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: 19425
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 (1-143) not displayed.
.
.
.
#144. To: FormerLurker, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#142)
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
I wanted to put this all to rest so I contacted Tim Osman (Osama Yo Mamma) and asked him how he had NORAD stand down on 9-11. He admitted that he had help from the Pope, Ariel Sharon, George Bush and Alfred E. Newman. [He then told me to make note that he wasn't able to get much help from fellow muslims and was forced to rely upon some 200 Israeli agents of the MOSSAD and a hand full of rogue arabs that had worked for George H.W. Bush and Clinton at OKC and WTC I]. Seriously, the question of finding eyewitnesses and proof of exactly how the buildings were demolished or damaged is superceded by determination of how Atta's passport survived and our "rights" have been annulled ! No one asks David Copperfield how he made the Empire State Building disappear do they ? Osama says "Amerikans should be more concerned with where their rights disappeared to, and forget about the Jewish lightening (arson) that occurred at the World Trade Center". The U.S. Government today looks like a convention of Babylonian Priests of Baal consisting of people that call themselves Jews, Masonics and Papists (MOSSAD / CIA /MI-6 / Sanhedrin and Jesuits P-2 Lodge). Tim (Osama) sends his regards and wants everyone to know that he and Tim McVeigh are enjoying the margaritas and their stay in Paraguay. Allah Akbar, (hic) !
“The First Highest Masonic Council was, as we have already said, formed on 31st May 1801 in Charleston, 33 degrees northern latitude, under the chairmanship of the Jew Isaac Long, who was made inspector general by the Jew Moses Cohen, and who had received his degree from Hyes, from Franken, and the Jew Morin.”
I'm curious about something else. A friend told me that in the OT it says it's a sin to talk of conspiracies. Do you know what that means, and what they mean by conspiracy? Okey, I just got my Webster's dictionary out to look up the proper meaning of conspiracy. 1 a planning and acting together secretly, esp for a harmful or unlawful purpose, such as murder or treason 2 the plan agreed on; plot 3 the group taking part in such a plan 4 the combining or working together Okey so here we have the definition of conspiracy. Can you enlighten us as to what the OT says about not speaking of conspiracies? I would be very interested in knowing what that is about. Is it because if you do, there is a chance bad men who are part of the conspiracy may come out of the woodwork to kill you to shut you up? I'm really curious about this.
I wonder why he does not want to address the NORAD stand down. I'd like to know about that too.
LMFAO!
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
No, he lost his job for publishing his wacky conspiracy theory and outright lies on official UL stationary. Even you must know that's a big no, no, honway. No, he lost his job for spending more time on his wacky conspiracy theory than on what he was hired to do. Besides, even he says he just retired to do other things. He hasn't said he was forced out. You are alleging a mass murder of over 3000 people and that you specific expertise in this matter, honway. Surely, if you are as convinced of this as you would have us think, your conscience wouldn't let you remain silent any longer. You know as well as I that there is power in numbers. You could join those 25 (or so) pilots in that PilotsForTruth organization who have already come forward. Anything bad happen to them?
But, robin, the plane didn't hit the lawn. So you've no proof the lawn is indestructible.
Those were blast hardened windows. So why would you expect them to break when nothing hit them but blast? Or is this just another thing you didn't know?
But why the need to insist on
bombs in the towers and no Flight 77? Doing so widens the conspiracy by orders
of magnitude. Now it's not just the hijackers and top people in the US who let
their plot move forward (deliberately or through incompetence). Now you have to
assert that hundreds of firemen and rescue workers; hundreds of eyewitnesses;
thousands and thousands of structural engineers and other experts in demolition,
steel, fire, seismology and physics; scores of media people; hundreds in our
military, and hundreds in the government bureaucracy (and I've undoubtedly left
off many others from this list) knowingly participated or are knowingly covering
up the crime of the millennium. Doing so doesn't strengthen your case for
getting the reasonable questions resolved. It weakens it.
True or not, why is it essential that bombs in the towers
and no Flight 77 be part of the theory? How could it
not be if there were bombs in the towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
How could it not be if the allegation is that government organizations like
NIST, the military, etc are knowingly covering up the crime of the millennia?
************* http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html
The story... The passport of one of the hijackers was found at
the WTC. It's clearly impossible for any personal effects to survive the impact
and explosion, therefore it must have been planted. Our take...
Our first reaction is why would they bother? What does it add to the story?
There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must
have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s
completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”.
But could the passport have escaped destruction? Explosions are
unpredictable things, it’s surprising what can survive, and there are accounts
of personal effects being retrieved from other passengers. Here’s one from
Flight 175. ----------- Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne
Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two
degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in
Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The
Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept.
11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...
Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will
never understand why. A few days before the first anniversary of our
daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the
piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled
out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't
lost. In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found
her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found
a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning
of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably
her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other
personal effects. ------------------------------ It’s a card rather than paper, and wasn’t
ejected from the building, but this does demonstrate that not everything was
incinerated. And it’s not alone. There are similar reports from the other crash
scenes, including a drivers licence and luggage tag recovered from Flight 77 and
even more from Flight 93. ------------------------------ United
Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset
County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and
flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40
passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers...
But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost.
Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards,
purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes
of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.
-------------------------------- There’s some support for the idea from
other crash sites, then, but of course surviving the initial impact is only one
problem. Others ask how could one passport be recovered so quickly from the
rubble of the trade centre collapses? Fortunately the answer is a simple one. It
wasn’t. Here’s the official account of what happened.
---------------------------------- The passport was recovered by NYPD
Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years
old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from
WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the
passport to the FBI on 9/11. ----------------------------------- The suggestion here is that the
passport was found amongst the debris on the street.
----------------------------------- On the ground, they saw an odd shape.
Reiss looked closer: It was the nose gear of an airplane..." A part of the
landing gear landed five blocks south ------------------------------------ After the
first crash, the debris, plane parts and body parts were all over the
area. ------------------------------------- This photo is particularly
interesting. Flight 11
Seat Cushion Medium As you can see, there’s debris on the ground, but not piles of
it. A passport would stand out. Better still is the caption of the photo on
its
original page: “On Albany Street, two blocks south of WTC 2, Two men examine
a seat cushion from AA Flight 11. 8:52 a.m”. A cushion, from Flight 11? An
eminently flammable object that was passed through the building, still
recognisable, rather than burned to ashes? Plainly we can’t prove the caption is
correct, although it would explain why two passer-bys have stopped to look (an
ordinary cushion from the building probably isn’t going to attract the same
attention). Meanwhile another story in the New York Times said at least two
items of mail on the 9/11 planes were recovered:
---------------------------------- On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second
envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the
instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It
was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the
envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script
had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor
embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact. Along with the letter was
a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in
downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy.
Sincerely, a friend in New York!'' Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer
service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of
only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that
crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted
her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.
One
Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound ------------------------------- What else was on the street, and why
couldn’t a passport have made it intact? If you’re still not sure,
preferring to go with intution and say survival was impossible, then consider
this story from the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. The craft broke up on
re-entry, 40 miles about the earth, and debris fell over a wide area. Amongst
this was one of the experiments involving tiny worms.
------------------------------- The worms and moss were in the same
nine-pound locker located in the mid-deck of the space shuttle. The worms were
placed in six canisters, each holding eight petri dishes. The worms, which
are about the size of the tip of a pencil, were part of an experiment testing a
new synthetic nutrient solution. The worms, which have a life cycle of between
seven and 10 days, were four or five generations removed from the original worms
placed on Columbia in January. ------------------------------- Remarkably, not only were the canisters
retrieved, but the worms were still alive (the above link tells you more). Who
would have believed that? Not the scientist in charge of the experiment, who
said in the same story: -------------------------------- ``It's
pretty astonishing to get the possibility of data after all that has happened,''
Sack said. ``We never expected it. We expected a molten mass.''
-------------------------------- In fact if we wanted to start a “Columbia
space shuttle crash never happened” conspiracy site then that would make great
“evidence”, because it goes against what you’d expect. And there’s a great
quote, too. But then maybe intuition doesn’t tell the whole story, and more can
survive explosions than you think. *************** That's fine. Maybe there was someone other than the US
government manipulating the hijackers or tampering with the evidence after the
crash (like the passport). But why is it so seemingly important that there be
bombs in the towers and no Flight 77? You can still argue that the hijackers
didn't do it alone or without help from *someone* without making those two
assertions. I'm trying to tell you that making those assertions is making it
more difficult to get your concern about bin Laden the mastermind listened to
with an open mind. I haven't labeled ANYONE here at FD4UM. I'm sticking to
the facts. And it is a fact that bombs in the towers and no Flight 77 are not
needed to think that someone in the US government (or someone else) helped and
let the hijackers complete their mission. That's all I'm suggesting here, Diana.
I haven't mentioned the word "unpatriotic" here, Diana.
Ping to post #162, Diana. honway is misrepresenting the facts.
BAC is a poofta; not too much one can expect of him.
Is anyone else having trouble reading this thread? I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read. Since I am not a computer expert I don't know what is causing this, if it's only happening to me or if it's 4um's system. Thanks.
Does this thread look right to you or do you have to scroll like crazy in order to read it?
I never said that, I don't know about that. I can't read most of your post because this thread is not working right on my end, even taking long for my posts to go through. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
It's okay on my machine.
Now you are going to give us a lesson in plasticity? Well tell us, oh *expert*, is there a difference in the stress at which steel yields in compression versus tension? I have an idea. Why don't you tell us all about dynamic load factors. Tell us what the impact of strain rate is on ultimate limit of steel. Tell us all about buckling and its affect during compression. We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience in structural engineering, demolition, steel, fire, seismology and macro-world physics who seem comfortable with the notion that impact and fire brought down the towers. I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise. I have made no personal attack. I've simply noted that you claimed expertise about steel but didn't seem to realize that steel has the same modulus of elasticity and yield strength in compression and tension. Curious... So *book learning* is for *incompetents*? In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results. But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance. And now an even greater mass has fallen the same distance as the previous mass fell to impact the first floor. Thus, there has to be even more kinetic energy in the aggregate mass than there was in the first impact. And that's without even adding in the residual velocity (energy) from the first impact. So you are simply wrong, innieway. Once the first floor collapsed, if the upper portion of the building wasn't completely stopped by the resistance of the next intact floor, nothing on earth was going to stop the collapse before it reached the ground. You don't know what you are talking about. Which is why you can't find ANY structural engineers who agree with you.
What is the OT? I'm really curious about this.
About the only "truth" I can discover in the 'official' account of 9-11, was that two 767s hit the WTC towers. That doesn't smack of "conspiracy?" Waddaya want, Slurpy? Then your kind pushes everything short of outright lies, all day long. ("It's not a 'dog;' it's an ANIMAL!") Trust the War Criminal, Bush? His associates? That's the stuff of fools and co- conspirators, such as yourself, BAC.
I'm not having any trouble, Diana. On my computer the test is still wrapping within the normal window. Have you tried restarting your computer?
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about. The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems.
God is always good! Your "complexity cloudwork" isn't having much of an effect, BeOcho. "If you can't blind 'em with brilliance - baffle 'em with bullshit." You're at least good in the attempt - but this isn't your 'condidtioned' elPee crowd. A simple stopwatch attests to the only possible truth - controlled demolition; you can't change that with the absolute sum of your limp-wristed rationalizations. I hear the Iranian invasion is getting close - is that the discussion/information that you're trying to dissuade, with the best remnants of your bullshit?? Goldi still loves you, BAC. (But you know that better than anyone.) "Go home, BeOcho!"
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
I have a 1440 x 900 display and am having no trouble, Ricky. Would you care to point out the post you say is causing the problem? Because when I post large photos, I add the statement width=731 before the final >. And I previewed each of my posts before making them and they looked fine in the default window for my browser (no adjustment of width). And apparently, others aren't having problems either. So are you sure, your and Diana's problem is my fault?
It's in Isaiah in the Old Testament somewhere in chapter 8. I think it means don't worry about the bad deeds of men and their conspriacies and such just put your faith in God, at least that's what I get out of it. I went to other threads and they are not having the problem of this one where you have to scroll 3 feet to read it.
I have IE too, but it only does it on this thread and not on any others. It's still doing it, but since it's only this thread it's no big deal. So it's happening to RickyJ too, I figured I wouldn't be the only one. I remember this happened some time ago on another thread and I think Neil said it had to do with the browser we were using, but christine if you are using IE too then who knows.
The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems. That could be it! Thanks for the explanation.
I am using Firefox and have the problem. I tried IE to see if that was it, and I still have the problem. Here is what my screen looks like on IE: I also have the scrolling problem that Diana was talking about on Firefox, but not that line going down the page like on IE. The problem appears to be a huge image that BeAChooser has posted that was suppose to be a link, but wasn't and actually was the picture posted here.
God is always good!
Comments (184 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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)
#158. To: innieway (#155)
(Edited)
#159. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Red Jones, honway, Bible People, All (#128)
(Edited)
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.
#160. To: innieway, FormerLurker, BeAChooser (#155)
I discovered that when he refused to address the NORAD stand down...
#161. To: noone222 (#158)
Allah Akbar, (hic) !
#162. To: honway, ALL (#139)
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.
#163. To: robin, ALL (#145)
The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN!
#164. To: innieway, Diana, ALL (#151)
I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact...
#165. To: Diana, ALL (#153)
"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."
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.
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,
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,
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp
Page 40
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
Other accounts
certainly suggest some parts of the plane were left outside the building.
Page 20, “102 Minutes”
Jim
Dwyer and Kevin Flynn
http://zibili.com/sept11/91103.htm
(Download the full-size version by clicking
here).![]("http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg)
New York Times
December 20, 2001
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_worms_030501.html
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.
Don't put this Bad American label on me
Is it unpatriotic now to ask questions? You seem to think
so.
#166. To: Diana, honway, ALL (#154)
honway - Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
honway - Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory.
honway - 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.
#167. To: Kamala, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#157)
#168. To: BeAChooser, christine, Neil McIver (#165)
#169. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)
#170. To: BeAChooser (#165)
But why the need to insist on bombs in the towers and no Flight 77?
#171. To: Diana (#169)
#172. To: innieway, ALL (#156)
However, with enough applied force, steel and other metals will cease to behave elastically and begin to behave plastically. ... snip ... 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.
You still haven't answered the question
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.
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.
#173. To: Diana, ALL (#159)
A friend told me that in the OT it says it's a sin to talk of conspiracies.
#174. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#165)
"Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy?
#175. To: Diana (#168)
I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read.
#176. To: Diana (#168)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#177. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#172)
#178. To: Diana, Neil McIver (#168)
#179. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#176)
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#180. To: BeAChooser, christine, All (#173)
What is the OT?
#181. To: christine, RickyJ, Neil McIver, BeAChooser (#178)
what browser are you using? i'm on IE.
#182. To: RickyJ (#176)
I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#183. To: christine (#178)
(Edited)
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
.
.
.