-05-2006, 11:43 AM
http://www.forumspile.com/That-Is-A_conspiracy.jpg

ScratchPervert
12-05-2006, 12:12 PM
gosh this thread is like an energizer battery ..... it just keeps going on and on and.................

Mr John
12-05-2006, 03:05 PM
Aww you fuggin cock-tease.
[/b]


What&#39;s the term anglers use??..Oh I remember:

STRIKE

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Looks like I might have snagged Taz, Saf & Gryphen too

Foofie Foofie
12-05-2006, 04:49 PM
Yer ..... you ...... have me umm .... snagged , yes.

Riveting.

aaargh1
12-05-2006, 04:49 PM
http://www.forumspile.com/That-Is-A_conspiracy.jpg
[/b]


:lol: :lol:


http://www.kerrolisaa.com/kuvat/paranoid.jpg


http://www.wackypackages.org/John_Mann_Website/originals/series2/pictures/commie.jpg



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/patty1.jpg

Mr John
14-05-2006, 05:03 PM
Wow guys, awesome pics!!!!LOL!!!###J00 h4v3 Am&Z1n9 H4kk3r Skilzor!!)(*&&*(j/k)
Internet nerd points all around!

Anyway, now that I’ve tested the water it’s time to wade back into this thread.

Here&#39;s what&#39;s been going on:
Some of you & many of others believe one version of events, I & many others believe another. Both stories have strengths and weaknesses and in the end we are free to decide for ourselves.

For the record my views here didn&#39;t spring from anti US or anti government sentiment, Someone just assumed it somewhere near the start of the thread.

Interesting your minds should go there!

I stated that governments lie(like, all the time - you realise of course that governments are typically comprised of lying politicians so,like,&#39;nuff said) and focused on some relevant US & Aus lies.

I don&#39;t hate yanks, I&#39;ve been to the states several times and loved it. I readily consume American culture, thought and technology. I&#39;ve met plenty of charming Americans and anyway I usually try not to harbor very much blind prejudice.



...I really dislike the USA...



like Gryphen said, be your prejudice’s making the decision.

Guys you’re free to nurture your own prejudices, just don&#39;t assume that I share them with you.

I am reasonably broadly traveled and I’ve also met countless charming Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, and Jesus Freaks. And no, they don’t hate us or hate or freedoms, or want to kill us any more than the woman two doors up does.

But, if we are led to believe that these mostly innocent people(same as us) hate us then we don’t feel so bad about bombing the holy shit out of them – which is zactly what’s happening.

Here’s an interesting quote, some of you may have heard of the speaker:



"Naturally the common people don&#39;t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermann Goering



I believe that the current War On Terrorism is a sham and an excuse for some of the richest countries in the world to plunder the resources of some of the poorest countries in the world.

To quote 6the century BC Chinese military strategist and author of The Art Of War, Sun Tzu -


All warfare is based on deception.

If you think you’re smarter than him I’d love to catch up for a chat sometime.

In order to convince us that these Rag Headed Camel Fuckers hate our guts and want to annihilate us all they staged the horrors on September 11 2001 in what can be described as a False Flag Operation to show us we&#39;re being attacked.



False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than your own.

Source Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag)

Such as the false flag operation attributed to Adolph Hitler as an excuse to invade Poland in 1939.

Even Osama Bin Laden suggested that


The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself

In this interview in Pakistani newspaper Ummat (http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html)in which he denied any involvement. Have I mantioned that no evidence has ever been released which links OBL with 911? All we have is US gov sayso.

We were duly shocked, horrified, confused and outraged when we saw the attacks and when they fingered Al-Queda and Talbian and other random Muslim Bogeymen we yelled Kill them All and were supportive of our boys marching off to do just that – and generally protect us.
Our government also made use of the 9/11 terrorism mass hysteria to push radical changes to laws, thereby eroding your privacy – the state now has the right to detain you in isolation for up to 48 hours without having to explain to you why, and you’ – Isn’t this what we used to fear about communism?
I know that the inability to cary a nailfile on board a plane is not really a big deal - but it&#39;s very police-state.
As is the ID card our government is currently trying to squeze through parliament.
And don’t forget your fridge magnet!
I’ve lost mine so I really hope they issue more if the war on terrorism gets worse.
We’re still over there, killing truck loads of them and running their countries to suit our needs – or at least our interpretation of their needs.

It’s all terribly expensive but war is damn good for business.
War is business and for the current operatives it is business as usual.
War is just another activity, an enterprise. It has its risks, as do all investments but in the end, we are told, it is worth it. If for some reason the investment fails altogether we&#39;ll pack up and try again somewhere else. Diversify! (The current portfolio we can be sure includes Iran, Syria, and North Korea.)
Old portfolios include Columbia, Iran, Vietnam etc etc

Anyway, which of these three scenarios do you think would cause random Arabs/Muslims to stop hating us and thus end the war on terror:
A ) The ‘civilised’ west spend billions bombing the crap our of their pathetic stone age mess of a country
B ) we fuck off home and mind our own business
C ) we give 0.1% of the war’s budget on Aid & assistance to get their sorry busted arsed countries independent and self sufficient and happy and never likely to pose a threat because they like us

It’s my guess that options B and C would be quicker, cheaper and more effective but I’m betting we’re gonna roll with plan A for a while and just see where it takes us.

Alright then, here’s how I became a committed tin-foil hated official loon:

I was unsure about the pancaking theory &#39;cos it just didn&#39;t look right to me but I didn&#39;t really start to question the official story until around 2003, when I saw a version of this (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm) page and thought it asked some interesting questions.

I asked my own questions.

I was confused when they said that sufficient DNA was recovered from the Pentagon crash to identify 62 bodies because I watched GW Bush explain how an intense fire had consumed the entire pane, leaving practically no wreckage.
I know that DNA becomes useless above a few hundred degrees so I don&#39;t know how they could find enough from inside this plane-consuming inferno to identify all but two of the people supposedly on board?
I thought I smelt something fishy when I heard that despite the plane, engines, passengers and cargo disappearing in an almighty blaze they managed to find the hijacker&#39;s student card in the rubble.


"Sept. 13, 2001. A “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card” was found in the rubble at the Pentagon with Moqed’s name on it. Forensic examination indicated that it may have been fraudulent. United States Secret Service Forensic Services report for the FBI PENTAGON investigation regarding the physical examination of forensic science research request, Oct. 10, 2001." - 9/11 Commission (pg 44)


And I thought “You’re damn right it was fraudulent. Someone *cough* dropped it, somewhere *cough* nearby .”

It was pointed out to me that NORAD&#39;s account of flight 77 details that it pulled an incredible 4.5Gs maneuver in order to line up with the Pentagon&#39;s west face.
I enquired and learned that passenger aircraft are safeguarded to prevent them from maneuvering over 1.5G. I guess that makes sense.
Remember too that the supposed terrorist pilot was a shitty flight school student who was refused rental of a Cesina because he was a shitty McShitShit pilot.

We are told shown that the final flight path records that the missile(plane, drone, whatever – although US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, refers to it as a missile in this interview (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html) in October 29 2001) pulled a highly accomplished maneuver, impossible to achieve in a jet liner, to avoid a target rich zone and affect a strike on a vacant wing of the complex leaving behind no traces of a jet liner.

It makes no sense to me.
The answers to the questions I asked continuously prompt more questions, and so on.

BTW you&#39;re also wrong to assume I blindly reproduced material from pie-in-the-sky conspiracy loons’ websites. Any points I brought up here I thought through and researched myself. I researched the construction of the two towers, what methods and materials they used etc.

I researched records on fires in skyscrapers and other buildings - and found out for myself that WTC1,WTC2,WTC7 are the only steel structured skyscrapers to collapse out of hundreds of incidents.
I learned that the buildings were made with a great deal of structural redundancy and were designed with the capability to easily sustain a direct hit by a large commercial jet liner and survive any resulting fire with minimum damage and no loss of structural integrity.

I perused countless archived TV footage vids and stills and watched the famous Naudet brothers film which accidentally caught the first impact on film whilst documenting some fire fighters who then rushed to attend to the stricken towers.
The firemen in this film vividy recount their ordeal as they mourn their lost colleagues. They describe the floors popping out like controlled explosions "pop,pop,pop,pop".

I&#39;ve studied hundreds of photos of the crash scenes

I studied other crash damage photos and vids to see for myself what the aftermath of a plane crash looks like.

I had already seen the fighter-flown-into-a-wall clip dugy tried to link earlier - interestingly it provides more evidence against your argument than for it:
1. When your jet fighter hits the wall it desintegrates instantly and pretty much disappears, it&#39;s a thin walled structure designed to fly as dugy mentioned - how then did the pentagon plane knock it&#39;s way through over 3 of the Penagon&#39;s 5 rings, 3m+ of concrete & bricks, before it disintegrated?
2. The wings of the plane do not fold back along the fuselage and tuck into the impact zone; instead, they make a clear wing-shaped dent in wall face – exactly the kind of dent absent from the West wall of the Pentagon after it was hit.
Incidentally the engines on a 757 are located on the wings – that is to say the wings transfer the thrust to the fuselage. At the moment of impact, when the nose hit the wall the wings were still thrusting forward – and so could not possibly have ‘folded backwards’ and slid into any hole.
If there are no wing or engine impact scars on the Pentagon wall and an almost complete absence 757 debris then I cannot accept that it was hit by a jumbo jet.

I’m putting this up against your research which seems limited to watching the crashes on TV and fully accepting of the official story – told by people with a proven track record of deception.

From what I can see, I&#39;m hitting a lot of home runs and all you have is picures of guys with tin hats.

But anyway, back to the bitching:

Now dugy, you told me this


Your source’s of info have been anything but reliable.

And then gave me this
PopularMechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1)
I’m think you should listen to the advice to dispense and heed it yourself
The PM article is comprehensively torn apart here (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm) and exposed for the shoddy piece of positioned journalism that it is.


PM also neglected to mention that that the author of the piece, PM&#39;s senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff is actually the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
So what was that you mentioned about


Sources, most of which, can establish their views on a more solid knowledge base, and that don&#39;t have a story to sell.

???
I read that Benjamin Chertoff’s formal qualifications include a degree in Bachelor of Arts but no mention of a physics or engineering background – making him no more qualified than I am to present facts.

Your dismissal of the opinion of the WTCs Site Construction Manager is incomprehensible. You just up and decided that he doesn’t know shit for no reason at all. Might as well ask the janitor you say.
OK then, lets refer to WTC Maintenance worker William Rodriguez (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/7762.html), a survivor of the day who helped to save scores of lives and who has been recognized and decorated as a national hero.
Rodriguez’s witness first hand account of what happened that day has been flatly ignored


William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.

The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group ignored his plea to tell his story. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years.

William Rodriguez also contacted the FBI who never followed up. The media was not interested. CNN spent a day filming and interviewing him at his home but when it was shown the following day it was thoroughly edited. Some reporters have subtly warned Rodriguez to keep quiet as he could jeopardize his life. They said "You do not know who you are dealing with!" He already looked death in the face and he will probably continue to courageously tell his story. He is speaking the truth and he is speaking it for his friends. He says: "I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

William Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a RICO lawsuit filed against George W. Bush and others. He is alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes.


Check it for yourself – it’s all kosher.



You go on about the pencil and the mosquito netting…blah blah blah


Did you even read what I wrote? Honestly, should try to follow the flow of the conversation.

Yes, I quoted the pencil analogy in specific reference to the WTC towers - read it again, they are the words of the chief engineer of the tower&#39;s construction, quoted long before 9/11.
They are entirely different constructions so the analogy is hardly relevant to the Pentagon building.
Either way, whatever manner of construction you talk about, if you crash a jet into a building you get an impact about as wide and tall as the jet.
This building was struck by a jet, you can tell because there&#39;s a jet hole in it:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer/toweroneimpactsite.jpg

This building was struck by a jet travelling vertically, there&#39;s a vertical jet hole in it:
http://www.fire.org.uk/BBC_News/news/_593490_747_amsterdam_flats150.jpg
This building was not struck by a jet because, as you can see, there is no evidence of a jet hole anywhere:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/Pentagon3.jpg

....unless it had neither the wingspan, tail height nor outlying engine cofiguration of a jet. And I never mentioned GlobalHawks, where did you get that one from?



If the US Govt, now were to release video footage that did show a 757 jet slamming into the Pentagon, would you believe it or, would you then claim that it was obviously a fake?

News for you Gryphen, they did release footage, 5 frames from camera at a security gate showing the hit.
Here they are:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe2.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe3.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe4.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe5.jpg
that’s all they&#39;ve got.

Though blurry you can see for yourself that they show a remarkable absence of jet liners.
You&#39;d expect such a high security installation to be comprehensively covered by cameras so isn&#39;t it surprising that all they can find is five dodgy frames? There should be enought footage to make a bullit-time movie of it.
The attack was likely captured on the security cameras of the nearby gas station and a nearby hotel but the FBI visited both sites within minutes of the attacks and confiscated their tapes
If they have footage of a 757 striking a Pentagon then surely they could release it and clear up all of this nonsense - dontyathink?



If conspiracy theorists could actually settle down to one set of criteria, and instead of having a dozen different stories and possible scenarios then they might sound more believable…

Awww, is it all too confusing for your poor head?
Here’s a clue, it’s kind of complicated.
It’s like we have a big jigsaw puzzle with a slightly different picture on the box. Some of it seems to make sense but the more you piece the puzzle together the sillier the picture on the box looks.

Let me break it down for people with a short attention span:
You know in the movies when some bad shit happens and then some hero dude comes along and kills the baddies and wins the hot girl? Well in this move the bad shit happened and is still happening, the baddies are on the loose but the hero hasn’t arrived yet and the hottie is still in danger.

Taz, I&#39;m reluctant to comment on your last post because it makes so little sense - I just don&#39;t think I could do it without insulting you.

Before I forget – I’ve mentioned the standard ASTM E119 for construction steel several times. Steel certified to ASTM E119 tested to withstand temperatures well in excess of domestic/office fires and hydrocarbon fires. There is no question that the fires had nothing to do with the collapses. It is literally beyond the bounds of possibility; feel free to look it up for yourself.

Taz
14-05-2006, 05:30 PM
Taz, I&#39;m reluctant to comment on your last post because it makes so little sense - I just don&#39;t think I could do it without insulting you. ( Mr John)


you have no basis to make a comment on my statement as YOU WERE NOT THERE

so unless your reply would be to accuse me of lying.....you have no reply.


and i apologise that you are the only inteligent person in this thread....again comes out your superior attitude towards people who dont share your side of the discussion

Mr John
17-05-2006, 04:27 PM
Breaking news this week:
Another security camera film has been released proporting to show the Pentagon being struck.
This new video and the old one can be seen at this web page (http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml).

A huge explosion is certainly visible but I can&#39;t see the large commercial jet liner myself, it should look something like this:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d151/mrjohnmrjohn/757.jpg

Taz, don&#39;t doubt that you&#39;ve been to Saudi or Jordan.
I don&#39;t disbelieve you when you say you met people who hated you.
But to suggest that this in itself is sufficient evidence that Arabs attacked the US on 911 is mindbreakingly stupid.
Your inference that Arabs are more likely to have done it based on your experinces in Jordan & Saudi is also racist.

You say "aussies are very easy going especially towards other nationalities... " tell that to non whites living near Cronulla.

"yaddyaddayadda....we just know that once it has happened NOTHING will change the past"
I agree, nothing can change the past.
The problem we sometimes make is confusing &#39;history&#39; for the past. The past can&#39;t change but history can. History can be rewritten, history can be corrected, history can be changed so that it bears no resemlence to the past. ie The earth has always been round - yet history recorded that it was flat there for a while.
So, yes, you&#39;re right, nothing can change the past. On the other hand history is written by people and as such is subject to their interpretation, and so it can be wrong.
The current history of the events under debate is flawed. I am challenging this history with a view to finding out what really happened in the past.

Further, I don&#39;t claim to be the only intelligent person on this thread. So what if my attitude is arrogant? Dry your eyes, my attitude has got fuck-all to do with the content of the discussion.

Here&#39;s my attitude: I&#39;m outraged.
If you&#39;re not outraged, you&#39;re not paying attention.

EMVY
17-05-2006, 04:44 PM
If you look at the frame before the explosion, you can see "something" entering the picture on the right hand side. Don&#39;t know the frame rate of the recording but if it is only 1 or 2 frames per second, it could be a plane maybe

mstriumph
17-05-2006, 05:22 PM
interesting thread - thanks :)

it made me think ... don&#39;t think i&#39;m racist particularly, but i AM &#39;religionist&#39; [don&#39;t think there&#39;s a word so i made that one up :rolleyes: ]

and .... together with many other religions with, when taken to extremes, a cultural imperitive to elevate a gender or some other groupings to the detriment of the rest ..... i don&#39;t like Islam.

america v the middle east?
I&#39;m not fond of Maccas but i&#39;ll take it over having to be swathed from head to toe in tablecloths and made to walk in the blazing heat of midsummer thru a WA shopping centre carpark two paces behind my lightly-clad, short-sleeved, oh so cool & comfortable husband [or be thought a traitor to my family and bring shame on my parents and children].......

relative freedom v living in chains? it&#39;s a no-brainer ..........

is it wrong [by my standards] to try and take over someone else&#39;s country? - of course it is

but does it happen? - of course yes

and do governments lie to achieve it? - heck, governments lie for FUN, they don&#39;t need an excuse ...

so am i going to get hot under the collar about america invading iraq? nope .... america in charge is more likely to keep the fuel trickling into me bike than their opposition is - simple as that - sorry.

america tries invading west aus. and i will be womanning the barricades, pelting them with supersize sundaes & asking "would you like fries with that??" .....but don&#39;t expect me to bleed for fundementalist muslims [or christians or ..... fundementalist ANYTHING really] that would treat me like a lesser species just because i&#39;m female or white or left-handed or whatever ................ because i just won&#39;t do it.

:) i will now get on with my ironing

Taz
17-05-2006, 07:26 PM
as for non white near cronella ....i dont know.


what i do know for fact is the my great,great,great grandmother and her sister were forced to come to this country as convicts...they served their time and were not allowed to return to the uk...rule of the day.

They were murdered in their beds by bands of aboriginals that had been exiled by their own tribes.

1988.... i had a house in mirrabooka and every house in the street ( i was no 56 ) had been broken into at least once...by aboriginals.

i dont hate aborigials in perth or cronella because some bastards killed my ancestors or broke into my house. i hate the pricks that carried out those acts.

i also am not saying that arabs did 9/11 cause they hated me for reasons given but am working like the rest of the world on statements given and the fact that the saudis and other arab nations forwarded lots of info TO the usa. it is obvious from the persons on board that the perpertators were of "arab" decent.


as for the new tape released if it is real then the area shown by the video camera is approx 50 meteres wide.

with an object travelling at the alledged 500 + kph then it coveres the ground at aprox 138 metres per second (at 500) and the video area relates to approx one third of a second. we might miss the length of the plane passing. the color of the explosion matches avgas ( had the pleasure of blowing this stuff up myself.


i can be called a racist if i dont like you because you did something to me and you happen to been of a different ethnic origin than me..

dugy
17-05-2006, 08:15 PM
1) That footage has been around for ages.

2) Add what taz said to:

Have a look at the car that drives past....... See. How. Jumpy. It. Is.
Google for info on the Frames/sec used by surveillance cameras.



Bugger it: Here&#39;s a sample.

Like Taz did

Using the speed of the plane, work out the duration of time it will likely remain in the field of view of the camera.
Lets say 500km/hr / 139m/sec (I can&#39;t be bothered checking the speed.)
Time taken to cover 50m. ~0.36 seconds

Now based on the number of frames per second recored by the camera.
Frame rate of camera. ~1 frame per second.

This could be why you don&#39;t see the plane.......

RathoRA
18-05-2006, 11:53 AM
i dont see a plane but i do see something
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b23/RathoRA/maybe.jpg
it comes in low and fast

Dubs
18-05-2006, 12:09 PM
it was a sonic boom from Pacman flexing

you know

where you think you might see something and BAM!! it hits you



Dubs

Hornet
18-05-2006, 12:20 PM
Here&#39;s my theory; (warning: it&#39;s a doozy)

It&#39;s got nothing to do with oil, religion or all that crap... It&#39;s all for women!
He with the fastest car (blingiest bike - TurboR1), biggest bank account or nicest house gets the women... so wars are started for the oil/commodities to sell for more money to buy a bigger house and get more women.
And the extremists that blow themselves up believe they go to heaven (whatever they call it) and get 32 virgins, or something... again, women.

So, all you "PSB Girls" with your fancy little &#39;group icons&#39;, it&#39;s all your fault. Damn you all. :P :D









BTW, this is a joke.

ScratchPervert
18-05-2006, 12:28 PM
I wonder if Blink 182 Knew this was going to happen (sings) Can you tell which bit I&#39;m refering to? (cough)



Hey mom there&#39;s something in the backroom
hope it&#39;s not the creature from above
you used to read me stories
as if my dreams were boring
we all know conspiracies are dumb
What if people knew that these were real
I&#39;d leave my closet door open all night
I know the CIA would say
what you hear is all hearsay
I wish someone would tell me what was right

Up all night long
and there&#39;s something very wrong
and I know it must be late
been gone since yesterday
I&#39;m not like you guys
I&#39;m not like you

I am still a skeptic yes you know me
been best friends and will be till we die
I got an injection
of fear from the abduction
my best friend thinks I&#39;m just telling lies
alright

Up all night long
and there&#39;s something very wrong
and I know it must be late
been gone since yesterday
I&#39;m not like you guys
I&#39;m not like you

Dark and scary, ordinary
explanation, information
nice to know ya, paranoia
where&#39;s my mother, biofather

Up all night long
and there&#39;s something very wrong
and I know it must be late
been gone since yesterday
I&#39;m not like you guys
twelve majestic lies


....

gytr_r1
18-05-2006, 01:00 PM
-_- Zzzz ZZZ zzzzz :rolleyes: Fer crying out loud...

If I posted on the webternet that historically speaking due to facts i know, and that I have a PhD in martian science (oh sorry an arts degree... one straight off the roll found in the toilet)... that the effect of fire on steel is nothing, given its grade, and the heat (although I wasn&#39;t there) was going to be 200 degrees, because thats what I said, I must be right, and it is true cause its on the web... and I have a Doctorate... which makes me qualified to say all this because I said I have a relevant degree...

Oh wait,... I did post on the webternet... so it MUST be true!!!

And yer Hornet... what you said is true too... so we must declare jihad against women... Off with their clothes!!!

ScratchPervert
18-05-2006, 01:07 PM
I&#39;ve heard the toilet Roll Phd&#39;s are hard to come across, there is so much S*%# you have to buy in bulk.


:rolleyes: :blink: :unsure: :o :P

Hornet
18-05-2006, 01:08 PM
And yer Hornet... what you said is true too... so we must declare jihad against women... Off with their clothes!!!
[/b]
^^^WHS^^^



I&#39;ve heard the toilet Roll Phd&#39;s are hard to come across, there is so much S*%# you have to buy in bulk.
:rolleyes: :blink: :unsure: :o :P
[/b]
HAHAHA :lol: :lol:

So you&#39;ve met GYTR_R1, then????

gytr_r1
18-05-2006, 01:13 PM
I&#39;ve heard the toilet Roll Phd&#39;s are hard to come across, there is so much S*%# you have to buy in bulk.
:rolleyes: :blink: :unsure: :o :P
[/b]

The trick is to work them out slowly...



^^^WHS^^^
HAHAHA :lol: :lol:

So you&#39;ve met GYTR_R1, then????
[/b]


Err... don&#39;t you have a job to do... oh wait... HAHAHAHA

Mr John
15-08-2006, 08:25 AM
I know we retired this hoary thread some time ago but I though I&#39;d share something interesting.

The Offical FBI Most Wanted Terrorists Page (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) for Bin Laden seems to be missing something....

..any mention of the 9/11 attacks.

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI&#39;s web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI&#39;s Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden&#39;s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

So if it wasn&#39;t Osama & Al-Qaeda who was it?

dugy
15-08-2006, 08:28 AM
Mel Gibson thinks it was the Jews. :rolleyes:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/doug1277/sucks2.jpg

Gryphen
15-08-2006, 08:35 AM
"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden&#39;s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."[/b]

Sounds like a bit of shit stirring, poke him with a finger, get him to either comment on it and so you can a) confirm he is alive, b.) hopefully track him down.

Seems its the old reverse psychology, say theres no evidence, and a psychopath will have to respond because they like the attention they get.

I think Mel Gibson did it, it was just a movie stunt for an action movie gone wrong.

aaargh1
15-08-2006, 11:53 AM
synchronicities of symbolism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etYwtFb2Zyo&mode=related&search=)



love the hand signals



and yes there is an owl on the one dollar bill

Mr John
15-08-2006, 02:34 PM
Sounds like a bit of shit stirring, poke him with a finger, get him to either comment on it and so you can a) confirm he is alive, b.) hopefully track him down.

Seems its the old reverse psychology, say theres no evidence, and a psychopath will have to respond because they like the attention they get.
[/b]

Huh?......or it could more simply be that there is no evidence.
There never was.
None has ever been tendered.

He was put up as a boogeyman, to focus our fear and hate after the attacks, but he didn&#39;t do it.

Do some research

read: 911truth.org (http://www.911truth.org/index.php)

Watch some vids: Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change), WTC 7 9-11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0)
Lecture by Professor emeritus Dr David Ray Griffin, Ph.D, smarter than you (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154)

Pkunk
15-08-2006, 02:42 PM
"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself."

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

"A man&#39;s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

dr00
15-08-2006, 03:34 PM
http://people.umass.edu/wgrigg/Dead%20Horse.jpg

thro
15-08-2006, 06:26 PM
If you lot haven&#39;t seen it yet, try and track down a copy of "911 in plane site".

If someone wants a copy of it, i have it on div-x.

Basically it&#39;s a documentary on a lot of suspect stuff on 9/11, inluding live tv footage from the day.

One of the more suspect things, imho is that there&#39;s a flash (explosion) from underneath one of the planes *BEFORE* impact with the tower. Also, if you look closely, the plane looks more like an air force refuelling plane than a passenger jet.

Plus the lack of wreckage at the pentagon, etc.


The official line that an airliner crashed into the pentagon is a crock. If they lied about that, what else have they lied about?

IMHO, Bush being incompetent doesn&#39;t necessarily mean he&#39;s not part of a conspiracy. More likely, he&#39;s just a puppet for the real powers that be...

Taz
15-08-2006, 07:03 PM
Watch some vids: Loose Change, WTC 7 9-11
Lecture by Professor emeritus Dr David Ray Griffin, Ph.D, smarter than you



not nice mr john

maybe you should have said "has a higher level of education" rather than smarter than


maybe i beleive that man on the moon was a conspiricy
is that why such simply things go wrong with the nasa projects......cause we cant land then take off again from the moon

TurboR1
15-08-2006, 07:18 PM
http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif


Since its an old (dead) post, Gryphen&#39;s little beauty deserves another appearance.

Here&#39;s a more enjoyable theory to test... why is it that when you smack a girl in the back of the head her asshole tenses up?

chief wiggum
15-08-2006, 08:10 PM
Here&#39;s a more enjoyable theory to test... why is it that when you smack a girl in the back of the head her asshole tenses up?
[/b]
or even more when their husband walks in the door....

Mr John
11-09-2008, 09:13 PM
It's September 11 and I've shined up my trusty old tin foil hat. Am watching a DVD on the collapse of the towers.
Thinking 'bout making a T-shirt that says "The pancake is a lie"
Really, the official story is bullshit taken to a new and heroic level, does anyone still believe it?

westy74
11-09-2008, 09:30 PM
Dugy, for sure no doubt !! . However on one hand you have inconel items, the metal that the turbine blades and compressors (where the flame happens) in the turbines what is one of the hardest metals known to man to destroy ..... that vapoirised, but as Simon says , office furniture some 10 feet away made form MDF and chipboard didnt ? .

That was a missile attack.
so what happened to the passangers of the plane then ????? are they still flying around some where?????? there were 60 plus people on board that flight that day.. Missile attack my arse... Get your facts straight

chief wiggum
11-09-2008, 09:54 PM
so what happened to the passangers of the plane then ????? are they still flying around some where?????? there were 60 plus people on board that flight that day.. Missile attack my arse... Get your facts straight
shot and buried in a mass grave somewhere. if the gubmint would callously sacrifice a few thousand lives, what's another 60?

here's some light reading on what the us government proposed to do in the 60's to give them "legitimate" reason to invade cuba
Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)