You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
mitchejw wrote:The Cleveland stuff is pretty messed up.
Also, I was wondering if any of you could help me out with this. I always wondered why these giant buildings in New York landed so neatly on top of themselves. I don't understand how such a reckless thing like a plane crash would cause such neatly falling buildings.
What do you think?
I think 'controlled demolition'.
The laws of physic does not permit the official scenario to happen. There's just not enough force to make a massive steel core collapse in on itself. Not to mention all the anomalies; Smoke coming from the base of the buildings and witnesses saying they heard explosions in the basement, steel columns blasted hundreds of meters away from the building, WTC7 collapsing, BBC news report saying the building had collapsed 30 mins before it did (#7), molten steel at the site, traces of termite etc.
Whether you believe it to be a conspiracy or not, the official story simply does not hold water.
None of that means a damn thing. Show me proof of smoke coming from the bottom of the tower, not some supposed eye witness who was traumatized from the event. Secondly, why would smoke come from the bottom if an explosion took place as you claim? Smoke only comes from fires or the aftermath of an explosion. Physicist have proven time and time again that the "official" story is entirely feasible. Just becuase you found a few who distort the events and claim it didn't doesn't make it impossible. You choose to believe a few witnesses who think they heard something in lieu of the thousands who didn't. I'm sorry, but none of these "witnesses" were qualified or in the right state of mind to judge what happened.
Point and case with your argument on cell phones on the plane. Someone who is so certain of foul play would hopefully at least know that air phones are on every other seat on most airlines if not every seat. You're using two clocks as a defense for your argument? Are you kidding me. Two clocks that aren't linked to a central computer happen to be 5 minutes slow. You do understand that clocks lose time and the custodial staff probably has more pressing issues than making sure the thousands of clocks in that building are in synch. Did it ever occur to you that those clocks could have been a personal clock in a cubicle and the person didn't care to keep it accurate. Let's try an experiment Polluxlm. Ask 10 different people the time when you're out and about and I bet you get several different answers.
OH NO! The BBC reported a building fell before it did. That must mean it was planned! Or, as happens thousands of times, they reported an error. I don't have the time line in front of me, but didn't they make a decision at some point not to save building 7? Was that decsion made more than 30 minutes prior to its collapse. Would it be logical for someone to say that Building 7 was gone based simply on the fact there was no effort to save it. Furthermore, with 2 buildings already fallen, could someone have just jumped the gun and made an assumption?
Everything you list is circumstancial. I honestly feel sad for people who buy into this because they are either socially inept or fucking retarded cause an educated or intelligent person wouldn't buy into this bullshit. For all the "experts" on the Truthers side, there's thousands more on the side of reality. You don't need a government conspiracy to add to your case that Bush is a fuckup. You can make that aargument without visiting fantasia and Ron L Hubbard.
I'm sure some of you will "smite" me for this because I called you out and asking for actual proof. I really couldn't give a damn. When I see people posting bullshit that wouldn't pass for a high school report and claiming the mythical Illumanati, I have to ask for the check. Having an intelligent conversation about this issue is apparently impossible here because most of you are incapable of an intelligent discussion and there's really not anything to discuss about 9/11.
3,000 people died because 19 angry, muslim men hijacked 4 planes and flew 3 of them into 3 different buildings. No hollograms, no missles, no drones. Thousands of people have died in relation to those attacks, a majority of which is fighting for their country. I'll be damned if I'll let anyone dishonor their service and death by spreading hate and lies such as what is written here without at least a response.
Re: 9/11
Randall, maybe instead of playing the internet tough guy role, you should show us some evidence that supports your opinions. Why don't we start with the pentagon. Show me some evidence that a large passenger jet flew mere feet over the lawn, without leaving a scratch on it, and made a nice, neat little hole in the first floor. I dare you.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
I'm not playing an internet tough guy. I'm with the majority so I have no reason to play tough. Although your "dare" is laughable.
Maybe these will do.
Re: 9/11
polluxlm wrote:None of that means a damn thing. Show me proof of smoke coming from the bottom of the tower, not some supposed eye witness who was traumatized from the event.
Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY … re=related
The eyewitness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmOmWrgEJEQ
Secondly, why would smoke come from the bottom if an explosion took place as you claim? Smoke only comes from fires or the aftermath of an explosion. Physicist have proven time and time again that the "official" story is entirely feasible. Just becuase you found a few who distort the events and claim it didn't doesn't make it impossible. You choose to believe a few witnesses who think they heard something in lieu of the thousands who didn't. I'm sorry, but none of these "witnesses" were qualified or in the right state of mind to judge what happened.
Physicists have proven time and again that they have trouble reaching a coherent and logical conclusion. Take NIST, they worked on the scenario for years, still they can't seem to make their models work. The story has been changed several times. There's still no unison conclusion.
These aren't a few witnesses. I remember the day very clearly, and a common thread in the initial reports were 'bombs' 'explosions' 'secondary devices'.
And if the witnesses weren't qualified, why is the 911 Commission basing a lot of their conclusion on their testimony? That is, the testimonies that 'fit'.
Point and case with your argument on cell phones on the plane. Someone who is so certain of foul play would hopefully at least know that air phones are on every other seat on most airlines if not every seat. You're using two clocks as a defense for your argument? Are you kidding me. Two clocks that aren't linked to a central computer happen to be 5 minutes slow. You do understand that clocks lose time and the custodial staff probably has more pressing issues than making sure the thousands of clocks in that building are in synch. Did it ever occur to you that those clocks could have been a personal clock in a cubicle and the person didn't care to keep it accurate. Let's try an experiment Polluxlm. Ask 10 different people the time when you're out and about and I bet you get several different answers.
I thought it was interesting information. I'm not building an argument around it. Not everything needs to be a pissing match.
But for your information, the amount of clocks that stopped at 9.31-32 (yeah, that's inaccuracy) isn't 1, it isn't 2 or even 3. It's dozens. Richard A. Clark (I think) said himself that the impact occured at 9.32 in a speech he gave.
OH NO! The BBC reported a building fell before it did. That must mean it was planned! Or, as happens thousands of times, they reported an error. I don't have the time line in front of me, but didn't they make a decision at some point not to save building 7? Was that decsion made more than 30 minutes prior to its collapse. Would it be logical for someone to say that Building 7 was gone based simply on the fact there was no effort to save it. Furthermore, with 2 buildings already fallen, could someone have just jumped the gun and made an assumption?
Of course that is possible. It's not a particular strong argument, isolated. But put in the basket of all the other evidence it gives leverage to the case. Especially when BBC confronted with this, claimed the tapes had been lost in the archives. That's a moot defence though since it's all over the net.
Everything you list is circumstancial.
Circumstantial in terms of what? If you're thinking about 'bush and the government did it', sure. Eye witnesses and photographic evidence however, are not.
On a side note, chill out a little man. No need to get worked up.
Re: 9/11
See, that's the thing. Those pictures prove absolutely nothing. Where's the plane? Where's the bodies, the luggage, the wings, the engines? How come this plane was able to fly a few feet above the ground at 500 mph without touching the lawn? Where's all the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon? If that little piece of "plane" made it unscorched that far from the building, how did everything else vaporise? Where's the damage from where the tail & wings that would've hit the building? There's cameras like every 30 feet on top of the pentagon, surely they picked up something. There's a highway camera facing exactly where the plane crossed over to hit the pentagon, where's that at? Basically, the burden of proof is on the government, yet they refuse to just show the footage. Why? And that's only the beginning of the Pentagon questions that should be easy to answer, but cannot be.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
Sorry dude. Those videos don't fly. You're using a janitor as someone qualifed to state it was a bomb simply because he was rattled after the attack. The impact of those planes would have resonated and shook the entire foundation. I doubt anyone could pinpoint where it came from initially.
If a bomb exploded on ground level, why weren't people dead on the ground level? There would have been significant more damage had an explosion gone off.
The smoke at lower levels is fully and logically explained by the NIST.
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it'”much like the action of a piston'”forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar 'puffs' were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
See, that's the thing. Those pictures prove absolutely nothing. Where's the plane? Where's the bodies, the luggage, the wings, the engines? How come this plane was able to fly a few feet above the ground at 500 mph without touching the lawn? Where's all the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon? If that little piece of "plane" made it unscorched that far from the building, how did everything else vaporise? Where's the damage from where the tail & wings that would've hit the building? There's cameras like every 30 feet on top of the pentagon, surely they picked up something. There's a highway camera facing exactly where the plane crossed over to hit the pentagon, where's that at? Basically, the burden of proof is on the government, yet they refuse to just show the footage. Why? And that's only the beginning of the Pentagon questions that should be easy to answer, but cannot be.
The burden of proof is not on the government, though they've already provided the proof. All the answers to your questions can be answered here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ht77debris
I certainly see damage to the surrounding area, although I don't expect there to be damage just because an object moving at high speeds flew over top. By that logic, there would be destruction to the area if a missle struck because a missle surely moves in excess of 500 mph.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
Here is my challenge to you. Provide me with evidence of any chemical residue of an explosion.
Re: 9/11
polluxlm wrote:Sorry dude. Those videos don't fly. You're using a janitor as someone qualifed to state it was a bomb simply because he was rattled after the attack. The impact of those planes would have resonated and shook the entire foundation. I doubt anyone could pinpoint where it came from initially.
If a bomb exploded on ground level, why weren't people dead on the ground level? There would have been significant more damage had an explosion gone off.
There were damage in the lobby. A dozen firemen can attest to that. So can video footage. There were casualties and injuries in the basement. I've seen at least one fireman attest to that.
The fact that he's a janitor means nothing. He's not an idiot, he could clearly feel pressure from beneath. Then he heard the explosion from above.
The smoke at lower levels is fully and logically explained by the NIST.
"As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it'”much like the action of a piston'”forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
There were no falling mass at that point. This was right after initial impact. It's pretty clear if you watch the footage.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar 'puffs' were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Puffs of air does not eject several hundred kilos of steel into nearby buildings. If you find some footage of the surrounding buildings you'll see vast amounts of debree that have been blown through the air into the facades.
Re: 9/11
polluxlm wrote:The burden of proof is not on the government, though they've already provided the proof. All the answers to your questions can be answered here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ht77debris
The government invaded a country based on it, of course the burden of proof is on them.
Fyi Bin Laden is not credited as the man behind the attacks by the FBI. Quote:"There is not sufficient evidence to link Bin Laden to the attacks of 911".
Not sufficient evidence, and you invade a country? That alone is reason for impeachment.
Popular Mechanics is not the government providing proof. 911 Commission Report is the proof of the government.
