See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5NnBQJ5at4
Published: Jan 24, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-01-24 14:13:06 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 17811
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Someone else watch this and tell us that it's totally bogus, thanks much.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Nothing is uninterruptible, expect maybe a nuclear reaction. They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations and they most definitely didn't hit the towers due to not physically being able to stay together at the recorded speeds the planes were flying at when they hit the towers at basically sea level.
God is always good!
Boeing wins patent on uninterruptible autopilot system Boeing’s is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it “uninterruptible” — so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off — but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.
#2. To: Horse (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: Horse (#0)
#4. To: RickyJ (#2)
not physically being able to stay together at the recorded speeds the planes were flying at when they hit the towers at basically sea level.
-Alex Kurtagic
#5. To: X-15 (#4)
Dov S. Zakheim and I don't believe that planes cannot be remote controlled.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#6. To: Lod, Cynicom (#5)
The capability will exist in the future, but the reality is that it takes at least two officers to fly the jet due to in-flight decisions (weather, course corrections, in-flight emergencies requiring diversion to another airport, etc.) that can only be made on-deck. That will never change. Would you fly on an airliner without a human being at the controls??
-Alex Kurtagic
#7. To: X-15 (#6)
Well gee, why not? The Joogle dude wants to take the controls out of cars. Lends a whole new meaning to computer crash, which I should add, never happens to me more than once per hour. Would you fly on an airliner without a human being at the controls?
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#8. To: X-15 (#6)
Nothing man makes is flawless. Every contingency cannot be built into any machine, ever. Would you fly on an airliner without a human being at the controls??
#9. To: X-15 (#4)
Interesting, while watching those two 757 videos it becomes impossible to envision an entire plane simply vaporizing into a hole that's not even fully the circumference of the fuselage, much less to accommodate the components that are not part of the fuselage.
#10. To: Katniss (#9)
Don't let the JEW in Hollywood dictate what you perceive a 'crash' should look like. The airliners were basically aluminum beer-cans pile-driving into a building, NOT some Spielberg/Cecile B. DeMille/Irwin Allen/et al 'drama', in my opinion. It will be several decades until the whole 9/11 commission report becomes public knowledge, much like the MLK files sealed until 2027.
-Alex Kurtagic
#11. To: RickyJ (#2)
Likewise: Lockheed U-2 - Wikipedia Nothing is uninterruptible, expect maybe a nuclear reaction. They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations and they most definitely didn't hit the towers due to not physically being able to stay together at the recorded speeds the planes were flying at when they hit the towers at basically sea level.
the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h) below its maximum speed. This narrow window was referred to by the pilots as the "coffin corner", because breaching either limit would likely cause the wings or tail to separate. For 90% of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a decrease in altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#12. To: X-15 (#10)
They might have been lightened up some since I was a child but I remember an airplane park where we could climb onto the wings and go inside. Considerably sturdier than a beer can by my recollection. The airliners were basically aluminum beer-cans pile-driving into a building, NOT some Spielberg/Cecile B. DeMille/Irwin Allen/et al 'drama', in my opinion.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#13. To: X-15 (#10)
So you actually believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon?
#14. To: Katniss (#13)
I'll be 100% convinced when the security-camera footage from surrounding areas is released for public viewing. Nobody has successfully documented an alleged "missile" or documented who launched it, and from where.
-Alex Kurtagic
#15. To: X-15 (#14)
photo 001g.gif Perhaps not, but there's a whole lot of other info that makes it having been "something other than a plane," not to mention day-of eye-witness testimonials that are on record, not to mention a slew of other evidence, far more plausible than a plane for which there existed nothing but token pieces that were reported not even to have been from an aircraft of that nature. Other people, many, have done a very good job of detailing this. I used to work in the Pentagon and saw pretty much all of the views from the varying camera angles at all of the entry doors there, only a few at the time, and I'm telling you, not as an opinion, as a fact, that there would have been all the evidence that you could ever ask for if things were on the level. That time of day the VDOT cameras also would have provided a movie-like wide angle of it too that time of day. Not to mention the camera footage of the 32 locations that were rounded up within a few hours of the event including a gas station that I used to buy gas at that was all but right in the flight path. I'll be 100% convinced when the security-camera footage from surrounding areas is released for public viewing. Nobody has successfully documented an alleged "missile" or documented who launched it, and from where.
#16. To: Katniss (#15)
Yes, that's what I was thinking about. As always: who launched a missile? Where from? Why? How could that many people involved keep their mouths shut?? a gas station that I used to buy gas at that was all but right in the flight path.
-Alex Kurtagic
#17. To: X-15 (#16)
They didn't keep their mouths shut, many were silenced. Why 32 cameras having had the film taken from them within hours? How is this even possible without prior planning? But consider this, in answer to your own question, explain and reconcile the following: with the notion that he has since then insisted that a large aircraft hit the Pentagon. Otherwise, look, this is all out there. I've spent hundreds of hours of my time over the years satisfying my curiosity in all of this and have come to the conclusion that there are so many ludicrous loose ends for the official story to make any sense whatsoever. You seem to be struggling with the most basic element of "How could that many people involved keep their mouths shut??" which to me is trivial. I can't help you then except to, for example, to ask you how they can get all but unanimous belief that the Federal Reserve is part of the US Government as merely one example. The truth regarding that is a few mouse clicks away on the internet, yet 99%+ of Americans believe that nonsense which is even more easily disproven.
#18. To: RickyJ (#2)
The planes were electronically hijacked by Command Transmitter system. Flight 93 was shot down because the crew was able to regain control.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#19. To: Katniss (#17)
Who did the silencing, and why are they not talking?? Where are the passengers and crew from all these jets that Were Not Involved? Can't just say that "oh, they were shot and their bodies dumped somewhere". Dumped where? Who dumped the bodies and why don't they talk?? It goes on and on :) I'm don't disagree that their are some inconsistencies, but I remain a sceptic :) They didn't keep their mouths shut, many were silenced.
-Alex Kurtagic
#20. To: Katniss, X-15 (#13)
This video says that a commercial airliner cannot take the G force of that power dive. That is why I believe either a military jet or bombs were used to take out the Pentagon auditors. We need crime scene photos and evidence from the Pentagon to be released.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#21. To: X-15 (#16)
I can't say what happened, but I can say with certainty that what the government says happened didn't and couldn't have.
#22. To: X-15 (#19)
I've seen more than enough that suggests to me that I'd have to be a fool to believe what's been pitched as being official. I'm don't disagree that their are some inconsistencies, but I remain a sceptic :)
#23. To: Katniss, christine (#22)
These people (passengers/crew) had cellphones, why didn't anybody call and say that they were being lined up to be shot or were being held captive somewhere???? To go from the accepted to the unorthodox requires lots of questions to be answered beyond mere dismissal "oh, they were shot somewhere or are living with Elvis Presley on a deserted island". Just sayin'.... :)
-Alex Kurtagic
#24. To: christine (#21)
Yes, lots of questions require more thorough answers from the government, too many holes in their stories as it is. Witholding evidence is just as abhorrent as letting people rot in Cuba/Club Gitmo for years without their day in court (speedy trial and all that).
-Alex Kurtagic
#25. To: X-15, Katniss, christine (#23)
Cell phones did not work in flight at that time. Cell phones can be electronically blocked on ground level. Gas could have been used to kill the pilots and the crew before being electronically hijacked. Won't know until we get control of the government.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#26. To: X-15 (#23)
Again, that's all out there.
#27. To: X-15 (#23)
By the way, you're hanging up on tremendously trivial stuff if that's what's where you're hung up.
#28. To: Katniss (#27)
I call for evidence of the bodies of the crew and passengers, just like I call for evidence of the bodies of six million jews in the alleged Holocaust. It's not "trivial", it's crucial to not dismiss evidence/facts that might interfere with a foregone conclusion (no jets involved).
-Alex Kurtagic
#29. To: X-15 (#28) (Edited)
You brought up a great point and something just hit me in pondering my response. They did in fact claim to have found body parts, particularly bone fragments, at the Pentagon site. Isn't it odd though that very few plane parts were found because steel, titanium, and other very expensive and durable metals used in building aircraft were for all intents and purposes completely incinerated, but that bone fragments and body parts, something that incinerate even more readily than metals of varying sorts including steel, and which were encased in said plane, were found? So in essence, the plane and its metals was/were largely incinerated, in an instant, but like the passport in NYC, the body parts which were contained within that same plane managed to make it through the ordeal and were all left out in the field, well before where the initial impact even was, to be discovered later. Does that really make sense to you? It's rhetorical, I don't care if it does or not. As I said, believe what you want on this. There's tons of evidence out there, largely dealing with a cover-up, that says that this doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. I call for evidence of the bodies of the crew and passengers, just like I call for evidence of the bodies of six million jews in the alleged Holocaust. It's not "trivial", it's crucial to not dismiss evidence/facts that might interfere with a foregone conclusion (no jets involved).
#30. To: Lod (#5)
Ditto !!! Dov S. Zakheim and I don't believe that planes cannot be remote controlled.
"Honest, April 15th is April Fools Day".
#31. To: christine (#21)
This statement is the only honest one that can be made. I can't say what happened, but I can say with certainty that what the government says happened didn't and couldn't have.
"Honest, April 15th is April Fools Day".
#32. To: Katniss (#29)
no time to change clothes. the trusted lackeys who were told to hurry up and go get that sh!t before anyone could see what it was. 
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#33. To: christine (#32)
Meanwhile, broken shit all over the lawn but not a divot in sight.
#34. To: Katniss (#33)
#35. To: X-15, Katniss (#16)
A) The people who were behind the 9/11 attacks. B) From anywhere, be it submarine, land, or from the air. C) MANY reasons. War, profit, control, money, power, destruction of criminal evidence. D) Blackmail, money, and/or "neutralization". There may have been less than 100 people who were actively engaged in the operation, some of whom may not even have known they were part of it. As always: who launched a missile? Where from? Why? How could that many people involved keep their mouths shut??
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: christine (#32)
Heck, they may have been the ones PLANTING that stuff all over the lawn. Note the guys getting out of the bus at approximately 41 seconds into the following video, and note the fact they have duffel bags full of SOMETHING as they walk towards the lawn. no time to change clothes. the trusted lackeys who were told to hurry up and go get that sh!t before anyone could see what it was.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#37. To: FormerLurker (#36)
Great catch - thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#38. To: FormerLurker (#35)
The why is simple. They needed a new Pearl Harbor. Officially and formally on record. Of course the masses still think that that verifiable fact, along with thousands of others, is just a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. How could that many people keep their mouths shut? LOL Who says it was that many? Most were fooled by the TV and statements of proof sans any evidence. How come they play it off like the collapse occurred upon impact when that's also on record as not being the case? Or 7 having collapsed in the news before it did? Or all of the cops' and firemens' statements swept under the rug. These questions as posed are posed by a novice that clearly has done no independent research on the topic. As such, it's a waste of time to continue. As always: who launched a missile? Where from? Why? How could that many people involved keep their mouths shut??
#39. To: Lod (#37)
I've mentioned it before here or on LP. Surprised that no one else has brought it up or focused on it more. To me, it's clear evidence that they planted "debris", in clear sight of news cameras in fact. Great catch - thanks.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: FormerLurker (#39)
Prolly had the "body parts" in there also.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#41. To: Lod (#40)
Maybe, or they could have been inserted into the mix after the fact.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#42. To: FormerLurker (#36)
Thanks! I don't remember seeing that back then.
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#43. To: X-15 (#28)
Did you ever see this? It was posted on 4um years ago. killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#44. To: X-15 (#4)
What I stated was a fact that Boeing itself says about their planes. What you posted was some videos of planes flying at undetermined speeds that proves nothing. I am surprised there are still any people on this forum that believe the government's lies about 9/11.
God is always good!
#45. To: X-15 (#4)
You seriously think the speed of this plane was anywhere near 500 MPH? It most definitely was not!
God is always good!
#46. To: RickyJ (#45)
Whoever titled that vid was either a fool or a liar; the speed looked around 150MPH to me.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#47. To: RickyJ (#44)
I'm surprised that anybody thinks that missiles-disguised-as-airliners (cloaking devices right out of Star Trek!!!!!) hit buildings, that's just pot-smoking sci-fi bullshit.
-Alex Kurtagic
#48. To: X-15 (#47)
Good heavens... How dare you question "proven facts" that everyone knows to be true? I have a mutual friend that worked in the Pentagon, was there that fateful day. She said it was a damned airplane that went in, was found there, was removed from there. We all KNOW that those people that WERE THERE IN THE BUILDING were in on this whole thing, dont we????????? I'm surprised that anybody thinks that missiles-disguised-as-airliners (cloaking devices right out of Star Trek!!!!!) hit buildings, that's just pot-smoking sci-fi bullshit.
#49. To: Cynicom (#48)
Too bad she didn't take any pictures and no one else bothered to either of that "damn" plane. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe though. She said it was a damned airplane that went in, was found there, was removed from there.
God is always good!
#50. To: Cynicom (#48)
And you know your friend saw the damn plane because she said so, or was she told it was a plane and never saw it herself? We all KNOW that those people that WERE THERE IN THE BUILDING were in on this whole thing, dont we?????????
God is always good!
#51. To: Cynicom (#48) (Edited)
We all KNOW that those people that WERE THERE IN THE BUILDING were in on this whole thing, dont we????????? Did she happen to say anything about the Pentagon not being in high alert mode enough to even point some of the many surveillance cameras there in the direction(s) of an alleged incoming plane claimed to have been wandering around long after the WTC was reportedly struck twice? It would not have been necessary for many people in the building to have been in on a staged strike. It wasn't evacuated in that direction, which was burning and billowing with smoke. That section was sparsely populated due to the renovations there that had been ongoing since Clinton's administration, during which the Rumsfeld-spotlighted trillions of dollars in transactions had gone missing/unaccounted for -- some of it, perhaps, black-budgeted to pre-rig that section for inward exploding and imploding FX/effects. Some interesting YouTube videos, imo: 911 Pentagon - 1 minute 911 Evacuation of Pentagon ordered [a few minutes before the strike and had barely started?], but [ordered] by whom? 911 Washington Monument - less than 1 minute The Washington Monument blows up on live TV. Or does it? C-Span; 9/11 Live Coverage - 10 minutes At 8:48, a fire at the State Department is reported ... a fireball was reportedly witnessed at the Pentagon ... a helicopter explosion was reportedly witnessed at the Pentagon ... Edited to add video time-data + bracketed insert notations. I have a mutual friend that worked in the Pentagon, was there that fateful day. She said it was a damned airplane that went in, was found there, was removed from there.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#52. To: GreyLmist, Horse, RickyJ, Jethro Tull, x-15, christine, wakeup, Lod, Bush is a moonie (#51)
#53. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou, GreyLmist, Horse, RickyJ, Jethro Tull, x-15, christine, wakeup, Lod, Bush is a moonie (#52)
ABELDANGER. Getting close to the whole ball of wax on 911.
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#54. To: randge (#53)
Thanks randge you got it!
#55. To: GreyLmist, Katniss (#51)
Of course not. Ask Katniss about that. He worked at the Pentagon. Did she happen to say anything about the Pentagon not being in high alert mode enough to even point some of the many surveillance cameras there in the direction(s) of an alleged incoming plane claimed to have been wandering around long after the WTC was reportedly struck twice?
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#56. To: X-15, Katniss (#10)
I concur with X-15. All airplanes are built as light as reasonably possible, as any and all weight works against the whole concept of flight. There is no practical need for any non-combat airplane to be built to withstand any abuse, much less impact into a mountain. Compared to any average car, airplanes are relatively fragile.
#57. To: randge (#53)
Long, needed editing, but most worthwhile - thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#58. To: Pinguinite (#56)
Compared to any average car, airplanes are relatively fragile. IDK about that, watch some of those risky landing videos sometime on youtube. Planes need to be built to withstand much higher wind sheer than autos to start. They're less compact to be sure, but given that I'm not sure I can agree with planes being relatively fragile. I'm not sure what the point is this far down the thread, so take that comment in isolation. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with anything that I'm aware of. I concur with X-15. All airplanes are built as light as reasonably possible, as any and all weight works against the whole concept of flight. There is no practical need for any non-combat airplane to be built to withstand any abuse, much less impact into a mountain.
#59. To: christine (#55)
Ask Katniss about that. He worked at the Pentagon. That's interesting, I always thought Katniss was a female. Of course not.
God is always good!
#60. To: christine, Katniss (#55)
christine at #55: Of course not. Ask Katniss about that. He worked at the Pentagon. Ok. Am asking, Katniss, what your Pentagon-insights might be in assessment of the issues at #51. Me at #51: Did she [an alleged Pentagon employee and 9/11 plane claimant] happen to say anything about the Pentagon not being in high alert mode enough to even point some of the many surveillance cameras there in the direction(s) of an alleged incoming plane claimed to have been wandering around long after the WTC was reportedly struck twice?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#61. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#52) (Edited)
At 2:12-3:09 of the 2nd video in the playlist, Field McConnell talks about the UK's mega-corporation, SERCO, controlling America's nuclear codes. That's worrisome and essentially treasonous at the highest levels here. Edited formatting.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#62. To: X-15, Katniss, christine (#23)
It would have been simple enough to introduce a knockout gas or something more lethal into the ventilation system onboard the aircraft. These people (passengers/crew) had cellphones, why didn't anybody call and say that they were being lined up to be shot or were being held captive somewhere???? To go from the accepted to the unorthodox requires lots of questions to be answered beyond mere dismissal "oh, they were shot somewhere or are living with Elvis Presley on a deserted island". Just sayin'....
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#63. To: GreyLmist (#60)
Several years prior to that date there were multiple cameras of the entrance and entrance areas, the views of which one could see at the guard desk upon entering. The same was true of all sides of the building and property. It's pure gullibility to believe the Fed's account of this and the people that have ever worked there know this. There was also a VDOT camera that pans that entire skyline that time of day. One could access it online despite the internet having been in its infancy. VDOT has always kept footage for a certain amount of time. There was also a gas station for military members only right in the flight path that I gassed up at numerous times that had video yet had it stolen along with 31 other known videos within 3 hours of the event. I have to believe that the VDOT footage was also taken or destroyed as a part of that. There is an entrance/exit to the building on the helipad side, which is the side in question. It's pure assinitity for anyone to attempt to tell you that there were no cameras with 24/7 surveillance of any and all exits to that building. Even once in, people could only access certain areas of the building pending their levels of access. Generally speaking the further in in the rings one went, with five "rings," the greater clearances one needed. Anyone without those clearances could not access nor be permitted entry into those areas. Areas were also segregated by military brand, dept., etc. with permissions only being given to those needing access. Again, to think that the exterior doors were not well covered via cameras is nothing but pure gullibility. In other words, don't believe for a second that the only available footage was that joke of three frames, or whatever it was, that the Feds finally released years after the actual occurrence. There was no national interest that could not have been removed from that film to have it released within days if not hours of that event. Frankly, I cannot imagine anything sensitive at all in it, never say never though. Either way, the fact that footage from 32 private cameras in that immediate area were stolen, all within 3 hours, tells us all that we need to know. They wouldn't even have been able to figure out where all of those 32 were in three hours much less have them all confiscated during that time. Clearly the due diligence thereof was done well prior to that day. The tours of the building more or less simply "feel good" tours. You really don't see much of any real value, it's mostly museum type stuff with a tremendously limited amount of access to the actual building. I'm not even sure that they run the tours anymore although I'd guess that they do. Ok. Am asking, Katniss, what your Pentagon-insights might be in assessment of the issues at #51.
#64. To: GreyLmist, Christine (#60)
BTW, if you're ever in the area, let me know. I'll take you down there and show you where everything used to be, where that 'cab' was, the flight path, where I was run off by an abusive and brainless LEO for publicly taking pics in public a day later, where gas station used to be, which IMO is no a coincidence that it's no longer there, i.e., part of the ongoing coverup. I can tell you how to find the camera view on the VDOT camera. If you look at it in the a.m., when this happened, in between 9 and 10 a.m., that camera is always pointed towards the northwestern skyline to capture the inbound commuting traffic, as it's a traffic camera, and from it you can see the highways as well as the entire skyline which easily would have captured no less than 10 seconds of the last part of that flight.
#65. To: FormerLurker (#62)
Who says that the calls weren't staged? That would be incredibly easy to do. It would have been simple enough to introduce a knockout gas or something more lethal into the ventilation system onboard the aircraft.
#66. To: Katniss (#63) (Edited)
the really real stuff would be ubderground. patagon pentalawn.., when one studies crash physics one can not help to.wonder. "how come a plane cane crash through.a.building like the pentacon(sarc) ... but fail to blow away.wooden spools." from 7 to the lawn the epa failed to act upon, ive disected 911 completly and what i discovered is that even among those who care, we seem to discombulated to effect meaningful change... even when irrefutable proof is given before ones eyes... we are still left with a majority of ignorant docille IGNORANT sheeple.... and i hate the word sheeple. with a passion... yet what can be done when the majority think dual wielding gun slingers can target with accuracy.... sandy hook, ft hood, bosron etc etc.. the propaganda matrix.relies on. propaganda. to definded ones mi.d is to learn their tech.iques. and share with others that they might be equally well armed.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#67. To: Horse (#0)
i have bitched about this subject for years. the hard.ware software issue.. it is as in conteovertable as low alltitude friction. .. f1 racing and 911 ..... i dont get why so few care and i can only attribute it to our propaganda matrix.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#68. To: Katniss (#65)
That goes without saying, and is especially true since cell phone calls from cruising altitude were impossible back in 2001. I was simply using X-15's comment to bring up the notion that the passengers and crew could have been killed off onboard the plane with a lethal agent introduced into the ventilation system, allowing the plane to be flown remotely without any interference. Of course with the crew and passengers deceased, those calls would need to come from someone else. Perhaps someone onboard (who had a gas mask stuffed in their carry on bag) could have taken some of the passenger's phones, taken out the SIM cards, stuck them into a reader which would have transmitted the specifics to a radio center with the proper equipment to emulate the owner's voice. Now exactly how they obtained samples of the correct voices, hmmm, NSA perhaps? Who says that the calls weren't staged? That would be incredibly easy to do.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#69. To: titorite (#66)
911 is a complete ruse, we're on the same sheet there. That hole in the Pentagon wall quite clearly isn't big enough to have a medium sized commmercial airliner go into it. Then when we're expected to believe that the wings folded up and followed the fuselage into the hole, and as you say with no marks on the lawn, all the lamposts undisturbed, the spools fine, etc., people have to a trained monkey not to see through that. Unfortunately we have a nation full of trained monkeys. Untrained monkeys are brighter.
#70. To: FormerLurker (#68)
Yeah, agree. A minor issue for anyone that would carry this out.
#71. To: Horse (#0) (Edited)
People who want to take the mass media version of things at face value are desperately fighting off the inevitable conclusion that we are chumped and swindled about every large subject. To accept that 9/11 is an inside job is to admit the people running society are vicious beasts that will do absolutely anything to keep themselves in power.... except go straight and give people what they actually want and need, of course. This site has got two big big threads going on 9/11. People done a valiant job laying out everything it should take to convince the hardest skeptic in both. Bear in mind that there are Jews and their clones crawling all over cyberspace throwing monkey wrenches into forums strictly to gum up the progress of truth. This rot gets intelligent, dedicated people mired in strategic brawls that will never end if these gremlins have anything to do with it. I’m not accusing anybody here of being one, but it sure looks that way sometimes. I tried searching this and the 400+ reply thread for any mention of Dr. Judy Wood or the possibility that the planes that hit the towers were unmanned drones. There aren’t any such mentions, right? Dr. Wood makes a brilliant case for 9/11 having been done by some kind of directed energy deal. Was it Dave vonKleist who posited the drones? Come on, the USG has all the top state-of-the-art technology at all times, and the science is advancing so fast that renowned Thinkers are warning of singularity. If they’re developing materials that can make a person or object invisible they can make it look like planes are hitting the towers and Pentacon when there really aren’t any – and exactly that type thing is reportedly in their toybox as well. FreedomsPhoenix.com does a great job of keeping up with wild tech breakthroughs among other things. I’m no scientist, but I know it’s absolutely impossible for a plane to hit the Pentacon and leave no real evidence on the ground. For my money the whole 9/11 caper was prepared detonations including Shanksville, or a mixture of them and Judy Wood’s thesis. Believe she was fired from her university job for it. She doesn’t actually present conclusions but by the end of her presentation they’re all but inevitable. Either scenario cancels out the issue of so many people keeping silent.... but anybody who has trouble believing legions of people would shut up about something this major doesn’t know human nature very well. Everywhere Jew world order evil is going on, you’ve got cleaning crew, bartenders, tons of office staff ad inf. witnessing it and keeping mum, if nothing else just to remain employed. Sometimes they’re threatened, lots of the time it’s not necessary – that’s the worst part. A term for this is needed – it’s similar to Stockholm Syndrome except that the victims don’t love their tormentors, they only fear them or simply do what everybody else does on a thinkless herd basis. The major subjects on which the truth is MIA could take up the dark side of the moon. Even when witnesses to something like 9/11 do speak up, the mentality of the sheeple at large (with the media, schools, churches and politicians pounding establishment BS into their heads 24/7) makes for an uphill battle. There are videos of numerous US presidents and other top officials calling ex cathedra for a new world order. In PNAC, the Jew power mafia openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor event” to put the next big scare on the sheeple. Wouldn’t brazen stuff like that mean a 9/11 is logically to be expected? Cui bono? The result of such offensives isn’t fired or hanged officials, it’s huge advances for them – in this case the instantaneous creation of the Department of Home Insecurity, with TSA and how much else springing up right in its footsteps. As the establishment cracks the whip and millions of new suckers tremble with each episode, the perps plan their next move for when the current fairy tale wears off.
#72. To: Katniss (#64)
I would like that. Thanks. I'll be in Maryland mid May for my niece's wedding, but only for a weekend and won't have time for anything or anyone other than family. I was actually born and raised in the Silver Spring/Wheaton area.
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#73. To: randge (#53)
Am only a few minutes into Part II but wanted to note an interesting section in Part I on the American Revolution for independence from Britain and what's described there, at 13:04-14:38, as the Fake Peace Talk of 9/11/1776. Additional reference: Staten Island Peace Conference - Wikipedia Also, at 2:09-2:31, footage is shown of the 1st tower coming down -- strangely, without noticably damaging the other one next to it, even though buildings farther away were reportedly destructed from flying debris and projectiles. ABELDANGER. Getting close to the whole ball of wax on 911.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#74. To: NeoconsNailed (#71)
So well reasoned and I agree with everything you wrote. Think about all who were involved with the Kennedy assassination and how many had to have been silenced either forcibly or willingly. I liken 9/11 to the assassination as I believe that once that was accomplished, the controllers knew they could do whatever they wished. Both events were coups.
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#75. To: christine, NeoconsNailed (#74)
WTC insurance fraud? Silverstein “trial” runs Monday through Wednesday World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein – who confessed on national television to “pulling” World Trade Center Building 7 – will appear in the courtroom of Judge Alvin Hellerstein at 500 Pearl St. in New York City. The non-jury trial,
#76. To: christine (#74)
Truer words were never spoken. The threat of murder is a huge factor. The Clinton body count is a long established presence online and there's an equivalent for each president as he emerges and racks up kills. The bodies strewn in the wake of the JFK hit are sobering to say the least, starting with Oswald and Ruby. Neither of them is particularly missed, but it's the principle of the thing. The wink -- and the smiles: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01743/johnson_1743537c.jpg http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/thewink.jpg Including Jackie's?
#77. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#75)
Fantastic news -- I had no idea!! Alas, he's got the dough to buy any judge. Would love to know why it took them 14 years. Yeah, the insurance fraud and his "pull it" speech are among the painfully obvious smoking guns. The day the brass claimed to find one of the Ayrabs' passport in the WTC wreckage was surely the lowest point in public intelligence in history.
#78. To: NeoconsNailed (#77)
Silverstein Hellerstein
#79. To: Katniss (#63) (Edited)
Interesting point that the various cameras in the immediate area were probably pinpointed sometime prior for quick film-confiscations (for security purposes or whatever). The Pentagon brass didn't seem to have a security issue with the grounds being filmed by those cameras on other days. Likely, the footage was seized because of what it wouldn't have recorded -- a plane strike. I'd expect there were more than door-cameras at the Pentagon that would have been pointed towards a long-derelict, incoming plane on a trajectory with it, if there had been one. The apparent lackadaisicalness about that is anomalous, imo, or even purposely appearing to be so off-guard for reasons unknown. YouTube comment at Pentagon Attack Footage - 'Missile' and(or) 'Plane'?: "There are at least 5 nice closed circuit security cameras atop the pentagon roof's edge on this side of the building. The President was due to land on that helicopter pad in about 3 hours in which, the plane supposedly nearly flew over. This was a very 'High Security Area'" Another comment there: "the only thing hijacked on 9/11 was the US Government!" Two film-analysis discussion points at truthandshadows.wordpress.com: "Does it not strike people as odd that we get to see footage of the WTC plane crashes over and over, but not for the pentagon?" ... "The government has no pride to wound. It has pushed the 'incompetence' theory from the beginning to distract us" Pentagon 9/11 still images - YouTube - 29 seconds; the 5-frame "drive-in movie" originally released in 2002 Five frames of footage taken by a security camera at the Pentagon on 9/11. The frames were released on March 7, 2002. Relevant event in the History Commons database: March 7, 2002: Plane Crashing into Pentagon Is Shown in Photos. Link: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/co... [2003 Wayback Machine archive copy -- pics show that the film was date stamped as Sep. 12, 2001] These two short videos were released years later in 2006 after Judicial Watch made a FOIA/Freedom of Information Act request. They both show small "UFOs"/unidentified flying objects moving fast from the left side of the screen towards the strike zone. The [ This is previously unreleased footage of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon obtained by public interest group, Judicial Watch. For more info, visit JudicialWatch.org Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 1 of 2 - YouTube - 3.25 minutes Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 2 of 2 - YouTube - less than 3.5 minutes Edited punctuation, stikethrough, last 2 video paths + last sentence of paragraph 1. You: In other words, don't believe for a second that the only available footage was that joke of three frames, or whatever it was, that the Feds finally released years after the actual occurrence. There was no national interest that could not have been removed from that film to have it released within days if not hours of that event. Frankly, I cannot imagine anything sensitive at all in it, never say never though.
Uploaded on Jan 27, 2008 by History Commons Groups
second first] video looks more Sci-Fi due to lens glare seeming to be something shiny on the ground until a vehicle passes by and, also, something that looks to be hovering in mid-air, probably from a lens smudge: Uploaded on May 16, 2006 by Judicial Watch
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#80. To: Katniss (#64)
I can tell you how to find the camera view on the VDOT camera. If you look at it in the a.m., when this happened, in between 9 and 10 a.m., that camera is always pointed towards the northwestern skyline to capture the inbound commuting traffic, as it's a traffic camera, and from it you can see the highways as well as the entire skyline which easily would have captured no less than 10 seconds of the last part of that flight. Thanks for the kindly invite. I'd like to be able to visit there but chances are slim to none. I think you're the third person, afaik, to report having been prevented from taking pictures there soon after. Maybe Judicial Watch could file a Freedom of Information Act request for the Virginia Department of Transportation footage during the time period in question that day. It managed to get 2 additional films released by the Pentagon in 2006. BTW, if you're ever in the area, let me know. I'll take you down there and show you where everything used to be, where that 'cab' was, the flight path, where I was run off by an abusive and brainless LEO for publicly taking pics in public a day later, where gas station used to be, which IMO is no a coincidence that it's no longer there, i.e., part of the ongoing coverup.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#81. To: RickyJ (#2)
CTers usually prefer to state that the planes were *diverted* to a place or places *unknown*...congrats...you may be on the road to recovery... They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#82. To: NeoconsNailed (#77)
Snowden Probably Knows About 911 - Daily Squib www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/4167-snowden-probably-knows-about-911.html
#83. To: war (#81) (Edited)
The official story is a ridiculous Conspiracy Theory, war, that admittedly would be unacceptable by court standards of integrity and is why the invasion of Afghanistan was launched instead -- which makes you and others arrogantly promoting it fanatic Conspiracy Theorists in denial. Edited for capitalization and punctuation + word insert. CTers
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#84. To: GreyLmist (#83) (Edited)
Yea...never have planes been hijacked...nor been used as missiles...a massive explosion and collision don't result in massive damage...10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, ignited, in to a fuel rich environment doesn't result in fires of any significance and, my personal favorite, gravity doesn't *work* in a direct fashion but in a circuitous one...i.e. a falling object doesn't fall straight down... PS: If we were going to bomb any nation over a pipeline in that region it would have been Russia... The official story is a ridiculous conspiracy theory...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#85. To: war, GreyLmist (#84)
10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, MOST of which burnt up OUTSIDE the towers, and what was left burned for only several minutes before being spent. ignited, in to a fuel rich environment doesn't result in fires of any significance Sure there were OFFICE fires, but they burned for less than an hour, and as the towers acted as HUGE heatsinks, there's no possible way for temperatures to have reached anywhere close enough to weaken steel. and, my personal favorite, gravity doesn't *work* in a direct fashion but in a circuitous one...i.e. a falling object doesn't fall straight down... Gravity doesn't pull you through the floor you're standing on now does it? Are you travelling through the core of the earth as we speak, or is the floor you're standing on remaining in place?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#86. To: FormerLurker (#85)
You have no proof of that whatsoever...in fact, what analysis has been done puts the amount burned as ignited mist outside of the building @ around 15%... MOST of which burnt up OUTSIDE the towers
--Are you a *Jew*?
#87. To: FormerLurker (#85) (Edited)
Unless the 17 floors above me are falling on me... Gravity doesn't pull you through the floor you're standing on now does it?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#88. To: FormerLurker (#85)
Duh... South Tower hit @ 9:03 AM...collapses @ 9:59 AM...56 minutes...less than an hour... Congrats...you finally stated something *truthful*... Sure there were OFFICE fires, but they burned for less than an hour
--Are you a *Jew*?
#89. To: war (#88)
Congrates, you FINALLY admit to something that is true. Congrats...you finally stated something *truthful*...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#90. To: war (#87)
And why would they be falling on you? Even if they did, YOU'D be squished like a bug, but the floors below ALWAYS supported the weight above. Now sure, if the floor you're standing on is damaged, IT might fail, but not the 70 or so floors below it. ESPECIALLY when the floors above you turned to dust as they collapsed and much of the mass of those floors went UP or OUTWARDS due to air pressure blowing them in those directions as they "fell". Unless the 17 floors above me are falling on me...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#91. To: war (#88)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#92. To: titorite (#91)
Greater weight of the upper floors... how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#93. To: war (#86) (Edited)
You are either chronically challenged in the intellectual department, or you are a HUGE liar. Not only do videos of the South Tower impact depict huge fireballs created outside the tower, but even FEMA states in their report that a significant percentage of fuel was spent in those fireballs, and the remaining fuel was spent after the first few minutes. Here's a link to the FEMA report if you wish to educate yourself (see pages 2- 21 and 2-22); Do you not read up on anything before you make such inane declarations? You have no proof of that whatsoever...in fact, what analysis has been done puts the amount burned as ignited mist outside of the building @ around 15%...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#94. To: war (#92)
LOL!!! Greater weight of the upper floors...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#95. To: war (#92)
thats not a very good guess if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside. see the first tower allegedly got a direct hit putting most of the.fuel into the.building BUT the.second tkwer was a corner hit distrubuting most of.the.fuel into the air . so if you wanna say fire caused it and tbat it fell first because it had more weight on a fire weakened load... thats fine.... can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings?
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#96. To: war (#84) (Edited)
Yea...never have planes been hijacked...nor been used as missiles...a massive explosion and collision don't result in massive damage...10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, ignited, in to a fuel rich environment doesn't result in fires of any significance and, my personal favorite, gravity doesn't *work* in a direct fashion but in a circuitous one...i.e. a falling object doesn't fall straight down... PS: If we were going to bomb any nation over a pipeline in that region it would have been Russia... Don't be absurd. That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day in the conventional sense of terrorist pilots aboard commandeering the aircraft. A condundrum for Official Story indoctrinees is explaining how, for instance, our Military jets could intercept the foreign-based and far distant Achille Lauro hijack for a safe landing but somehow missed doing so here 4 times in one day. There's nobody in this forum that I'm aware of who is under any impression that planes couldn't be used as missiles before then. Those who question the official version have continually been pointing out, lo these many years, that the Pentagon staff, too, were well aware of that as a possibile occurrence and defensively drilled for it. It's G. W. Bush and his civilian admins who claimed to be clueless about such; so taunt them about it, not us. The WTC was not engulfed in flames -- just localized fires that diminished, as news footage shows. The alleged strikezone jumpers at the windows weren't even demonstrably under threat of smoke inhalation, much less about to be incinerated. The alleged plane impact damage to the buildings is comparable to an axe blow on tree trunks that likewise wouldn't be much structurally destabilized so easily. Your pipeline assertion about Russia doesn't match the reported intimidations of Afghanistan in Pre-9/11 "negotiations". We can discuss "circuitous" demolishment of the Towers, perhaps by electrification of the steel framing (which could even reduce it selectively to the consistency of iron-sand, if need be) in conjunction with strategically placed welding "erasers"/arc gougers (at salvageable-steel points, which would sound explosive) and by sound waves directed through the concrete to alter its chemistry, powered by the Consolidated Edison plant underground there -- right about the time you get done explaining the gov-issued "cell phone calls" in-flight that the technology then doesn't. Edited spelling, spacing + rewording at 5th, last and next to last sentences. The official story is a ridiculous Conspiracy Theory...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#97. To: war (#84)
Sure, if you don't mind mushroom clouds appearing everywhere on the horizon, or directly over your head. PS: If we were going to bomb any nation over a pipeline in that region it would have been Russia...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#98. To: war (#92) (Edited)
Greater weight of the upper floors... Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below. Comparing the Towers to steel box beams and the alleged impact zones as similar to the first deconstruction dismantling-step of material removal to make segments of a beam topple over, a welder could take out triangular parts on each side of that space, pointed towards the back like this: < > and it likely still wouldn't slant forward that far up and topple off until they stepped around to the back area and blowtorched it across from one triangular point to the other. Edited for a word replacement. how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#99. To: christine (#72) (Edited)
Sure, just let me know. I'm not sure you'd want to live in the SS/Wheaton area today. When's the last time you were up this way? I would like that. Thanks. I'll be in Maryland mid May for my niece's wedding, but only for a weekend and won't have time for anything or anyone other than family. I was actually born and raised in the Silver Spring/Wheaton area.
#100. To: GreyLmist (#79)
And what it would have, a missile strike. I'm sure that there were cameras on the property covering the perimeter in the event of anything suspicious approaching, and as you say, the helipad would have been on video too, some if not most of which would have had a horizon shot. Likely, the footage was seized because of what it wouldn't have recorded -- a plane strike.
#101. To: GreyLmist (#80)
I took a bunch and was chased off by some stooge cop decided that he was the most important person on the planet that evening. And frankly, what should have been to hide from pictures being taken several hundred yards away? It was public, If I had been elsewhere with a tele lense it would have been OK? Good luck with that VDOT footage. I'm guessing that was part of the confiscated lot and that since then it's been erased. I can't imagine that they would keep them that long anyway. Under normal circumstances there wouldn't be any reason to. I think you're the third person, afaik, to report having been prevented from taking pictures there soon after. Maybe Judicial Watch could file a Freedom of Information Act request for the Virginia Department of Transportation footage during the time period in question that day. It managed to get 2 additional films released by the Pentagon in 2006.
#102. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker (#98) (Edited)
No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... Here's a pic from a CT site so it will have credibility in your *mind*: In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept... Note also the visible fire...which FormerLurker claims were *out*.... Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#103. To: FormerLurker (#90) (Edited)
See my previous comment about gravity...add on to that something hundreds of feet in the air over my head with nothing holding it up... Even if they did, YOU'D be squished like a bug Thank you, Mr. Obvious...now apply that to the floors in the path of a falling object that weighs millions of tons... And why would they be falling on you?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#104. To: Katniss, GreyLmist (#80)
The Pentagon has a very wide *no photo* zone around it. Very wide... I'll take you down there and show you where everything used to be, where that 'cab' was, the flight path, where I was run off by an abusive and brainless LEO for publicly taking pics in public a day later, where gas station used to be, which IMO is no a coincidence that it's no longer there, i.e., part of the ongoing coverup.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#105. To: titorite (#95)
Good thing that I'm not guessing then but merely stating fact which is ALWAYS good. if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside Uh...no...about 15% of the fuel burned outside... can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings? North Tower...90-100...center impact ~95 South...75-85...center impact ~78... thats not a very good guess
--Are you a *Jew*?
#106. To: GreyLmist (#96)
If they weren't hijacked why did they not reach their destination? That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day
--Are you a *Jew*?
#107. To: FormerLurker (#94)
17 floor difference in center of impact = millions of tons... LOL!!!
--Are you a *Jew*?
#108. To: FormerLurker (#97)
That kind of answers that doesn't it? Also, IIRC, the Taliban didn't control the area where the still yet to be built pipeline will traverse... Sure, if you don't mind mushroom clouds appearing everywhere on the horizon, or directly over your head.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#109. To: FormerLurker (#93)
In point of fact the very FEMA report you link to says no such thing... The discussion of fuel dispersal and the fireball begins on 2-20... Again, your bullshit has been *falsified*... FEMA states in their report that a significant percentage of fuel was spent in those fireballs...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#110. To: war (#109)
Anyone with working eyes will see on page 2-22 that FEMA states the jet fuel was spent within the first few minutes. So that makes you a liar war, but I'm sure everyone on the net who's ever read your posts already knows that. Again, your bullshit has been *falsified*...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#111. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Anyone with working eyes will see that on THIS page I never disputed how long it took for the fuel, turned accelerant, to burn... Nice try, Strawman... Anyone with working eyes will see on page 2-22 that FEMA states the jet fuel was spent within the first few minutes.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#112. To: war (#105)
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact. i think you may care more about arguing and less about facts.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#113. To: titorite (#112) (Edited)
The plane hit the tower...that makes it a *direct* hit...for it to be an *indirect* hit it would have had to have hit something *else* first...where it directly hit is inconsequential... You're trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper, outdoors, in the winter... the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#114. To: war (#109)
Tell me, what's it like being a poster-boy for the establishment?
#115. To: Katniss (#114)
I'm anything but... You have no idea how I wish that this bullshit was true... Tell me, what's it like being a poster-boy for the establishment?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#116. To: All (#113)
I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle, entirely disappeared through that hole, then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground, is either a moron or a willing dupe/willful ignoramus. There is no other alternative. 
#117. To: war (#115)
You come across as a defender of establishment lies.
#118. To: Katniss (#116)
You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*? Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick... I'm sorry, but anyone that (sic) thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#119. To: Katniss (#117)
For nearly 14 years no one has demonstrated that they are lies... On the other hand, what has been presented to me over that same time period, and is on display on this very page, has been very easily falsified... I am a big believer in Occam's Razor... You come across as a defender of establishment lies.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#120. To: Katniss (#116)
Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other... Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry... then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground
--Are you a *Jew*?
#121. To: war (#111)
Nice try, Strawman... So what exactly was your point in saying "10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, " in a sarcastic response? 10's of thousands of gallons DID NOT enter either WTC tower, and what DID enter was spent within the first few minutes. The FEMA report states that it can be assumed that approximately 4000 gallons of fuel entered the impact areas and was available for combustion. They also stated that IF the upper bound of 10,000 gallons entered (the amount of fuel each aircraft would have been carrying), the fuel would have been exhausted after 5 minutes. So get off your high horse, since you are doing nothing more than tossing shit against the wall to see what sticks. Anyone with working eyes will see that on THIS page I never disputed how long it took for the fuel, turned accelerant, to burn...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#122. To: war (#120)
So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way? Do you not see a major problem with that?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#123. To: war (#119)
That a whopper of a lie in and of itself.... For nearly 14 years no one has demonstrated that they are lies...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#124. To: Katniss, war (#117)
Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#125. To: FormerLurker (#121)
It was in response to you claiming that I don't accept physical laws. The FEMA report states that it can be assumed that approximately 4000 gallons of fuel entered the impact areas and was available for combustion. They also stated that IF the upper bound of 10,000 gallons entered (the amount of fuel each aircraft would have been carrying), the fuel would have been exhausted after 5 minutes. That same report you are quoting also states that fuel started fires across MAJOR portions of several of the impacted floors... So what exactly was your point in saying "10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, " in a sarcastic response?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#126. To: FormerLurker (#123)
Nothing that you have stated as fact - except for how long the fires in WTC 2 burned and you did that by accident - has withstood scrutiny...nothing... I've heard all of this crap almost from the get go...in fact, the FEMA report that you are promoting here is what started all the CT bullshit... Here's a helpful hint...planes that are deliberately commandeered and do not reach their destination are hijacked. Saying that the planes on 9/11 were NOT hijacked when they fully fit the above definition - regardless of who did it and why - is pretty freakin' *dumb*... That a whopper of a lie in and of itself....
--Are you a *Jew*?
#127. To: FormerLurker (#122)
It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground... Occam's Razor... So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#128. To: FormerLurker (#124)
Why does a squirrel prefer oak trees? Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#129. To: FormerLurker (#121)
...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c at ceiling level and 400c to 800c elsewhere... Those temps are well capable of compromising the strength of steel... The FEMA report states...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#130. To: war (#127)
Uh huh. Do you know anything about aerodynamics? To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING. What is especially convincing that NO 757 in the WORLD could fly at over 500 mph several feet off the ground is a phenomenon known as ground effect, where the closer an aircraft is to the ground, the more LIFT it experiences. More LIFT equates to the plane ASCENDING, UNLESS the plane is flying SLOW enough where the total amount of lift is less than the weight of the plane. There is NO possible way for a large aircraft to fly level at a speed anywhere CLOSE to 500 mph that close to the ground. It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#131. To: war (#118)
Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick... Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls. Simple (simple) geometry attests to that. You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*?
#132. To: war (#119) (Edited)
By whom? Frankly, I'm sure that all of it has been "falsified," but by whom is the question. The Nist report had more holes than a mountain of swiss cheese. On the other hand, what has been presented to me over that same time period, and is on display on this very page, has been very easily falsified...
#133. To: war, All (#120)
Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry... Congratulations Einstein, you just made my initial point again! So tell me there, and once again, how does a plane come in at an angle, which is indisputable for the story of it being a plane, hit the first ring of the Pentagon, and then not only disintegrate entirely into a hole that's not even big enough for a fuselage, factually, then alter it's path and transform a vertical (as you call it) or angled (as I call it with the difference appearing to be semantical only) into a near if not perfectly horizontal one as it then subsequently drills through other rings and walls of concrete in the Pentagon? You're starting to come across as a real moron here, so answer that. You even agreed that it's impossible, so how come the evidence is just that but you still insist that it was a plane? I can't wait for the answer to this. I think anyway. Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other...
#134. To: war (#129)
The jet fuel fires could only have raised the temperature of the steel by 257C, and here is why. From THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? ...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c at ceiling level and 400c to 800c elsewhere...
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.
Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).
Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O
Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.
In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.
Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.
We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).
For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:
(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O
However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.
Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.
So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:
(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2
From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is: CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs
In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.
Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.
Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.
So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.
That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise: 39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C, 97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C, 349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C, 500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C, 1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.
To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade. Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C] Nitrogen 1,038 Water Vapor 1,690 Carbon Dioxide 845 Lightweight Concrete 800 Steel 450
Substituting these values into the above, we obtain: 39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C, 97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C, 349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C, 500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C, 1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.
So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is
= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.
Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that
1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000
Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).
So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.
Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#135. To: FormerLurker (#124)
Dude, I'm tellin' ya. You know, it's one thing to be ignorant, it's quite another to imply that someone is amiss, and then restate their exact point again while standing behind it, namely what you just refuted. I'm really curious as to what his response will be. Probably consulting with the people in the next cubicle at State. The government hires on the lower half of the IQ pool. Apparently war has been assigned to 4um, since we were lacking government stooges and clowns, they felt bad for us and gave us our very own forum shillster.
#136. To: war (#126)
By his sources they are. Therein lies the problem. I'm sure that despite the ever-growing preponderance of a consensus, he still believes that 7 fell from terrorist activity too. Honestly, and we wonder why this stuff flies. Too many people simply want to believe it because it's politically expedient for them to do so. Nothing that you have stated as fact
#137. To: FormerLurker (#130)
Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane... AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing... Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade... To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#138. To: Katniss (#135)
I can't understand how people such them can live with themselves or sleep at night. Imagine coming home from work and having the wifey ask, "how was your day today honey", and responding, "oh it was great, I met my quota of posts and then some...". Probably consulting with the people in the next cubicle at State.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#139. To: Katniss (#136)
Huh? Assuming that even makes sense referring to a source as proof of *fact* is illogical...it's called *circular*... I'm sure that despite the ever-growing preponderance of a consensus, he still believes that 7 fell from terrorist activity too. Wha...huh? Preponderance of a consensus? Do you *listen* to yourself? 7 fell as a result of the damage it sustained form the collapsing North Tower...I know and regularly speak to people who were on scene from 9:30AM and on that morning...I also know people who were on scene not long after the first plane hit...sadly, I haven't been able to talk to them since... Honestly, and we wonder why this stuff flies. Too many people simply want to believe it because it's politically expedient for them to do so. If I let my politics be my guide here then GW Bush would have been one of the pilots... By his sources they are.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#140. To: war (#126)
Please point out any post I've made here where I've said the planes were NOT hijacked. Of course they were hijacked, the big question is by WHOM, and HOW. We know they weren't hijacked by those claimed by the US government, since more than a few of them have publically appeared and stated they were obviously not the ones who hijacked those aircraft. We also know that the cell phone calls were faked, since it was impossible for cell phone calls to be made from cruising altitude back in 2001. So WHY were those calls faked, and WHO would have the ability to do such a thing? Here's a helpful hint...planes that are deliberately commandeered and do not reach their destination are hijacked. Saying that the planes on 9/11 were NOT hijacked when they fully fit the above definition - regardless of who did it and why - is pretty freakin' *dumb*...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#141. To: Katniss (#135)
You have a HUGE problem with that. He hasn't refuted anything. One the other hand, everything that he has stated has been refuted...except for how long the fires in the South Tower burned...but he did that by accident... You know, it's one thing to be ignorant, it's quite another to imply that someone is amiss, and then restate their exact point again while standing behind it, namely what you just refuted.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#142. To: FormerLurker (#140)
Ahem.... who is it that has a budget of trillions per year, all the latest technology and the ability to buy or coerce almost anybody to do anything? Cui bono? How much mileage did they get out of the that idiotically theatrical "Let's roll" crap? So WHY were those calls faked, and WHO would have the ability to do such a thing?
#143. To: FormerLurker (#140)
You've offered no proof that anyone other than the 19 identified as hijackers,. regardless of what names they used, did not hijack those planes. We also know that the cell phone calls were faked, since it was impossible for cell phone calls to be made from cruising altitude back in 2001. You need to stop claiming *we know*...you've offered no proof of anything... We know they weren't hijacked by those claimed by the US government...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#144. To: war (#137) (Edited)
AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing... Total fail.. First off, lift is created by air flowing OVER the upper CURVED area of the wing, and since it needs to travel over more area than the flat lower surface, the air pressure is lower above the wing than below it, cause the wing to LIFT the plane. As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift. Flaps are used to INCREASE lift, not reduce it. They are used at take-off to allow the plane to take-off at a lower speed than it would be travelling at altitude, and to safely land at a lower speed. Flaps are NOT used to "slow the plane down by creating drag". And the pilot does NOT increase power at landing, he REVERSES the engine thrust AFTER landing in order to help reduce the speed of the aircraft in order to safely taxi to the terminal and not overshoot the runway. Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade... If I were you I'd sue the school you went to for a full refund. Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#145. To: war (#143)
You've offered no proof that there were ANY individuals sent by bin Laden to fly those aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon. Besides, the Pentagon attack as claimed by the media and the government is absolutely physically impossible. You've offered no proof that anyone other than the 19 identified as hijackers,. regardless of what names they used, did not hijack those planes.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#146. To: war (#141)
YOU have refuted known facts, and spewed nothing more than your "beliefs" based upon media lies. He hasn't refuted anything.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#147. To: NeoconsNailed (#142)
Cui bono? How much mileage did they get out of the that idiotically theatrical "Let's roll" crap? To any rational and unbiased individual, that'd be an obvious thing. Unfortunately, not everyone is rational or unbiased. Ahem.... who is it that has a budget of trillions per year, all the latest technology and the ability to buy or coerce almost anybody to do anything?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#148. To: FormerLurker (#146)
Um...facts cannot be refuted... YOU have refuted known facts...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#149. To: FormerLurker (#145)
I have the words of Bin Laden himself... www.foxnews.com/story/200...ms-responsibility-for- 11/ I also have the lack of any other plausible scenario... You've offered no proof that there were ANY individuals sent by bin Laden to fly those aircraft into the WTC or the Pentagon.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#150. To: war (#148)
Um, you certainly have tried everything you could to do so. Um...facts cannot be refuted...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#151. To: FormerLurker (#144)
You felt the need to repeat back to me what I told you as if I hadn't told you...exactly why? First off, lift is created by air flowing OVER the upper CURVED area of the wing
--Are you a *Jew*?
#152. To: war (#149)
The REAL bin Laden denied involement in the attacks immediately after they occured. There have been more than a few obviously FAKE bin Ladens since then. From Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks - CNN "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. From Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks I have the words of Bin Laden himself...
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
The countries which do not agree to become the U.S. slaves are China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria [Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia] and Russia. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the U.S. Government has stated. But the Bush Administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#153. To: FormerLurker (#144)
I'll cut to the chase here because you obviously *think* you can simply rephrase what it is that you *think* you've read on Wikipedia... Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag... Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument... Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps... As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#154. To: FormerLurker (#152)
Oh...Bin Laden says that he didn't do it... That seals it...he says he didn't do it... Okay... I'm convinced... (snicker)
--Are you a *Jew*?
#155. To: FormerLurker (#150)
You haven't presented any other than for how long WTC2 fires burned...and that was by accident... Um, you certainly have tried everything you could to do so.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#156. To: war, All (#139)
It's official, you're a complete fool. That's best case. 7 fell as a result of the damage it sustained form the collapsing North Tower.
#157. To: war (#155)
Hey tinker bell, I mentioned it at least several times over the past few days that the South Tower collapsed after burning for less than an hour. You haven't presented any other than for how long WTC2 fires burned...and that was by accident...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#158. To: war (#154)
That seals it...he says he didn't do it... Okay... I'm convinced... You were trying to "prove" he did it by posting some bogus material about him claiming credit, but when he TWICE denied he was involved, then what he says doesn't make a difference. He's guilty simply because YOU say it, right? Oh...Bin Laden says that he didn't do it...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#159. To: war (#141)
Right now you come across as a disingenuous pig. Shittin' all over the place, etc. I made a statement (116), you thought you challenged it when instead you merely, and apparently unwittingly (which is the laugh of the day so far for me) reinforced it thinking that you were contesting me (120), then in 133 I asked you a question based on that and you have ignored answering that question. That pretty much says all that we need to know about you. Either answer it or GTFO.
#160. To: FormerLurker (#158)
Seriously, I doubt that this clown has an IQ of much better than 90 with the jibberish that he's spewing. My only question is whether or not he has a teleprompter telling him what to say.
#161. To: war (#153)
Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag... So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!! Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument... It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING. Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps... Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off. It's obvious you've never flown a real (or virtual) aircraft, ever.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#162. To: Katniss (#160)
Most likely is fed "talking points" via IM or something.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#163. To: FormerLurker (#162)
I just think he's your typical American, has a political agenda and will accept anything that doesn't step on it, combined with not being among the brighter ones in the populace. Hey, someone's gotta be in that 50% below average intelligence. I guess I get pissed off and start suspecting either idiocy or subterfuge when people don't answer direct questions, particularly when they initiate the topic, and in his case, completely misunderstood my point, then made it thinking he was slamming me but foolishly reinforced it, but now is running from it like a frightened little girl. I have zero respect for people like that. That's how cops behave. They do their damage and then hide behind the apron strings of societie's corrupt system/establishment, rarely stepping up and telling the truth about their own deeds. Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile.
#164. To: Katniss (#163)
Maybe, as he certainly falls into their low IQ hiring standard. Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#165. To: FormerLurker (#161)
I have absolutely no idea how you could have *concluded* that based upon what was written by me. Congrats...you've finally *stumped* me. It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING. I know what you *said*. My response was that this was irrelevant information...you could have also typed "and when they arrive at the gate and the equipment comes to a complete stop and the captain double dings the flight attendant opens the cabin door.." which, of course, is correct but has nothing to do with the topic of FLYING... Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off. You're out of your mind...again you are confusing POWER with speed...or maybe you're just fully confused... So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!!
--Are you a *Jew*?
#166. To: FormerLurker (#162) (Edited)
Yep ...in fact...as you are typing them in I am reading them and I am already formulating my response... Thanks, NSA! Oops...you misspelled *9/11* there, schmackle... Most likely is fed "talking points" via IM or something.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#167. To: Katniss (#163)
It's not the *thinking* that you *just* do...as minimal as it is...it's what you do with it afterward that's the issue... Hey, someone's gotta be in that 50% below average intelligence. Um...don't look now but... I guess I get pissed off and start suspecting either idiocy or subterfuge when people don't answer direct questions, particularly when they initiate the topic, and in his case, completely misunderstood my point, then made it thinking he was slamming me but foolishly reinforced it, but now is running from it like a frightened little girl. I Whoa...take a breath there, Oswald...then use the EDIT feature that 4um so graciously provides... Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile. Yea...me and Tull...bosom buddies... I just think
--Are you a *Jew*?
#168. To: FormerLurker (#162)
This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit...you're an anonymous clown who has absolutely no clue about what it is that you purport to *talk* about...but, yea...government time, resources and money are being spent to discredit you... PS: Add in *megalomaniacally paranoid* to that description... Most likely is fed "talking points" via IM or something.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#169. To: FormerLurker (#158)
He's innocent simply because he said it, right? He's guilty simply because YOU say it, right?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#170. To: war (#169)
As I said, YOU tried to paint him as confessing to being involved in the attacks, where he had actually said he was NOT involved. So that shows how you like to toss out propaganda as if it's fact. And what it comes down to is that there is NO evidence that bin Laden was involved one bit whatsoever. He's innocent simply because he said it, right?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#171. To: war (#168)
I guess you don't keep track of the view count at the top of the thread, eh? Right now it's at 791. This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#172. To: war (#165)
So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#173. To: Katniss (#131)
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire... That's a faulty assumption... https://youtu.be/Vknf19mfwkw Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#174. To: FormerLurker (#172)
We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours... So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#175. To: FormerLurker (#134)
You're hilarious...you quote the FEMA report when it's convenient and then try to refute it when it is not... So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#176. To: FormerLurker (#171)
Right now it's at 791. It's been up for 2 and a half months...25 views a day... WOW... I guess you don't keep track of the view count at the top of the thread, eh?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#177. To: war (#174)
Yeah, he CRASHED into the side of a mountain, which is pretty hard to miss. The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner. We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#178. To: war (#168)
So war is your real name? Talk about anonymous! If the government did hire you then they are getting a bad deal, but then again the government is use to wasting taxpayer money. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone. I don't usually respond to you because you are pretty much a waste of time. This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit...you're an anonymous clown who has absolutely no clue about what it is that you purport to *talk* about...but, yea...government time, resources and money are being spent to discredit you...
God is always good!
#179. To: war, All (#173) (Edited)
That's a faulty assumption... Dude, you really really are dense. Seriously, have you ever had your IQ measured? I cannot imagine that it's above 100. Seriously. You're so stupid that in your response you completely ignore, once again, the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase. Whether you personally choose to post like a stupid fuck or whether you're simply too stupid for your own polemical good notwithstanding, you're a fool and a moron. You're also extremely dishonest and disingenuous, clearly, which is why people think you're a government employee. You match most of the criteria, certainly all of the critical ones. Please do not make me put you on ignore with further idiocy, willful ignornace, and further proof that you are indeed an ignoramus! Honestly, is it even possible for someone that can express themself in writing so well be so fucking stupid? Honestly, run for federal office, that's exactly where you belong, with the rest of the ignorant lying pigs with agendas that are counter to the interests of the people. Why do you even post here? Your posts are like a turd on top of a hot fudge sunday here. You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire...
#180. To: Katniss (#179) (Edited)
I'm going to respond only to the part of your post that is spittle free: the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase. A context that you neither provided nor established when you posted that cropped, out of focus, mostly darkened, very small picture with the box on it.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#181. To: FormerLurker (#170)
And then he actually said that he was involved in the attacks. And what it comes down to is that there is NO evidence that bin Laden was involved one bit whatsoever. His own confession notwithstanding. As I said, YOU tried to paint him as confessing to being involved in the attacks, where he had actually said he was NOT involved.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#182. To: RickyJ (#178)
Anyone with eyes can see whatever it is that they want to see. BTW, gravity helped, too. Get a 10 foot length of 1x6 and score the board about 3/8 x 3/8 4nches from both ends and dead center...suspend the board at the ends only and put a 100lb weight in the middle... Report back what happens... Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#183. To: FormerLurker (#177)
Apparently, not. The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#184. To: war (#106)
If they weren't hijacked why did they not reach their destination? You omitted a considerable part of my statement there at #96, which was: "in the conventional sense of terrorist pilots aboard commandeering the aircraft." But that's ok this time. I'm good to go just with what you asked. I'll start here: DEPARTURE GATE - Scene from SKYGATE 911 - YouTube - 5 minutes Published on Dec 14, 2013 A scene from the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - SKYGATE 911. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for full film and comprehensive analysis produced by professional aviators. Thank you for your support! That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#185. To: war (#104) (Edited)
Very wide... ...for peasants who can't afford a telephoto lens camera, I suppose so. The Pentagon has a very wide *no photo* zone around it.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#186. To: war (#180)
You're both dishonest and stupid.
#187. To: Katniss (#186)
YOU posted a photo and gave no context whatsoever for it. YOU posted a photo with contrasts that are barely distinguishable. YOU posted a photo that is barely in focus. YOU posted a photo that has a small square around a BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area on the photo. YOU then pretended that you can actually *see* something in that BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area. YOU are trying to claim that this photo *proves* that the plane that people saw fly into the Pentagon and which took out several light poles, including one that hit a vehicle with a driver who saw the plane you claim does not exist, was not really a plane. But it's me who's *dishonest* and *stupid*. "IF I say I am floating off of the floor...and you say that I am floating off of the floor...then who is to argue that I am not floating off of the floor." O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984 You may be O'Brien but I ain't Winston Smith, pumpkin... You're both dishonest and stupid.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#188. To: GreyLmist (#185) (Edited)
Wow...you are a *wily* one... BTW, you do know that for that rigging to be effective that it would have to have separate pieces of equipment? ...for peasants who can't afford a telephoto lens camera, I suppose so.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#189. To: war (#102) (Edited)
No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... Here's a pic from a CT site so it will have credibility in your *mind*: In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept... Note also the visible fire...which FormerLurker claims were *out*.... You at #139: "referring to a source as proof of *fact* is illogical...it's called *circular*" ...unless it's posted by you and then it's merely more like...loopy. A 9/11 CT [Conspiracy Theory] site, imo, would be an official story dispensary -- i.e. the most illogical sort. I didn't ask about why the floors tilted or the visiblity of fire, which is questionable as such in your pic and is better evidence of the much huger absence of raging fires. Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said. So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Were their exterior surfaces made of teflon or something like that, do you think? And the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen? What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel? Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers, smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers? That'll do for now as my short-list presently re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies. Awaiting your input. Edited spelling + comment sentences 2 and 6. Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#190. To: war (#188)
Don't really care. I'm a peasant who probably couldn't afford it. BTW, you do know that for that rigging to be effective that it would have to have separate pieces of equipment?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#191. To: GreyLmist (#190)
Ha...touche'...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#192. To: war (#191)
Merci...lol
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#193. To: GreyLmist (#189) (Edited)
...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so... So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Stipulating, for the moment, that is true... So freakin' what if there were no stains on the aluminum? Is it your claim that there was no visible smoke? And the first Tower that fell without (significantly) damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. A) Where's your evidence for that? B) The South Tower was closer to the Banker's Trust building which, was directly across Liberty Street, than it was to the North Tower...IIRC, the South Tower actually collapsed in the direction of the SW and took out the Banker's Trust Building and the Winter Garden of the WFC. What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel? When the North Tower was impacted and I looked out the window from my vantage point in the northwest corner of 1 Liberty, it was like a ticker tape parade and some of the papers that were fluttering were singed...I remember one piece of paper hitting the window right before my nose that had a FUJI BANK letterhead. As for your question...unless you were in the tower in the very area of the fire, you have no way of telling me what was or wasn't on fire... Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers... Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same. Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said..
--Are you a *Jew*?
#194. To: war (#183)
Then show us all the videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Go ahead, call your FBI buddies and have them post those videos on YouTube. Apparently, not.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#195. To: GreyLmist (#184)
I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking at here...there is no data provided...it's simply a narrator saying that according to him the data is 3000 feet off...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#196. To: titorite (#95) (Edited)
World Trade Center - Wikipedia 110 stories tall [each Tower, not counting the WTC 1 antenna] WTC 1. American Airlines Flight 11 ... North Tower ... northern façade ... between the 93rd and 99th floors [6 total, slanted] ... at 8:46 AM WTC 2. United Airlines Flight 175 ... South Tower ... southern façade ... between the 77th and 85th floors [9 total, off-centered] ... at 9:03 AM At 9:59 a.m., the South Tower [struck 2nd] collapsed [1st] after burning for approximately 56 minutes. ... The North Tower [struck 1st] collapsed [2nd] at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes. can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#197. To: FormerLurker (#194)
2006 Flashback to: FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9 11” - informationclearinghouse.info FBI
the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” ... Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. ... on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” ... should be headline news worldwide.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#198. To: FormerLurker (#194)
So because the FBI won't release the video of people dying it has to have been a missile... Is that your logic? Mickey Bell Singleton Electric was the Wedge One electrical contractor and had just completed some punch-list work in wedge (one of five) when at 9:45 a.m. (EDT) American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the western wall of Pentagon with 64 passengers and crew aboard. The jet, which had just taken off from Dulles Airport en route to Los Angles, set the world´s largest office building ablaze between the first and second wedges. The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast. Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened. National Electrical Contractors Association, September 13 2001 Then show us all the videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#199. To: FormerLurker (#194)
Richard Benedetto Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. Hartford Courant, September 12, 2001 "I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."Quoted here
--Are you a *Jew*?
#200. To: FormerLurker (#194)
Omar Campo Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here." The Guardian, September 12 2001
--Are you a *Jew*?
#201. To: war (#200)
Why don't you look up quotes from Elmer Fudd while you're at it. I don't care what some yokel has to say, I want you to find those videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Now go find them.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#202. To: FormerLurker (#201)
Right...why take the word of the hundreds who saw the plane when you can focus on something nonsensical. I don't care what some yokel has to say,
--Are you a *Jew*?
#203. To: war (#198)
HUGE BS. The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again. ANYONE with at least half a brain cell knows that IF those VDOT and Pentagon surveillance videos actually DID show a 757 flying into the Pentagon, we would have seen them thousands upon thousands of times by now. It's rather incredible that you try to use that lame excuse, the "FBI doesn't want to show people dying". Your writers need better material. So because the FBI won't release the video of people dying it has to have been a missile...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#204. To: FormerLurker (#203)
I'm just a-guessin' and a-ruminatin' here but maybe that is because every available TV and video camera in NYC was trained on the Towers? The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#205. To: war (#202)
Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false. Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner. In fact, there are strong indications that there were actually TWO aircraft, one which did in fact appear to be an airliner, and then there are reports of a smaller jet flying "like a missile". The reports indicate two different approach paths to the Pentagon, leading to the possibility that the airliner flew OVER the Pentagon while the smaller aircraft actually hit it. There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue. So to eliminate any confusion, go ahead and ask the FBI for those videos so that we can see what did actually happen. Right...why take the word of the hundreds who saw the plane
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#206. To: FormerLurker (#205)
A fact I am reminded of when I read your posts. Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner. Geezus... 911rese arch.wtc7.net/pent...dence/witnesses/bart.html There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue. Here's his full statement: David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: "It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building. Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#207. To: war (#206)
Which is pure fantasy, since the lawn was untouched, the aircraft did not cartwheel, and if it did (which it couldn't do unless it were flying at a 90 degree angle and at a MUCH lower speed) it would have never entered the Pentagon as it would have been shredded to pieces BEFORE reaching it, AND there would have been jet fuel and debris spread all over the lawn and OVER the Pentagon. Goes to show you can't trust tales coming from so-called "eyewitnesses" when there is a "national security" operation in progress. There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#208. To: FormerLurker (#207)
He didn't state that it hit the lawn. Stick to what was said...not how you care to contort it...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#209. To: FormerLurker (#207)
So we got AA 77 cartwheeling across the Pentalawn now. Kool. The Fantacists are smokin' some heavy shit these days. since the lawn was untouched, the aircraft did not cartwheel
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#210. To: randge (#209)
Can you pint out where he stated that it cartwheeled across the lawn? This is one in the mega-series of why you folks get laughed at by us normal people: You simply make stuff up. So we got AA 77 cartwheeling across the Pentalawn now. Kool
--Are you a *Jew*?
#211. To: war (#210)
I'll "pint out" that some mothafuckahs do an honest day's work here. They get up at 7:00, hit it hard all day, and quit for dinner. I wonder if it's a paid-by-the-hour sort of thing. If it is, somebody's due a raise. Can you pint out where he stated that it cartwheeled across the lawn?
"If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
#212. To: war (#208)
Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground? He didn't state that it hit the lawn.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#213. To: war, titorite (#193)
You at #92: Greater weight of the upper floors... Your non-counterpoint at #102: No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... [Pic link] ...In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept... You at #193: ...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so... You again at #193: Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same. [Re-inserting the full context of my question regarding alleged burn-time duration to weaken the steel to the point of alleged structural failure -- not how long it took for WTC 7 to crumple to the ground in a heap when it started to fall, as compared to the time it took the Towers to crumble to the ground, somewhat, while largely floating away: ...smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers?] Your gravitational-sameness oversimplification that the Tower which was hit second fell first simply because of a higher upper-floors weight-differential there (even though much of the weight was in the process of tilting overward for some length of time and so lessening strain on the floors below while doing that) has ignored those factors and every other structural issue involved which would scientifically indicate that it shouldn't have fallen first. [Ref. floors data at #196] For now, just try to address what you think the chemical difference would be between Tower steel and WTC 7 steel, since the more compact space at WTC 7 allegedly could withstand hours of supposedly "intense" fire but the Towers that had to be structurally sturdy enough for their size to meet rather intenser building codes didn't. Address any pre-planned demolition docs that likely had to be submitted for all 3 of the highest WTC buildings before any of them were approved to be built, too, please, if you're aware of such. titorite at #91: how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
Me at #98: Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
Me at #189: Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said.
Me as quoted by you at #193: Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#214. To: war (#193) (Edited)
Stipulating, for the moment, that is true... So freakin' what if there were no stains on the aluminum? Is it your claim that there was no visible smoke? No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers. Edited formatting. So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#215. To: war, All (#187) (Edited)
As I said, you're both dishonest and stupid. Seriously, which government agency do you work for? Sorry, but this isn't a place whereby when things are told often enough people believe them. Go back to whatever LP's pyscho tearoom replacement is. You don't belong here. Interesting that you're at war with everyone on everything. That's always a tell-tale sign.
#216. To: Katniss (#215)
I noticed that right away -- he does nothing but bitch at others and call them names in my limited experience here.
#217. To: Katniss (#215)
But you still felt the need to repeat it, why? Seriously, which government agency do you work for? The Ministry of Inciting Paranoia... I'm Deputy Secretary of The Internet Chatroom... Sorry, but this isn't a place whereby when things are told often enough people believe them. All evidence to the contrary... Have you noticed that not one of you has put forth a viable argument that the broad outline of 9/11...hijacked planes...crashed into WTC and Pentagon...Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage...is untrue? No...because you're too busy telling things - nonsensical at that, e.g. the planes weren't hijacked or the plane that hundreds saw crash in to the Pentagon wasn't a real plane or the plane that I stood underneath as it crashed into WTC2 wasn't a real plane or that there was very little damage to WTC7 even though every witness to the damage of WTC7 states otherwise - often enough that you hope people believe them. But when they are subject to minimal testing they are falsified... As I said, you're both dishonest and stupid.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#218. To: NeoconsNailed (#216)
You obviously don't read my posts. I noticed that right away -- he does nothing but bitch at others and call them names in my limited experience here.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#219. To: GreyLmist (#213)
I've put this challenge forth before...score a couple of 1x4s in several places and then support it on the ends and suspend the middle...put a 50'lb weight on one and a 100bln weight on the other and then bounce the boards slightly...which one breaks first. This basic test underscores how what you folks try to promote stands at stark odds with reality... For now, just try to address what you think the chemical difference would be between Tower steel and WTC 7 steel, since the more compact space at WTC7 Can you point out wherein I made this argument regarding the *chemical* differences in steel between the structures. Thanks... Your gravitational-sameness oversimplification...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#220. To: FormerLurker (#212)
He stated exactly where he believed that it hit. He stated exactly what he thought the aircraft did. You and someone else chose to misstate what he said...his words stand for what they are... If you would have asked me @ 10 after 9 where I *thought* the second plane had hit I would have stated much lower than where it did hit. When I reached the Battery Park area around 9:20 and I saw the South Face of the South Tower I was a bit surprised that the entry point was as high as it was... Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#221. To: GreyLmist (#214)
Tell me why I should care about smoke damage at all... No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#222. To: randge (#211)
In other words, you *can't*. FWIW, I knew that. They get up at 7:00... I've done an hour's worth of work by then...slackers...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#223. To: war, All (#218)
My nomination for the funniest post of the day so far. One poster running around the room shitting on everything in sight, insisting that his shit doesn't stink while blaming everyone else for the stench. Classic! I'm sure he'll top himself, ... it's early yet. You obviously don't read my posts.
#224. To: Katniss (#223) (Edited)
...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#225. To: Katniss (#223)
Can you point out any post in which I have attacked, for lack of a better word, you in a manner commensurate to how you have attacked me? I'll wait...thanks...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#226. To: Katniss (#223)
I've been up for 9 hours...early? I'm sure he'll top himself, ... it's early yet.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#227. To: war, All (#226)
You're a fool.
#228. To: Katniss (#227)
Since I revived this thread not one mention of the title: "Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot"
#229. To: Katniss (#227)
Thanks...I couldn't have made my point about you any more eloquently than you have. You're a fool.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#230. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#228)
I believe that nonsensical nature of the title was dispatched with relatively quickly... Since I revived this thread not one mention of the title:
--Are you a *Jew*?
#231. To: war, All (#229)
You're a fool. Thanks...I couldn't have made my point about you any more eloquently than you have.
#232. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#228)
"Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot" LOL No doubt. Yeah, that's what happens when one single ignoramus fool hijacks the thread. It's common across message boards everywhere. Seriously, I'd bet dollars to donuts that this clown's a government op. Since I revived this thread not one mention of the title:
#233. To: Katniss (#231)
You repeat yourself a lot. FWIW, that comes from being ignored. In other words, you should be *NICER* to me... You're a fool.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#234. To: Katniss (#232)
I have 10,000 donuts... We have a bet? Seriously, I'd bet dollars to donuts that this clown's a government op.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#235. To: Katniss (#232)
This thread isn't about 9/11? It's common across message boards everywhere... How much time do you spend on the internet to make you such an *authority*? Yeah, that's what happens when one single ignoramus fool hijacks the thread.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#236. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#228) (Edited)
"Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot" At 32:30 of the opening post video: Field McConnell: "Yes, they were...they all died in Whiskey 3-8-6 Alpha Airspace, except United 93. That airplane was destroyed by technology over Shanksville, Pennsylvania." Article excerpt from Abel Danger: Specific Companies in the World Trade Center Targeted on 9/11 - 2010 I'd disagree because that could have left trace evidence but Post #71 of 4um Title: "Airline whistleblower solves 9/11" has more info on Whiskey 386 [pilotsfor911truth audio file on the Langely jets and 2 more 4um refs. with additional linked sources]. Formatting edits. Since I revived this thread not one mention of the title:
Richie Allen: "Question one. Are we to presume, then, that the people on Flight 77 and the people on the other airplanes that supposedly crashed into the Towers, that those people were taken away and summarily executed somewhere else?"
some of these passenger jets may have been flown electronically into Whiskey 386 military-training airspace [...] over the Atlantic Ocean, and detonated via preplaced, embedded incendiaries.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#237. To: war (#193)
You at #193: A) Where's your evidence for that? News footage. Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it. Me at #189: the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen?
You at #193: B) The South Tower was closer to the Banker's Trust building which, was directly across Liberty Street, than it was to the North Tower...IIRC, the South Tower actually collapsed in the direction of the SW and took out the Banker's Trust Building and the Winter Garden of the WFC.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#238. To: GreyLmist (#237)
Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it. You mean that in the less than 10 seconds that you can actually see *some* of the Towers, you've concluded that? Okay...the reason that there is no counter-point is because you have no point... News footage.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#239. To: war (#234)
If you have 10,000 donuts, then surely you own a donut factory. Which makes you, my new favorite person. Though I am trying desperately to cut back on my donut consumption... It's things like this that drive me insane. You try to quit eating donuts, be healthier, then someone shows up with 10,000 donuts, or owns a donut factory. This is much like how Sisyphus must have felt. I am in hell.
"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist
#240. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#239)
Well...if Katniss walks the walk here, I'll have $10,000 and 10,000 donuts. But I was actually making fun of his/her paranoia by channeling the *fat* side of Willard Romney...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#241. To: war, FormerLurker (#193)
You at #193: When the North Tower was impacted and I looked out the window from my vantage point in the northwest corner of 1 Liberty, it was like a ticker tape parade and some of the papers that were fluttering were singed...I remember one piece of paper hitting the window right before my nose that had a FUJI BANK letterhead. As for your question...unless you were in the tower in the very area of the fire, you have no way of telling me what was or wasn't on fire... Autoignition temperature - Wikipedia You #129 above to FormerLurker at #121: Those temps are well capable of compromising the strength of steel... ...and spontaneously combusting paper. You're not presuming to tell me that all of the paper seen in the first two videos at 4um Title: NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clips 01-49 (WTC Complex & WTC7 after 10:28am) would have fluttered out of the Towers before they fell, are you? -- because news footage doesn't support that. Me at #189: What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel?
Paper: Autoignition Celsius 218–246 °C | Autoignition Fahrenheit 424–475 °F
FormerLurker: The FEMA report states...
war: ...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c [My note: 2012 °F] at ceiling level and 400c [My note: 752 °F] to 800c [My note: 1472 °F] elsewhere...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#242. To: Katniss (#240)
Forgot to PING you to above...sorry...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#243. To: GreyLmist (#241)
Did I miss something somewhere? The part where the floors which were on fire were the only floors with paper, maybe?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#244. To: war (#243)
What point are you trying to make? Only the floors with steel compromising fire had paper that somehow withstood those temps? Did I miss something somewhere? The part where the floors which were on fire were the only floors with paper, maybe?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#245. To: GreyLmist (#244)
Not all the floors were on fire...not all of the paper in the WTCs burned... Is there a reason you're not *getting* this? What point are you trying to make? Only the floors with steel compromising fire had paper that somehow withstood those temps?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#246. To: GreyLmist (#241)
BTW, anyone who has read Ray Bradbury knows at what temperature paper combusts...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#247. To: war (#238) (Edited)
Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it. You mean that in the less than 10 seconds that you can actually see *some* of the Towers, you've concluded that? Okay...the reason that there is no counter-point is because you have no point... I wasn't in charge that day of how fast the Tower fell at near free-fall speed or not to suit your observatory preferences. You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference. Edited link formatting. News footage.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#248. To: GreyLmist (#247)
Are you saying that if you were that they would have actually fallen at free fall speed instead of at the less than free fall speed at which they fell that day? You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference. Feel free to provide them but, as I stated before, the collapsing South tower DID cause damage to the buildings around it and photos of that damage have been provided. On the other hand, your statement about not causing any damage remains...unsupported... I wasn't in charge that day of how fast the Tower fell at near free-fall speed or not to suit your observatory preferences.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#249. To: war (#245)
Is there a reason you're not *getting* this? "the inferno swept through the building" [You at #443 of 4um Title: "Methodical Illusion: The 9/11 Con Begins to Crumble — Rebekah Roth (Flight Attendant)"] Not all the floors were on fire...not all of the paper in the WTCs burned...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#250. To: GreyLmist (#249)
Why did you leave this part out: From the 91st floor upwards, it is believed no one got out alive, even though as many as 1,100 may have survived the initial crash. Either they would have been burned or smothered by smoke as the inferno swept through the building, or they would have been forced by the unbearable heat to jump, or else perished as the tower collapsed.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#251. To: war (#248)
Feel free to provide them but, as I stated before, the collapsing South tower DID cause damage to the buildings around it and photos of that damage have been provided. On the other hand, your statement about not causing any damage remains...unsupported... It's not my job to spoonfeed you more supporting evidence, let alone slow down the speed of the South Tower collapse for you to notice the lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower that others can readily see. Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant to that issue except that it reinforces the anomaly of it visibly only being as impactful as a huge powder puff on the North Tower. You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#252. To: GreyLmist (#251)
I was comfortable asking for that evidence because I know that it does not exist. let alone slow down the speed of the South Tower collapse for you It's not my job to spoonfeed you more supporting evidence....
--Are you a *Jew*?
#253. To: GreyLmist (#251)
If that is the *truth* then you should have no problem providing supporting evidence for it... Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant... Says you for no reason other than you felt like typing... Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant to that issue except that it reinforces the anomaly of it visibly only being as impactful as a huge powder puff on the North Tower.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#254. To: war (#250)
Either they would have been burned or smothered by smoke as the inferno swept through the building, or they would have been forced by the unbearable heat to jump, or else perished as the tower collapsed. I left that part out because it has nothing to do with the paper combustion issue here of the "inferno", as you call it, sweeping "through the building" -- not upward only. It's already been addressed at #96 above that the alleged jumpers "weren't even demonstrably under threat of smoke inhalation, much less about to be incinerated" from fire or withering heat. You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them. Why did you leave this part out:
From the 91st floor upwards, it is believed no one got out alive, even though as many as 1,100 may have survived the initial crash.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#255. To: GreyLmist (#254)
The inferno was sweeping through the building at the floors above 91. The context is quite clear to anyone who does not have an agenda. No one jumped from the 20th floor. I left that part out because it has nothing to do with the paper combustion issue here of the "inferno", as you call it, sweeping "through the building"
--Are you a *Jew*?
#256. To: GreyLmist (#254)
You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#257. To: war (#253) (Edited)
If that is the *truth* then you should have no problem providing supporting evidence for it... I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you. Nobody else is complaining. Says you for no reason other than you felt like typing... Says you and your assertion about damages from the collapsing South Tower to buildings around it still remains irrelevant except as reinforcement for the anomalous lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower. Edited formatting and spelling. Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant to that issue except that it reinforces the anomaly of it visibly only being as impactful as a huge powder puff on the North Tower.
Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#258. To: GreyLmist (#257) (Edited)
Your video does not show the ground...the angle is such that a building in the foreground obscures half the view and the ensuing dust cloud obscures the rest. To claim that video *proves* anything other than a) the building collapsed and b) generated a HUGE dust cloud is, to be kind, problematic. Nobody else is complaining. I care about what others do or don't do why, again? I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#259. To: GreyLmist (#257)
An *anamoly* for which you've established no proof. ...for the anonalous lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#260. To: war (#256) (Edited)
www.wsj.com/articles/SB 1003784754436648720 I'm not going to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read that article. Helicopters could have and should have been dispatched to try and rescue the alleged jumpers if need be. Edited formatting. You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#261. To: war (#259) (Edited)
I care why about repetitively backtracking over your incapability to see the obvious there and neglect to do your own news-footage research if you think it could demonstrate a provable counterpoint for you? I don't. Once again, you just have nothing but baseless denial. Edited sentence 1 + quote section. You at #258: I care about what others do or don't do why, again?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#262. To: war (#252)
So you're saying that it should take only an extra 2.5 seconds to smash and demolish 70 floors of concrete and steel, since that's what's left if you subtract the time it'd take an object to fall through thin air... Okie dokie.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#263. To: war (#221) (Edited)
You at #193: Stipulating, for the moment, that is true... So freakin' what if there were no stains on the aluminum? Is it your claim that there was no visible smoke? Me at #214: No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers. You at #221: Tell me why I should care about smoke damage at all... It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't. Edited sentence 2. Me at #189: ...since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#264. To: war (#255) (Edited)
The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers. It's heat-generated paper-combustion and the extent of it. As another side issue, we could even debate the explosive combustibility of pressurized cleaning supply cans and whatnot in all of the burning WTC buildings but that's also not the paper-issue in question. Is it your #443 clarification per steel compromising temps that "the inferno swept through the building" upwards only? -- despite your contradictory view at #193 [and quoted at #241] that "unless you were in the tower in the very area of the fire, you have no way of telling me what was or wasn't on fire..." Edited formatting. Ref. Post #s 241, 249 [+ 443 of another thread], 254 and You at 255: "The inferno was sweeping through the building at the floors above 91. The context is quite clear to anyone who does not have an agenda. No one jumped from the 20th floor."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#265. To: GreyLmist (#260)
The article details that helicopters were on scene not long after impact but that no one was on the roof...probably because the doors to the roof were locked... alleged jumpers... So those people were really Dime Store dummies? I'm not going to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read that article. Helicopters could have and should have been dispatched to try and rescue the alleged jumpers if need be.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#266. To: GreyLmist (#264)
Correct...it's you trying, for reasons which defy logic, to claim that a discussion of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone should have set every scrap of paper BELOW the impact zone on fire. despite your contradictory view at #193 [and quoted at #241] that "unless you were in the tower in the very area of the fire, you have no way of telling me what was or wasn't on fire..." Either you don't know what the word *contradictory* means or you do and chose to ignore that meaning. The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers
--Are you a *Jew*?
#267. To: GreyLmist (#263) (Edited)
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics? It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#268. To: FormerLurker (#262) (Edited)
Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant... So you're saying that it should take only an extra 2.5 seconds
--Are you a *Jew*?
#269. To: war (#268)
Yes, in that it proves the floors fell through NOTHING but thin air for the majority of the distance travelled. Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#270. To: FormerLurker (#269) (Edited)
Uh...no...and that would be just as wrong if it was a CD... Yes, in that it proves the floors fell through NOTHING but thin air for the majority of the distance travelled.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#271. To: war (#270)
Uh, yes. That it only took 2.5 seconds more time to drop through 70 or so undamaged floors indicates those lower floors were destroyed BEFORE the upper structure dropped through their location above ground. If there had been any significant resistance to the collapse, the velocity would have dropped to zero or close to it, and it would have taken significantly longer for the entire collapse to occur since the structure would need to begin accelerating from a velocity close to zero again rather than the speed it would have attained as if it had been falling through thin air. Uh...no...and that would be just as wrong if it was a CD...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#272. To: FormerLurker (#271) (Edited)
It indicates no such thing. The building fell from the top down beginning at the site of the impact... Uh, yes. That it only took 2.5 seconds more time to drop through 70 or so undamaged floors indicates those lower floors were destroyed BEFORE the upper structure dropped through their location above ground.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#273. To: FormerLurker (#271)
10's of millions of tons falling was going to be abated significantly by what, exactly? If there had been any significant resistance to the collapse
--Are you a *Jew*?
#274. To: war (#273)
Exactly the same thing that held up those 10's of millions of tons from the time they were first put there. You know the answer, do I have to tell you? 10's of millions of tons falling was going to be abated significantly by what, exactly?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#275. To: war (#272)
So in your mind, it only takes 2.5 seconds to demolish millions of tons of concrete and steel, where they offer no more resistance than thin air, eh? It indicates no such thing.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#276. To: FormerLurker (#274)
Has the fact that it was FALLING and therefore, by definition, NO LONGER BEING HELD UP, escaped you? Exactly the same thing that held up those 10's of millions of tons from the time they were first put there.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#277. To: FormerLurker (#275) (Edited)
I *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion? So in your mind, it only takes 2.5 seconds to demolish millions of tons of concrete and steel, where they offer no more resistance than thin air, eh?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#278. To: war, All (#243)
Yes, you seem to selectively miss a whole lot everywhere. I'll give ya credit though, you do seem to be tight on the establishment viewpoints and all but in lock-step with them. Did I miss something somewhere?
#279. To: GreyLmist (#261)
I stated exactly what is obvious there...no more...no less... I care why about repetitively backtracking over your incapability to see the obvious there
--Are you a *Jew*?
#280. To: Katniss (#278)
...I've accepted nothing more than the broad strokes of 9/11...OBL orchestrated hijacked planes...crashed into buildings...@ WTC the damage, which I personally witnessed, was as fatal to the structures as it was to the people inside. I firmly believe that 93 was shot down on The Big Dick Cheney's order which turned out to be problematic for them - because The Big Dick had no authority to do so - so they simply denied it. Not one of the other scenarios I have been presented with, especially the controlled demolition or drone nonsense, has ever given me pause, i.e. it was too easily falsified... I'll give ya credit though, you do seem to be tight on the establishment viewpoints...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#281. To: war (#280)
So you were there, in all three places, to see it all unfold? Impressive. If you say that you saw it on TV then you'll simply prove that you're more stupid than I thought you were. You completely ignored most of the points made by myself and GL and the evidence provided in many posts prior to this. There's not much to discuss at that point and combined with your other idiotic statements tells the world all that we need to know about you. which I personally witnessed
#282. To: Katniss (#281)
I believe that I have responded to every post. And any *evidence* that you may have thought that you provided wasn't evidence at all. I was employed for a company located @ 165 Broadway and I had a desk at the NW corner of the building and was there, in my desk, that morning. Both towers were at my shoulder. You completely ignored most of the points made by myself and GL and the evidence provided in many posts prior to this.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#283. To: Katniss (#281) (Edited)
I almost let this jab go by but I simply cannot. What misfires in the mind of you folks that makes you *think* such abjectly *stupid* things? There was nothing that I stated/posted here from which such a conclusion of the meaning of what I stated/posted here could be reached. So you were there, in all three places, to see it all unfold?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#284. To: war (#276)
"FALLING" through WHAT exactly? Has the fact that it was FALLING and therefore, by definition, NO LONGER BEING HELD UP, escaped you?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#285. To: FormerLurker (#284)
Whatever was below it. From every video available that would be through the rest of the building... Are your questions going to get any better? "FALLING" through WHAT exactly?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#286. To: war (#277)
With unimpeded motion, an object would have taken 9 seconds to hit the ground if it had been dropped from the very top of the WTC towers. Being that it took 11.5 seconds for the top of WTC 2 to hit the ground, and 12.5 seconds for WTC 1 to do the same, can you not at least admit the fact that it only took 2.5 seconds to effectively vaporize WTC 2 and 3.5 seconds to vaporize WTC 1? In fact, those lower floors HAD to have been pulverized PRIOR to the upper structure reaching their level for the upper structure to have hit the ground ONLY 2.5/3.5 seconds later than if it had fallen through thin air. I *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#287. To: war (#285)
Ok, so the REST OF THE BUILDING supported all those tons above it since it was built. Now why all of a sudden were they unable to continue to support that weight? Whatever was below it. From every video available that would be through the rest of the building...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#288. To: FormerLurker (#287)
Because the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. And I'll note that the answer to my question regarding your questions in my last post is obviously *no*... Now why all of a sudden were they unable to continue to support that weight?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#289. To: FormerLurker (#286) (Edited)
Chuckles...you've gone from claiming that they fell at free fall speed, to now recognizing that they did not (without overtly admitting it) and now want me to admit to what I myself posted as if it would be some sort of victory for you. Do yourself a favor, if you ever get sued...settle the case...you'd be a mess on the witness stand... This is very simple...gravity does not change...controlled demolitions rely on gravity...using gravity as proof, first that the Towers could not fall on their own, and then to prove that they did fall on their own albeit with help* is extremely illogical. Why don't we approach it this way...assume for one moment that there was no controlled demolition...how should the Towers have collapsed and, most importantly, why? *PS: BTW, that *help* would be no different from what actually happened...the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure. Being that it took 11.5 seconds for the top of WTC 2 to hit the ground, and 12.5 seconds for WTC 1 to do the same, can you not at least admit the fact that it only took 2.5 seconds to effectively vaporize WTC 2 and 3.5 seconds to vaporize WTC 1?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#290. To: war (#283)
Once again, you ignore the core points of the post. I will give you props for that, you're a master at polemical evasion.
#291. To: FormerLurker (#286)
Something's not passing the smell test here, regarding war. He's clearly a product of the media, but there's something else amiss.
#292. To: war (#289)
You are a liar. I have said OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN, that the WTC towers fell AT OR NEAR FREE FALL SPEED. Are you able to understand it now that I have said it in all CAPS? FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED. YOU need to admit that it would take longer than 2.5 seconds to totally destroy 70 floors worth of steel and concrete, yet that is what took place. The ONLY way for that to have happened in that amount of time is by controlled demolition. Chuckles...you've gone from claiming that they fell at free fall speed, to now recognizing that they did not (without overtly admitting it) and now want me to admit to what I myself posted as if it would be some sort of victory for you.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#293. To: Katniss (#291)
He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing". He ignores indisputable facts, or at minimum distorts and twists those facts into meanings totally opposite of what they indicate. So yep, there is SURELY something "amiss" with our little friend, war. He's clearly a product of the media, but there's something else amiss.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#294. To: war (#289)
So now you're trying to claim that the entire length of the lower 70 floors was "compromised", eh? Maybe the "muzzies" dug a hole from a cave in Afghanistan all the way to under the WTC towers, and THAT is what made them fall, right? *PS: BTW, that *help* would be no different from what actually happened...the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#295. To: Katniss (#290) (Edited)
Once again, I have no idea what your reference or context is. I will give you props for that, you're a master at polemical evasion. Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it... Once again, you ignore the core points of the post.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#296. To: FormerLurker (#294)
Uh no...go back and re-read the deliberately simple English that I used and try again. So now you're trying to claim that the entire length of the lower 70 floors was "compromised", eh?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#297. To: FormerLurker (#293)
Has the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93? He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing".
--Are you a *Jew*?
#298. To: war (#289)
So every skycraper on earth should be falling down right now according to your logic, since gravity makes them all "fall". Mountains should be "falling" too I guess, in YOUR universe. Blowing up the supporting lower structure with explosives is not "allowing the towers to fall on their own". Do you need diagrams to understand that? This is very simple...gravity does not change...controlled demolitions rely on gravity...using gravity as proof, first that the Towers could not fall on their own, and then to prove that they did fall on their own albeit with help* is extremely illogical.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#299. To: war (#297)
Of course not. Nor are they admitting that it landed at Cleveland, Ohio, even though there are credible reports that it actually did just that. Has the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#300. To: war (#295)
Yes, all you need to do is read your own words. Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#301. To: war (#296)
Are you now denying that you wrote these words? the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure. Uh no...go back and re-read the deliberately simple English that I used and try again.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#302. To: FormerLurker (#292)
2.5 seconds for, essentially, the short distance the South Tower had to fall is not a small amount of time and that was only the observable time, btw... YOU need to admit that it would take longer than 2.5 seconds to totally destroy 70 floors worth of steel and concrete, yet that is what took place. What makes you *think* that the collapsing structure had to destroy the floors? All it had to do was take out whatever supports were below it...do you think a controlled demolition would have destroyed the entire FLOOR? No, doofus, it destroys support... Geez...stop and *think* please.... Engineer, my ass... FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#303. To: FormerLurker (#301)
Yea...the structure being what was ABOVE the impact zones, doof...the columns that were compromised didn't support what was below it...only above it... Your mind is a mess... the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#304. To: war (#288)
Explain "decoupled". And explain why the lower structure suddenly behaved as if it were thin air, or perhaps THICK air, giving at least SOME resistance to the FREE FALL ACCELERATION of the upper structure. If you'd like, we could use some equations to illustrate some laws of physics. Do you like equations war? Because the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#305. To: war (#302)
2.5 seconds for, essentially, the short distance the South Tower had to fall is not a small amount of time and that was only the observable time, btw... So now you're saying that you DO believe it'd only take 2.5 seconds to destroy 70 floors worth of concrete and steel. Yep, at least now you said it. What makes you *think* that the collapsing structure had to destroy the floors? All it had to do was take out whatever supports were below it...do you think a controlled demolition would have destroyed the entire FLOOR? No, doofus, it destroys support... So now you're admitting that explosives were used? Cool, so now we can go to a different topic, and you concede that I was right. Thanks.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#306. To: war (#303)
So now you're changing your mind again. You're saying that the UPPER columns are what failed, and that is why the LOWER STRUCTURE suddenly behaved like THICK AIR? Yea...the structure being what was ABOVE the impact zones, doof...the columns that were compromised didn't support what was below it...only above it...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#307. To: FormerLurker (#304)
No longer attached to. What do you *think* it means? And explain why the lower structure suddenly behaved as if it were thin air... Given the dust and debris that was being spewed by the collapse, I reject the premise that anything was falling through thin air. If you'd like, we could use some equations to illustrate some laws of physics. Do you like equations war? Use as many as you want...it's all mumblewerve given that, as you have now admitted, the buildings did NOT come down at Free Fall speed. It's time for you to respond to the questions that you were given in #289... Explain "decoupled".
--Are you a *Jew*?
#308. To: FormerLurker (#306)
Nope. PING me when you want to stop playing games. Thanks. So now you're changing your mind again.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#309. To: war (#307)
It's time for you to wake up, smell the coffee, and stop shilling for those who wish to suppress the truth.. WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, WTC 1 and 2 fell at NEAR free fall speed, and there was no reason for ANY of them to FALL, since they all had supporting structures holding them up. ANYTHING will FALL (accelerate downwards) when there is LESS resistance below than the force being exerted downwards by gravity. Thing is, those structures were built to safely resist that force, otherwise no tall buildings on earth would be safe to inhabit. Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#310. To: war (#289)
Ok, I missed ONE of your numerous questions that I'm sure I've answered repeatedly over the last week or so of fun and games with you, but here goes.. Why don't we approach it this way...assume for one moment that there was no controlled demolition...how should the Towers have collapsed and, most importantly, why? A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously failed. B) IF there had been SOME structural failure at the upper levels of the towers, then the upper structures should have crumbled and slid off the UNDAMAGED sections below, or tumbled off them, depending on the angle of the collapse and whether they broke up as they were shifting weight. C) There is no way possible for them to drop straight down into their own footprint UNLESS there was a complete and total loss of support below them. That would not happen UNLESS the supporting structure below was demolished through the use of explosives.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#311. To: FormerLurker (#309)
That's been debunked. Several times. WTC 1 and 2 fell at NEAR free fall speed, WTC 1 fell at nearly twice Free Fall speed. ANYTHING will FALL (accelerate downwards) when there is LESS resistance below than the force being exerted downwards by gravity.. A point that you ignore when it's convenient or promote when it's convenient. Thing is, those structures were built to safely resist that force, otherwise no tall buildings on earth would be safe to inhabit. Thanks, Mr. Obvious. Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects. Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them... Amazing that you had to be told this... WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed,
--Are you a *Jew*?
#312. To: war (#311)
That's been debunked. Several times. BS. There is a video proof of WTC7 falling AT free fall speed during at least PART of its collapse. And unlike the other buildings, the main collapse WAS from the bottom, where the entire structure FELL into its own footprint as one piece.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#313. To: war (#311)
LOL!!!! So were rocket engines attached to the top of WTC1 to make it accelerate FASTER than gravity? You see, UNLESS there is some EXTRA acceleration involved, such as a pilot flying a jet aircraft pointing its nose straight down and pushing the throttle, an object can't fall FASTER than free fall speed. WTC 1 fell at nearly twice Free Fall speed.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#314. To: war (#311) (Edited)
Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing. Amazing that you had to be told that. Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#315. To: FormerLurker (#310)
The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure. IF there had been SOME structural failure at the upper levels of the towers, then the upper structures should have crumbled and slid off the UNDAMAGED sections below... Under what theory does gravity so affect a vertical structure? Your *belief* is contingent upon the very flawed premise that only a controlled demolition can cause supporting columns to fail. There is no way possible for them to drop straight down into their own footprint As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then... A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously (sic) failed.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#316. To: FormerLurker (#314)
You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly? Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#317. To: war (#315)
Oh, so the towers took hours to collapse, sections at a time? No of course they didn't. Ever increasing weight? Are you for real? Are you saying that the muzzies were shoveling lead out of helicopters or something to add that "extra weight"? The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#318. To: war (#316)
You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain. Whatever it is you're being paid for this, it's too much. You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#319. To: FormerLurker (#318)
Please point out where I stated that anything other than the *materials* were falling. Thanks... You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#320. To: war (#315)
As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks, nor did they tumble sideways in one direction. They FELL straight DOWN, no matter how many times you lie about it. As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#321. To: war (#319)
I stated mountains don't fall down. You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words. That makes you a liar.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#322. To: FormerLurker (#321)
Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations. Thanks. You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#323. To: war (#315)
The law of physics which states than an object will always take the path of LEAST resistance. Look it up. Under what theory does gravity so affect a vertical structure? Your *belief* is contingent upon the very flawed premise that only a controlled demolition can cause supporting columns to fail.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#324. To: war (#322)
Can you please point to where there might reside any working brain cells in the room you are currently in?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#325. To: war (#322)
In case you're either too retarded or too lazy to look up your own words.. FL : Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects. war: Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them... Amazing that you had to be told this... Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations.
So you're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a mountain collapse.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#326. To: FormerLurker (#320)
WTC7 did have a minor break up in that the penthouse structure collapsed along with some of the roof but, essentially, it remained intact...on that I concur but the failure was much lower...13th floor... As for WTC 1 and 2 to claim that they fell straight down and did not spew huge chucks of debris all over nor did it break apart is simply insanity. The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius... As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks
--Are you a *Jew*?
#327. To: FormerLurker (#325)
That statement is 100% correct. Nowhere in that statement do I state that anything has fallen other than the materials which comprise the avalanche. The word *mountain* appears nowhere. The word *collapse* appears nowhere. I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language. Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#328. To: FormerLurker (#323) (Edited)
So, the top of the WTC, now detached from the bottom of WTC, looks down and says..."Gee, look at that building...I better tilt over the other way!!!" The fact is, when one vertical structure becomes two vertical structures the path of least resistance for the one on top, when the only inertial force upon it is gravity, is downward and not sideways... The law of physics which states than an object will always take the path of LEAST resistance. Look it up.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#329. To: war (#328)
Wrong. Unless the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants, the path of least resistance is in the direction of the failed quadrant or section. Thus any collapse other than total failure of the supporting floors and central core would have caused the top structure to tilt, tumble, and/or slide off the undamaged section. A straight downwards path is not possible without the help of explosives, and the duration of the fall indicates there was practically NO resistance at all to the downwards motion of the upper section. You are also wrong about the top of the WTC towers "detaching". They were still resting upon their supporting elements, it's not as if a UFO came down and PICKED UP the top of the towers then dropped them. The fact is, when one vertical structure becomes two vertical structures the path of least resistance for the one on top, when the only inertial force upon it is gravity, is downward and not sideways...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#330. To: war (#326)
Debris was ejected horizontally, yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint, ie. it did not tumble over and drop sideways into the surrounding buildings or street. It was a symmetrical collapse, not asymmetrical. Do you know what those words mean? The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#331. To: war (#327)
You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground. So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse. The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that? Amazing that you had to be told this...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#332. To: FormerLurker (#331)
Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase. You've just been caught in a possible lie...what do you do? So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse. Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off... The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that? I've given you absolutely no cause for you to *think* that I don't. You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#333. To: FormerLurker (#312)
Free fall speed for those 18 or 19 stories that are visible from the North would be 3.9 seconds...it takes 5.4 seconds for those 18 floors to disappear... So no...debunked...again... There is a video proof of WTC7 falling AT free fall speed
--Are you a *Jew*?
#334. To: FormerLurker (#330)
No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section... ...yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#335. To: FormerLurker (#331)
war is doing a great job keeping this at the top so every one can see it, isn't he?
#336. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
War is a Jew fag taking it in the ass while typing stupid responses in his mother's basement.
"We're all on death row, only the execution date is uncertain".
Doug Scheidt 2015
#337. To: noone222 (#336)
4um has an edit feature... War is a Jew fag taking it in the ass while typing stupid responses in his mother's basement.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#338. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
You're welcome!
--Are you a *Jew*?
#339. To: war, FormerLurker (#311)
That's been debunked. Several times. WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - 5.5 minute YouTube WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed,
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#340. To: war (#332)
Amazing that you had to be told this... In other words, you felt the need to add that snide remark even though what you had just said made no sense in regards to my original statement. Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off..., Er, not quite. Snow does not FALL DOWN a mountain, in terms of an avalanche it ROLLS down AND off a mountain. Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#341. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
He sure is. By trying to "prove" the government story, he's actually bringing the inconsistencies of it to the forefront.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#342. To: war (#334)
So all of those videos of the WTC tower collapses, you're saying are fake, since they obviously did NOT fall sideways in ANY of those videos. No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#343. To: FormerLurker (#341)
Wasn't there some one named youclown or something like that years ago?
#344. To: war (#288)
World Trade Center - Wikipedia Two World Trade Center (the South Tower) became the second tallest building in the world at 1,362 feet Height divided by war's alleged fall rate of 32 feet per second But that would be highly incomparable with the evidence so I'm thinking it's your calculation that's off. the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.
North Tower (One World Trade Center), the tallest building in the world at 1,368 feet
per second = 42.5 seconds+ for each.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#345. To: FormerLurker (#293)
Roger
#346. To: war, All (#295)
I know you don't despite my having stated it numerous times. Well I should hope so, it's the first thing you look at every morning and the last thing every night in the mirror when presumably you brush bullshit's teeth. Once again, I have no idea what your reference or context is.
Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...
#347. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker, All (#344)
I honestly don't know why you are interacting with war. It's clearly an enormous waste of time. He's the perfect example of the definition of the problem in this country. He's a perfect product of Television and the electronic gadget culture. He thinks that everything he sees on TV is real.
#348. To: war (#267) (Edited)
Considerately stop sprawling the thread, please, to evade answering the issue -- which isn't what your pseudo-techno opinion is of a physics anomaly vs. a chemistry anomaly or not. It's the inexplicable lack of smoke damage to the exterior of the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Once again, you have no substantive reply and should just leave it at that this time. Edited next to last sentence + spelling. How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#349. To: war (#265)
The article details that helicopters were on scene not long after impact but that no one was on the roof...probably because the doors to the roof were locked... Irrelevant. Doesn't explain anything about why helicopters weren't dispatched to where they reportedly were. I'm not going to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read that article. Helicopters could have and should have been dispatched to try and rescue the alleged jumpers if need be.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#350. To: war (#266) (Edited)
Correct...it's you trying, for reasons which defy logic, to claim that a discussion of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone should have set every scrap of paper BELOW the impact zone on fire. Wrong....this isn't a discussion "of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone", despite your focusings on that Tower here and elsewhere. And it's you, not me, who has claimed steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings for your en masse "pancaking" summations. That's not even getting into the puzzlement that the topmost section of WTC 7 isn't what should have fallen there first under such conditions and according to your own assertion at #326 that the 13th floor was the point of failure. What you need to do is be more precise about where you're guesstimating that steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings stopped "weakening" those structures, even though you weren't in them at the time and neither were the bulk of officalry's NIST theorizers, etc. Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center Edited at first 2 sentences + spelling. The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers
I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which is the official theory.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#351. To: GreyLmist, war (#344)
But that would be highly incomparable with the evidence so I'm thinking it's your calculation that's off. war didn't calculate anything, he simply posted the known and observed rate of acceleration due to earth's gravity. The algebraic form of the relevant equations are as follows; v = d/t, and a = v/t, where v = velocity, d = distance, t = time in seconds, and a = acceleration (rate of change of velocity). g (the acceleration due to earth's gravity) = 32 feet per second per second, and represents the rate of change of velocity of an object for every second the object falls through a vacuum. The following equation is derived from calculus and is well known. t = SQRT(2d/g) So to solve for the amount of time it would take for an object to fall through a vacuum from a given height, we plug the known numbers into the equation; Known values are thus; d1 = height of WTC 1 = 1,368 feet, d2 = height of WTC 2 = 1,362 feet t1 = time to fall from a height of d1 through a vacuum t2 = time to fall from a height of d2 through a vacuum g = 32 feet per second per second t1 = SQRT(2 * 1,368 feet / (32 feet/second2) = 9.25 seconds t2 = SQRT(2 * 1,362 feet / (32 feet/second2) = 9.23 seconds Height divided by war's alleged fall rate of 32 feet per second per second = 42.5 seconds+ for each.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#352. To: GreyLmist, war (#344)
So what it comes down to is that war is using an acceleration rate of an object falling through a vacuum, whereas there was more than just an empty vacuum under the WTC towers. They fell NEAR free fall speed, SO close to it in fact that it would be virtually impossible to have happened UNLESS the supporting lower floors were destroyed sequentially just before the upper structure reached them during its fall.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#353. To: FormerLurker, war (#352)
They fell NEAR free fall speed, SO close to it in fact that it would be virtually impossible to have happened UNLESS the supporting lower floors were destroyed sequentially just before the upper structure reached them during its fall. Thanks for the math demonstration. Much more complex than I had thought. Btw, I've noticed that official storytellers don't count the North Tower as having actually collapsed until the steel columns that were still partially standing vanish too -- so as to expand the drop time there. So what it comes down to is that war is using an acceleration rate of an object falling through a vacuum, whereas there was more than just an empty vacuum under the WTC towers.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#354. To: GreyLmist (#339) (Edited)
MAJOR FAIL... The collapse starts when the penthouse collapses which is not shown on your video...I finally got FL to *admit* to the truth that the collapse started sooner...it's time for you as well... Start around 2:40ish...note what is in my video that is not in yours... https://youtu.be/A34_NXwLyfo
--Are you a *Jew*?
#355. To: FormerLurker (#329)
Can you provide any video which shows an *instantaneous* destruction? I have been unable to find any...each and every one reveals a building collapse in sequence from top to bottom... Unless the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants
--Are you a *Jew*?
#356. To: GreyLmist (#350) (Edited)
Sorry...you don't get to define how I rebut your nonsense which appears to be that all of the paper in WTC should have spontaneously combusted even though anyone can see that a) the building was not solely made of nor did it solely contain, paper b) the area of the fires was at the impact zone... I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed Huh? Neither he nor you have provided any video support for that statement.... Wrong....this isn't a discussion "of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone",
--Are you a *Jew*?
#357. To: GreyLmist (#348) (Edited)
Putting aside the issue that you refuse to state why this is *anomalous*, what's that black stuff on the exterior of the WTC? Or this: Or this: You seeing bright shiny aluminum there? It's the inexplicable lack of smoke damage to the exterior of the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#358. To: war (#354)
The collapse starts when the penthouse collapses which is not shown on your video...I finally got FL to *admit* to the truth that the collapse started sooner...it's time for you as well... Start around 2:40ish...note what is in my video that is not in yours... https://youtu.be/A34_NXwLyfo It's an Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video -- Part 2 of 3. You can dispute it with them at the YouTube site. As for the video you posted by MrSkunkwork100...aka MrLockheedMartin (?!), "Establishmentarian VIP", I reckon. MAJOR FAIL...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#359. To: GreyLmist (#358)
I couldn't care less if it's a Barney video which it may as well be...they make the same *error*..NIST starts the clock when the penthouse collapses which is what my video shows and yours does not...your video LIES about when NIST starts the clock too... It's an Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video -- Part 2 of 3. You can dispute it with them at the YouTube site. As for the video you posted by MrSkunkwork100...aka MrLockheedMartin (?!), "Establishmentarian VIP", I reckon.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#360. To: war (#357)
Yes -- way more than there should be after the blasts and so much smoke. Doubtful anybody here but you wouldn't agree and you almost never do, so no need for me to post a bunch of counter-pictures too. Many pics online that others can compare themselves to yours. You seeing bright shiny aluminum there?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#361. To: GreyLmist (#360)
www.veteranstoday.com/author/jim/
#362. To: GreyLmist (#360)
Wha...chuckle...huh? Doubtful anybody here but you wouldn't agree and you almost never do, so no need for me to post a bunch of counter-pictures too. Many pics online that others can compare themselves to yours... Translated: I've fallen and I can't get up... Yes -- way more than there should be after the blasts and so much smoke...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#363. To: war, GreyLmist (#354)
Your definition of "collapse" differs from what the video shows. A roof collapse inwards isn't what most people think of when they say "total collapse". The TOTAL COLLAPSE of WTC7, where ALL sections of the building began a descent into its own footprint, at or near free fall speed, is what I mean by TOTAL COLLAPSE. I finally got FL to *admit* to the truth that the collapse started sooner...it's time for you as well...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#364. To: war, GreyLmist (#359)
So if I wiggle my fingers before I drop a ball to measure the time it takes for the ball to drop, would you include the finger wiggling time in the total descent time? NIST starts the clock when the penthouse collapses which is what my video shows and yours does not...your video LIES about when NIST starts the clock too...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#365. To: FormerLurker (#363)
The roof collapsed because of what happened 30odd floors below it... A roof collapse inwards isn't what most people think of when they say "total collapse".
--Are you a *Jew*?
#366. To: FormerLurker (#364)
If I respond with an equally ridiculous and spurious post will you respond that I'm claiming something *different* now? So if I wiggle my fingers before I drop a ball to measure the time it takes for the ball to drop, would you include the finger wiggling time in the total descent time?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#367. To: war (#355)
To clarify, the words "the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants ", I mean ALL SUPPORT ACROSS ALL WEIGHT BEARING ELEMENTS OF THE LOWER STRUCTURE IS INSTANTANEOUSLY LOST". Do capital letters help you out? Can you not understand what it means to lose ALL support from the lower structure? Can you provide any video which shows an *instantaneous* destruction? I have been unable to find any...each and every one reveals a building collapse in sequence from top to bottom...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#368. To: war (#366)
In other words war, you can't include time PRIOR to the BUILDING DESCENDING, as it is the BUILDING DESCENT WHICH IS BEING MEASURED IN TERMS OF DESCENT TIME. Capish?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#369. To: FormerLurker (#367)
No...the volume of my laughter is the same. True or False: A controlled demolition relies upon gravity? Do capital letters help you out?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#370. To: FormerLurker (#368)
The building was descending at that point...the penthouse most certainly did not collapse in any other direction...as the weight load shifted from the failure of the columns to other columns which failed the main collapse began... Quick again make the ridiculous argument that gravity doesn't affect all falling things equally and that only a controlled demolition makes gravity work... In other words war, you can't include time PRIOR to the BUILDING DESCENDING
--Are you a *Jew*?
#371. To: war (#369)
Sure, but it also relies upon explosives. Does that help? A controlled demolition relies upon gravity?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#372. To: war (#370) (Edited)
PART of the ROOF fell INTO the building, but the 4 CORNERS of the TOP of the BUILDING didn't budge, nor did the outer 4 WALLS (unless you include the bulging outwards due to the apparent explosives). As far as rate of descent of the BUILDING itself (which includes all FOUR CORNERS OF THE TOP AND THE FOUR OUTER WALLS), that HAS to be measured from the point in time the ENTIRE STRUCTURE BEGINS ITS DESCENT. Did you ever graduate Jr. High? The building was descending at that point...
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#373. To: FormerLurker (#372) (Edited)
Please use the edit feature so that mess of a question makes some sense *above* the no sense that it makes now. Thanks. PART of the ROOF fell INTO the building, but the 4 CORNER of the TOP of the BUILDING didn't budge, nor did the outer 4 WALLS (unless you include the bulging outwards due to the apparent explosives).
--Are you a *Jew*?
#374. To: FormerLurker (#371)
And those explosives do what? Sure, but it also relies upon explosives. Does that help?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#375. To: war (#373)
Wasn't a question genius.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#376. To: FormerLurker (#372)
A collapse goes in what direction? Up? The fact is, the collapse went in stages...it was not all at once...that is the fatal blow to your CD nonsense...the roof collapsed because of column failure and not because of explosives so powerful ye able to be unseen were detonated...your claim also is that the main collapse was the result of a controlled demolition... When has a controlled demolition ever been done in two stages starting with the only the top corner of a building? Ooopsie...that logic mixed with a healthy dose of reality rears its ugly head yet again... As far as rate of descent of the BUILDING itself (which includes all FOUR CORNERS OF THE TOP AND THE FOUR OUTER WALLS), that HAS to be measured from the point in time the ENTIRE STRUCTURE BEGINS ITS DESCENT.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#377. To: war (#374)
Blow things up. That, and cause a TOTAL failure of SUPPORT causing the structure to COLLAPSE into its own footprint in most cases, unless for whatever reason it's desired to topple the structure, as in smokestack demolitions for instance. And those explosives do what?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#378. To: FormerLurker (#375)
Who could tell is the point... Wasn't a question genius.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#379. To: FormerLurker (#377)
What *things*...(please limit your answer to the materials used in building construction)? Blow things up.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#380. To: war (#376)
So to you, descent time begins when ANY ONE thing falls, such as a window or chimney. So if the chimney fell 10 minutes before the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsed, you'd add ten minutes to the descent time, eh? Of course YOU would, if it suited your agenda.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#381. To: war (#379)
Don't have time today to play your childish games. Why don't you go haunt Stone's site for some fun, you might actually find people who agree with you there.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#382. To: FormerLurker (#380)
The collapse of the Penthouse is the beginning of the end for that building and you can see a visible pinch near the east side of the roof after the penthouse goes. I'm still waiting for you to explain to *us* why column failure caused only by controlled demolition is the only means by which gravity affects the fall of a building. So to you, descent time begins when ANY ONE thing falls, such as a window or chimney.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#383. To: FormerLurker (#381)
You obviously used your *engineering* skills and figured out where that was going. Why is it that in your little bizarro world that only explosives can cause columns to fail? Don't have time today to play your childish games.
--Are you a *Jew*?
#384. To: FormerLurker (#381)
...actually me posting here is me having fun at Pebblie Poo's expense... Why don't you go haunt Stone's site for some fun...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#385. To: war, FormerLurker (#356) (Edited)
Since b), localizing the diminishing fires to impact zone, is the only part there that doesn't sound thoroughly like you're not a serious debater or even reader -- just here mainly to fill the place voluminously with your rumbling disagreeableness -- I'll be redirecting my inquiry (from way back at #189) about the compacter WTC 7 steel heat-durability in comparison to steel in the Towers to FormerLurker, not you henceforth (allegedly a "corner-officer" of the former US Steel Building by the WTC). Also, I'm gonna have to conclude by now that you won't be providing any info, even if you could, about "pre-planned demolition docs that likely had to be submitted for all 3 of the highest WTC buildings before any of them were approved to be built", as requested way back at #213. Edited sentence 1. Sorry...you don't get to define how I rebut your nonsense which appears to be that all of the paper in WTC should have spontaneously combusted even though anyone can see that a) the building was not solely made or nor did it solely contain, paper b) the area of the fires was at the impact zone...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#386. To: GreyLmist (#385)
Please don't have a *snit* fit because I prefer whiting to your red herrings...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#387. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#361)
Thanks for the link, Neo.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#388. To: GreyLmist (#385) (Edited)
Come to NY...I'll show you around...and I didn't have an *office*...I sat on a trading desk about 15 feet long across the North Side of the floor in the NW corner...I had 2 others to my left and 4 across from me beginning directly to my left...Century 21 was at my back and the WTC complex to my right...I had Brooks Brothers on the first floor and Starbucks in the Lobby...by the time I was in the building (late 1998 until early 2002 with a three month pause in late 2001)...it was the *former* Merrill Lynch Building... not you henceforth (allegedly a "corner-officer" of the former US Steel building by the WTC
--Are you a *Jew*?
#389. To: FormerLurker (#380)
Nope. But it still wouldn't stop you from trying to make that a *silly* point... So if the chimney fell 10 minutes before the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsed, you'd add ten minutes to the descent time, eh?
--Are you a *Jew*?
#390. To: war, FormerLurker (#388) (Edited)
I'd like to visit but, as I said earlier, I'm a peasant and that's too far for me to walk from here. Btw, WTC 7 having been an Emergency Management Center, I'm not convinced the topmost section of that building did collapse in the sense of structural failure. Can't be sure there weren't some mechanisms in place to lower it down in time of war or something. Edited sentence 2. Come to NY...I'll show you around...and I didn't have an *office*...I sat on a trading desk about 15 feet long across the North Side of the floor in the NW corner...I had 2 others to my left and 4 across from me beginning directly to my left...Century 21 was at my back and the WTC complex to my right...I had Brooks Brothers on the first floor and Starbucks in the Lobby...by the time I was in the building (late 1998 until early 2002 with a three month pause in late 2001)...it was the *former* Merrill Lynch Building...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#391. To: GreyLmist (#390)
Fung Wa Bus... I'd like to visit but, as I said earlier, I'm a peasant and that's too far for me to walk from here...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#392. To: war (#391) (Edited)
reason.com | Dec. 16, 2014: "Fung Wah, the iconic Chinatown bus company that became famous for charging just $10 to travel between Boston and New York City, will reopen early next year." Sounds reasonable but I'm a person who actually had to walk miles to get home from work once because I didn't have a nickle for a bus transfer. Wouldn't want to have to walk home from New York in a pinch. It's getting to be the rainy season. Fung Wa Bus
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#393. To: GreyLmist (#392)
Ha... Son takes it from time to time from Boston...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#394. To: All (#241) (Edited)
13 minute video. Turn volume down at 10:20-10:46 -- loud buzzing noise. ... firehoses in use throughout the day at the complex (and as late as a camera recorded timestamp of 4:06:19 PM, when water appears to be wasted) but never aimed at WTC 7; like the firemen were unaware that it was burning at all ... examples at these video timestamps: 7:09-7:46 ... 8:07-9:35 ... 10:52-11:11 ... 11:40-11:50 ... 12:21- 12:424um Title: NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clips 01-49 (WTC Complex & WTC7 after 10:28am)
Excerpts:
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#395. To: war (#393)
I went to Harvard there, really...for a few minute walkabout. :) Son takes it from time to time from Boston...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#396. To: GreyLmist (#395)
Very nice area for a walkabout... Boston is a great city...
--Are you a *Jew*?
#397. To: GreyLmist (#394)
They had stopped fighting the fires a couple of hours earlier...given all that was going on around them, I doubt if neatness counted... firehoses in use throughout the day at the complex (and as late as a camera recorded timestamp of 4:06:19 PM, when water appears to be wasted) but never aimed at WTC 7; like the firemen were unaware that it was burning at all ... examples at these video timestamps:
--Are you a *Jew*?
#398. To: Lod (#1)
bump for later view
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#399. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#398)
Epic bump.... its something i tried.to get across.to folks... the.hard ware. The software. The failsafes and.the physics... hijaking those.planes to.fly in those altitudes at those speeds to preform those manuvers is impossible in the literal sense of impossibility. Nothong but conteoled demolitions and cgi tvee propaganda..
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#400. To: GreyLmist (#394)
You're missed .
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#401. To: titorite (#400)
Is this an all--time record number of page views -- 1,860?
_____________________________________________________________
“We build but to tear down. Most of our work and resource is squandered. Our onward march is marked by devastation. Everywhere there is an appalling loss of time, effort and life. A cheerless view, but true.” - Tesla per FP
#402. To: NeoconsNailed (#401)
No, the hide away belt clip handcuff key broke fredom4um like a ddos attack. That thread set the record.,,, and crashed the site. Gov bots most likely i think
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest