See other 9/11 Articles
Title: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Source:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
URL Source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Sue Reid
Post Date: 2007-02-10 08:45:52 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 16211
Comments: 205
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 Sue Reid – The Daily Mail February 10, 2007 The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001. Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93. Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow. Or that's how the official story goes. Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster. The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers. Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11. A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services. Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier. Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11. Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis." These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II). Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S. Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq? This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic. Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did? An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent. Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job. It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind. And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack. Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked. Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes. But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late. And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it. Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. So what of the fall of the Twin Towers? The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes. It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain. But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees. Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off? And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all. The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times. How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft? The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene. "But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. "Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building? "Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively. "If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole." And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin. So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ. Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane. So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio? No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded. They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target? Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour. He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened. The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not? He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway." Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds. He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers. The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion. Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame. Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington. The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change. President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil." The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811 Watch Loose Change here. Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend Last updated 10/02/2007 Homepage
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-116) not displayed.
.
.
.
#117. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Plus, there are physics that actually make it difficult to set a plane down when it is flying low. If the landing gear WERE down, it WOULD have been landed, wouldn't it?
Terrorists Were Well Trained, But Not Necessarily in Flying By James Glanz Excerpt Whether the terrorists deliberately chose large jets and counted on the fire damage cannot be determined. But John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst, said the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers. The smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers supports this point of view, Mr. Nance said. He added that precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill. “There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done yesterday,” Mr. Nance said.
A) Apparently many don't know exactly how the airliner hit the Pentagon, assuming that it had made a nose dive and hit it, as per at least one of your experts that commented on the topic. B) At least a few out of those hundred thousand you mention HAVE voiced concerns over the matter.
There were no gouges in the lawn, where the engines were just several feet off the ground while the 757 swept in for the impact, correct?
I am voicing concern.Pilots I fly with are voicing concern. How many commerical airline pilots do you know?
Really? Which vehicle, and which fence? Hitting something at 500 mph or so, don't you think pieces of the engine would have come off, and the plane would have leaked fuel from that point on? Don't you think impacting an object with an engine would have thrown the airliner off course, and/or caused a dip of the wing?
CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP.. Those crickets are awfully easy to hear for some reason.
nice grass
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire The wall didn't fail in a bending failure. It sheared as a result of a high speed impact. And the edged of that hole hardly looks clean if you look closely. And look at the hole on the other side of the central hole. You wouldn't call that clean, would you? Much of the left wing went through that hole into the building. Same is true of the hole on the other side. The portion that penetrated it is the portion of the wing that had a fuel bladder and thus lots of mass behind it. The portion of the wing that did not have enough mass, shattered and that is what led to there being metal debris all over the area in the photo I posted to you. If you examine photos like those I've supplied here and others that I've posted at LP, you will see damage to the facade where wing (with not fuel bladder) hit the structure and shattered. Why? Do you know when the photo was taken? Do you know what firefighting had already occurred? And what was there to burn that hadn't already burned by that time? Not sure what you mean by this. A 90+ foot wide hole is pretty big if you ask me. Did you expect the debris to still look like a wing after impacting a blast hardened wall at 500 miles per hour? Well I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by "main impact hole" you now mean the roughly circular central hole plus the wing shaped holes in the wall on extending out some 30-35 feet on both sides of that hole. Beyond that, there is damage to the facade where it appears the wing tips would have hit. Here, look carefully at this photo: More than "smudging" was done to that surface. You can't be serious. Dozens of photos of debris have been posted dozens of times at LP. If you haven't seen them, then perhaps you should ask yourself why your resident *experts* on the Pentagon case have failed to post them here at FD4UM. Here, just for you ... a sampling: " src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/324.jpg"> http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm Beyond that, I can't help you any further, Diana. If you won't accept that the debris in those pictures came from commercial jet then you must think that a host of men in black suits descended on the site immediately after the impact and scattered all the debris you see in these pictures. Or the C130 dropped them, like SKYDRIFTER once suggested. It really would do you good to look at this: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn.
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn. Catchy. Seriously, someone should market grass seed with that name.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Not that short of distance. Remember, there is foreshortening in the photo which makes things farther away look closer together. Here's a better look: Cars are pretty heavy. And most of the energy of the explosion wasn't directed at the car. Note the vehicle is burning. Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy? I can understand wanting answers to many questions ... particularly those surrounding how the hijackers managed to get away with it and why no one lost their job over this. But why is it necessary that the US government have launched a missile at the Pentagon and put bombs in WTC buildings as part of this event? Is there some unconscious need to make not just our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious about this.
That was all that I could bring to this beat to death thread.
Well obviously, the firemen were card carrying members of the *conspiracy*. ROTFLOL!
Red, I'm not here to convince you of anything. A guy who once claimed he graduated summa cum laude from one of the 10 top engineering schools in america needs no convincing. He just KNOWS there were 60+ pools of molten steel at the lowest level of the WTC towers and that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
Isn't it obvious, honway? They were out back relighting the fires. Those evil firemen.
Gee ... is that the opinion of 1 out of 100,000 commercial aviation pilots in America? Is he still a commercial aviation pilot? Otherwise it might be 1 out of 600,000 pilots. And goodness, you forgot to mention that he's also a lawyer. And he's written 17 books. Why he's almost a cottage industry unto himself: http://www.johnjnance.com/moreabout/moreabout.htm In fact, he is. It's called "John Nance Productions". But wait, this is what John Nance must think about the WOT as he posted this on his own website: http://www.johnjnance.com/aviation/dr.kern.htm Do you agree with him, honway? Tell you what folks, if you write him here: mailto:talktojohnnance@johnjnance.com, I'm sure he will be glad to tell you what he thinks about your theories. ROTFLOL!
Do we know your real name?
Finally, an interesting post on this fucked up thread. There's so much shilling going on here, Chrissy might have to change the web address to Freedom4um.gov.
The one that's burning on the right side of this image: This one:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/building/pchrlongspray.jpg Above is a link to a high resolution copy of the image below
bump it pathetic, waste of bandwidth, bump
I have seen how you and your kind operate. Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory. Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory. The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger. If providing my name would move the investigation forward in a significant way,I would be happy to do it.But to give low lifes like you another way to try to silence people questioning the government's conspiracy theory would not be prudent.
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this? And neither have hundreds of thousands of more pilots in other categories. One would think if this maneuver were as impossible as some folks want you to believe, they could get more than 25 (and that includes a sail plane pilot, by the way) to say so. Sure makes me look good, doesn't it? Looky HERE: Notice that none of those same quantity that you cite criticize a word of what I present! "Get back, BeOcho!"
The only way - discounting the role of "ground effect" - that an engine could hit the fence would be for a wing tip to have dug into the ground. You lying piece of shit, BAC! {Don't you just miss Goldi? I think you two had a "thing." Are you her agent provocateur - pretending to be in exile? You don't say much about her.}
Must have been some pilot, with his ability to manuever a 757 into a landing approach at 500 mph with his nose straight and level, right engine smacking a fence and a vehicle, while keeping the wings from tipping and the aircraft in control, while descending further down still to an altitude where if he would have sneezed the engines would have scooped up sod from the PentaLawn. All that, PLUS being able to hit the bottom story of the Pentagon with his nose straight and level, careening through the Pentagon like a bullet. Amazing skill for ANYONE, let alone a rookie that never flew a large aircraft before, and couldn't even land a single engine propeller driven plane correctly.
Probably for the same you reason you are. If not, then why are you bothering to post? :)
God is always good! BAC must be assembling some more massive material, trying to induce sensory overload. It's not like him to go away, so abruptly. I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify. the ElPee stats are too low as it is. Without his stimulation of controversy; ElPee is pushing the history books. With total verbal license, his non-attack of me on a personal level is a function of "mission." He didn't decide to be 'nice,' out of any manner of integrity.
Amazing skill for ANYONE, let alone a rookie that never flew a large aircraft before, and couldn't even land a single engine propeller driven plane correctly. The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN! It's catching on...
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire BAC must be assembling some more massive material, trying to induce sensory overload. It's not like him to go away, so abruptly. There's certain key points that he backs away from, and this is one of them. When a impossible condition is introduced, he backs off. I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify. the ElPee stats are too low as it is. Without his stimulation of controversy; ElPee is pushing the history books. He effectively sought out his banning. He knew which buttons to push, that Goldi, or any other moderator, just couldn't overlook. But on top of that, he sought her out on a topic just about anyone knows is her pet peeve, and that is illegal immigration. With total verbal license, his non-attack of me on a personal level is a function of "mission." He didn't decide to be 'nice,' out of any manner of integrity. He's been quite a bit nicer than usual it appears, since he knows he's skating on thin ice here. It's not even as much fun smacking him around, since he's not pinging Goldi every time he gets backed into a corner. No more crying to mommy for BeAChooser, time for him to grow up..
That's why they needed to bury it in sand, because they didn't want people getting a sample and growing it themselves.. :)
BAC's up to no good. There's no doubt about that. BUT, he does liven up the 4-um; ya gotta give the limp-wristed slime bag that much. His role as a fraud continues. As an "agent," he's too transparent to be useful - thank God! So, what's on his mind, in his attempt to draw off intellectual energy? The "Israeli" lead-in clues to the Iran attack?
that's the most logical explanation. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Goldi is not rational, she doesn't think about the long-term consequences of her actions. She posts, thinks, and makes decisions based on her current mood. BAC really doesn't help the government's theory out despite his best efforts. If anything, he exposes how utterly weak the government's theory really is.
God is always good! I'm kinda curious about this picture too. I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact... OH, my bad.... Of course, everyone knows that bad-ass glass in the Pentagon shattered the engine mounted on that wing into microfragments......
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Funny thing... I told my wife as we watched Tower 2 get hit by the aircraft live that morning "That doesn't make sense.. Why didn't they swoop down and hit the thing lower?? They might have been able to make it come down completely if they'd have hit it lower!!! Well, sprinklers are going off, and it's gonna be tore up, but it can be rebuilt..... I gotta get to work. C Ya later" Yep. Those were some helluva pilots that hijacked them planes alright.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Because the whole thing is preposterous. It was a "conspiracy", whoever was behind it, even if it was the hijackers who were IDed so shortly after it happened, with a few of them still being alive and living in other countries outraged that their names had been slandered in such a way. A lot of it just makes no sense And it's downright ridiculous, that Osama bin Laden who was supposedly hanging out with Jihadists in Afganistan masterminded the whole thing. It was never explained HOW he masterminded it, or HOW it could have been masterminded in any detail, most probably to keep any information pertaining to that from getting out and making it easier for people to solve the puzzle. And I never said it was the US GOVT who was behind the attacks, I don't know who it was as there is no proof. However I highly doubt Osama and those guys who were IDed so quickly had anything to do with it, and then there was that whole strange tale of Mohammad Atta, including his singed passport found having miraculously floated to a nearby street of the WTC buildings, and all the other ludicrous aspects of the whole thing. But don't put words in my mouth saying I said the US government did it, I never said that, I've always maintained no one really knows except those who were involved. Find where I said the US govt put bombs in the WTC, I want evidence of my having said that as you are claming. Don't put this Bad American label on me just because I ask questions. Is it unpatriotic now to ask questions? You seem to think so.
Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory. The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger. Well, we used to have freedom of speech in this country, but look what happens to those who try to excercise it when it comes to 9-11. I guess that's why it's become difficult to find a whole lot of structural engineers to speak out on some questionable aspects, they don't want to lose their jobs or their lives. Now what does that tell you?
I discovered that when he refused to address the NORAD stand down...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THEORETICALLY... However, with enough applied force, steel and other metals will cease to behave elastically and begin to behave plastically. When a material is linearly elastic, its deformation, or strain, will be directly proportional to the applied force and it will return to its original shape when the force is removed. A plastic material, on the other hand, will permanently deform without breaking (think of taffy or perhaps the stringiness of melted mozzarella cheese on a pizza). In real life, of course, there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic or plastic material. In the case of steel, structural engineers are concerned about the tensile strength in terms of both the ultimate strength and the yield strength. When a specimen reaches its yield strength, it will begin to stretch and transition from elastic to plastic behavior. As more force is applied, the steel will reach its ultimate tensile strength and break. Structural engineers take advantage of this property in their designs. In an extreme event, such as an earthquake or major structural failure, this plastic phase is useful because it allows the structure to sag and absorb extra loads. From your link... Of course, it mentions immediately in the second paragraph 'real life' - something which theory sometimes just doesn't answer. Hey - there's tens of thousands of doctors working hard everyday to cure cancer, but so far all they have is a treatment program with a 70% failure rate. Just because someone has a label of "expert" doesn't mean they're competent. And if you don't believe that go ask any one of the 7 million in American jails how competent their lawyer was (whether they were guilty or not)... BTW, did you know that we are now the largest "imprisoner" of people in the history of the world???? Land of the free you know.... Not that it has shit to do with this thread. Well I think based on your responses so far, I can tell what your's isn't. You still haven't answered the question, nor the NORAD standdown.... At this point in the debate a personal attack just makes you look like a dumbass grasping at straws. The only responses I've given so far is what I've learned through experience, NOT what I've been told by others. EVERYTHING is stronger in compression than in tension - even air. Well that is if you're looking at fact rather than theory... I see steel everyday in my welding shop that gets pulled in two by extreme forces. Invariably, it gives first on the "pull" or tension side of the strain (which may then tear apart) as opposed to the "crush" or compression side (which may happen as a result of giving first on the tension side)... Don't believe it???? Take 2 pairs of pliers and bend a piece of wire in as sharp of a 90% angle as you possibly can. Observe the effect. Did the inside radius of the bend "compress" OR did the outside radius of the bend stretch?????? That is life experience, and knowing what happens because you've witnessed it yourself. NOT relying on heresay bullshit or what it "should do in theory". OH, and yes, even though there is added mass in the pancake collapse theory with each new floor adding it's mass to the aggregate, the resistance force of the next floor would slow it down... Bottom line, even at 15 seconds (which is a stretch) there had to be practically no resistance from the lower 2/3 of the tower when unopposed (except for air) freefall speed would have been in the 11 second range for that distance.....
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
BAC is so out numbered here at 4UM. It is like a giant pile on. He was crying about credibility at LP, now he is doing the same here. Remember in grade school if there was a large and long patch of ice, and everyone was sliding on it. Someone would fall and 30 kids would just pile on the one that fell. BAC is the one at the bottom. He is screaming and gasping for air. Its agonizing torture.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Comments (158 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt wasn't rolling about, since the landing gear were up (according to eyewitnesses). ...
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#118. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
September 13,2001
New York Times
Section A page 21
#119. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#120. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: BeAChooser (#118)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
#122. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#123. To: BeAChooser (#116)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#124. To: honway (#115)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#125. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#101)
That hole looks too clean,
where are the wings,
it seems there would be more smoke
damage to the sides of that main impact hole.
I've never seen any evidence of wings,
not pictures of wing wreckage unless they miraculously melted into the building (along with the passengers) without even causing smudging to either side of that clean main impact hole.
And that one photo of the piece of wreckage is the only one I've ever seen,
="
#126. To: robin (#124)
nice grass
#127. To: lodwick (#126)
nice grass
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#128. To: Diana, all (#102)
Also those vehicles in the first picture near the impact hole are in remarkably good shape considering a jet just slammed into the building a short distance away from them.
You'd think force from the impact would have at least hurled them away.
#129. To: robin (#127)
#130. To: honway, ALL (#111)
I am curious as to why the firefighters allowed this Jeep to catch fire and burn
#131. To: Red Jones, ALL (#113)
when I look at the pictures of the hole it just seems like the hole is not wide enough for a Boeing 757.
#132. To: honway, ALL (#115)
Where did the firefighters and fire trucks go? The fire looks nearly out.
#133. To: honway, ALL (#118)
John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst
#134. To: honway, ALL (#121)
I am voicing concern.Pilots I fly with are voicing concern.
#135. To: lodwick (#126)
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn.
NEVER FORGET!
#136. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#122)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
Really? Which vehicle, and which fence?
#137. To: all (#136)
#138. To: Esso (#135)
There's so much shilling going on here, Chrissy might have to change the web address to Freedom4um.gov.
#139. To: BeAChooser (#134)
Do we know your real name?
#140. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#116)
#141. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#136)
#142. To: BeAChooser (#136)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#143. To: angle (#93)
Why are you bothering to post?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#144. To: FormerLurker, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#142)
#145. To: FormerLurker, lodwick, SKYDRIFTER, honway (#142)
Must have been some pilot, with his ability to manuever a 757 into a landing approach at 500 mph with his nose straight and level, right engine smacking a fence and a vehicle, while keeping the wings from tipping and the aircraft in control, while descending further down still to an altitude where if he would have sneezed the engines would have scooped up sod from the PentaLawn. All that, PLUS being able to hit the bottom story of the Pentagon with his nose straight and level, careening through the Pentagon like a bullet.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#146. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#144)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#147. To: robin (#145)
(Edited)
The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN!
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#148. To: FormerLurker, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#146)
#149. To: BeAChooser (#125)
a host of men in black suits descended on the site immediately after the impact and scattered all the debris
#150. To: SKYDRIFTER (#144)
I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#151. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#98)
In that first picture, is the main impact hole suppose the be above the white car with the "possible aircraft debris" around it, that is suppose to be the main impact hole?! I'm really curious about this.
#152. To: BeAChooser (#116)
And no, I don't find it odd that the plane is flying level near the ground at that point. If one were trying to hit a building like the pentagon, the best way would probably be to line up on it and try to strike it near horizontal.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#128)
Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy? I can understand wanting answers to many questions ... particularly those surrounding how the hijackers managed to get away with it and why no one lost their job over this. But why is it necessary that the US government have launched a missile at the Pentagon and put bombs in WTC buildings as part of this event? Is there some unconscious need to make not just our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious about this.
#154. To: BeAChooser, honway (#139)
Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
#155. To: FormerLurker (#146)
When a impossible condition is introduced, he backs off.
#156. To: BeAChooser (#105)
"Steel is more or less a linear elastic material. Unlike concrete, which is much weaker in tension than in compression, steel theoretically responds the same way in either tension or compression."
Well that would have to make you an expert in comparison to the tens of thousands of structural engineers who have studied years on topics like fire and structures, and the thousands who every day work directly on the analysis and design of structures to resist fire. What do they know ... (sarcasm)
Curious, just WHAT is your area of "expertise"?????
And yet you still think steel in stronger in compression than tension? ROTFLOL!
#157. To: RickyJ, innieway, Honway, Formerlurker, Skydrifter, Diana, Red Jones, Critter, Angle, Robin, Christine, *9-11* (#150)
.
.
.
