 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7732
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| |
| Scared wrote: |
| I loved how they tried to debunk the free fall theory. Umm well some say it might have been 8 sec some say up to 15 seconds. LOOK AT THE DAMN FOOTAGE YOU ASS MONKEYS. clearly the towers fell at a rate the is not right. |
Well here's the problem, things are not always as they appear, and simply watching something without accurately measuring is the easiest way to make mistakes.
Do policemen judge whether someone is speeding or not just by watching them? No, they have speed guns, because they are more accurate than sight.
The difference between 7 and 15 seconds is absolutely huge, one is freefall, and even slightly slower than that is not. If it is not falling at free fall, then it probably isn't a CTD. Anything below free fall speeds, even slightly, is explainable without CTD, and that's the point of determining the real speed as accurately as possible, not just looking and thinking something doesn't look right.
How the frick do you know what a sky scraper collapsing due to fire damage should look like, man?
This is why the truth movement is such a farce! First they state that this is the first time in history anything like this has ever happened, then they go into detail how it didn't look the way it should have looked!!  |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
Scared
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
| Do policemen judge whether someone is speeding or not just by watching them? No, they have speed guns, because they are more accurate than sight.[/code] |
Well actually if you know ANYTHING about the police, they can give you a ticket on there estimation. How do i know this?? I GOT A TICKET THAT WAY!!!! i took it to court and won but thats not the point, the point is that as police officers, they do a speed estimation as a part of there training. so legally they are allowed to do that. They can also do it be following you in there car recording there speed for i think it's about 2km's, so your theory goes out the window of watching things, if you know what you are looking at and you have a stop watch in your hand while watching it, i think you could get a 90% answer of what speed they fell at. It's not rocket sceince
| Quote: |
How the frick do you know what a sky scraper collapsing due to fire damage should look like, man?
|
thats the 60 millon dollar question isn't it? i don't. But neither does anyone else, because as you said this has never happened before to a steel framed buildings this big.
I have never claimed to know exactly what has happened, yes i have said my opinion and given my point of veiw, but i have always said if there is 100% proof to either side i will believe it, just seems that neither side can show 100% proof and as i said in my last post they never will. So for now, i have my opinion and how i see it and if anyone else thinnks different, then thats there point of view and i am no one to stop that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7732
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Scared wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Do policemen judge whether someone is speeding or not just by watching them? No, they have speed guns, because they are more accurate than sight.[/code] |
Well actually if you know ANYTHING about the police, they can give you a ticket on there estimation. How do i know this?? I GOT A TICKET THAT WAY!!!! i took it to court and won but thats not the point, the point is that as police officers, they do a speed estimation as a part of there training. so legally they are allowed to do that. They can also do it be following you in there car recording there speed for i think it's about 2km's, so your theory goes out the window of watching things, if you know what you are looking at and you have a stop watch in your hand while watching it, i think you could get a 90% answer of what speed they fell at. It's not rocket sceince |
Well, the fact you took it to court and won certainly is relevant, as is the fact policemen are trained to judge speed, unlike the casual observer, and when following a car that's a different matter since they have their own speed as a gauge.
Let's not take the analogy too far, the point is, where possible, we should get accurate measurements not plainly visual ones, as we all know that eyewitnesses are notoriously bad. Ask ten people how long the towers took to fall and you'll get numbers ranging from 5-30 seconds at least.
| Scared wrote: |
| Quote: |
How the frick do you know what a sky scraper collapsing due to fire damage should look like, man?
|
thats the 60 millon dollar question isn't it? i don't. But neither does anyone else, because as you said this has never happened before to a steel framed buildings this big.
I have never claimed to know exactly what has happened, yes i have said my opinion and given my point of veiw, but i have always said if there is 100% proof to either side i will believe it, just seems that neither side can show 100% proof and as i said in my last post they never will. So for now, i have my opinion and how i see it and if anyone else thinnks different, then thats there point of view and i am no one to stop that. |
Now then can you see the reaosn for getting the real falling speed accurately determined, and not guessed at? We don't know what this should have looked like, so we can't jump to silly conclusions involving conspiracies just because it doesn't look quite right. Let's get the actual facts, is all I'm saying, whether it's the speed the towers fell at, or whatever. |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Scared
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
like i said i am tired of debating this issue, i have my opinion and i have put it foward enough, if you search on here you can read it in other threads.
I understand that there are whackos that will claim crazy things but the thing that gets me is that the people who say, 9-11 wasn't sus, are never willing to budge, ever. Yet on a number of occasions i have said that i am more than willing to say i was wrong if i see good undisputable evidence. Perfect example, all they have to do to convince me about a plane hitting the pentagon, release, 1 clear shot of a plane heading straight for the pentagon.
And you know what i understand the not budging thing but it's funny you let a debunking website, to tell you what you should believe because they have researched it through people that believe the same as they do. I have seen plenty of consipracy sites and think they are all freakin crazy loons but i have no problem putting them in the same boat as the debunking sites because they will always use their own point of veiw as the base of debunking.
I have no more to say. i am tired and need some sleep. lol!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Cole_Trickle
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 650
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
Home :: Blogs :: corey's blog
Triumph of the Liams Part XII: The History Channel
The History Channel, the one place you can go one cable to see some grainy old footage of Nazis getting shot at. At least that's how it used to be... Over the past few years it seems like the History Channel is pulling an MTV and not airing the type of programming that the channel was named for... Think of the Weather Channel airing a reality show about weathermen. The History Channel has been doing this crap for a while now. I remember in the late nineties when they would rerun old episodes of "In Search of" with Leonard Nemoy. This was a campy faux-investigative report show about supernatural crap like the Lock Ness Monster. I didn't mind this too much because there were still plenty of shows about actual historical events. Well, things have changed quite a bit in the last ten years.
In recent years it seems like the History Channel has been airing a lot more of this type of crap. There have been shows about Big Foot, Aliens, UFOs, Extreme Weather and Naturals Disasters. Stuff that I don't think should be on the History Channel. You can make an argument for why shows about devastating earthquakes and tornadoes should be on the History Channel, but I think they make boring shows... There really is no excuse for Big Foot and aliens.
Some of my favorite shows back in the day were the "deadly missions" or "history's greatest escapes" short thirty minute episodes about a single event that happened in the first half of the twentieth century. Usually these took place during or before World War Two and were about snipers, bank robbers or assassins. These must have been cheap to produce as all of the footage was newsreel stuff from the forties with a little narration by Edward Hermann or Roger Mudd.More recently though there have been an abundance of fresh new reality shows about firefighters and lumberjacks... Crap that doesn't interest me one bit.
Modern Marvels is largely to blame
I think shows like How it's Made and Modern Marvels are largely to blame for the bastardization of the History Channel. For some reason people like to watch pseudo-documentaries about everyday **it. I think Modern Marvels started out with good intentions, I've even enjoyed a number of their episodes (such as the building of the World Trade Center and the one about how the 1950s vision of the future compares to today). But some of these shows have gotten out of hand. Namely Modern Marvels: Ice Road Truckers, the heart-warming (ZOMG PUN INTENDED) tale of poorly educated retards who's only employment opportunity is to drive a semi over a frozen lake. But more on that later... Modern Marvels isn't limited to things or occupations but the show also covers concepts, like martial arts. I don't see how it's a Modern Marvel, but whatever.
While we're on the subject, the History Channel has a show called Human Weapon which fits nicely into the "**it that shouldn't be on the History Channel" category. The premise is fine, which is that the show will talk about the history of a certain type of martial art, like karate or kick boxing. Not real deep stuff but at least it's got some historic merit. Where this show goes wrong is the hosts. This program is hosted by two meatheads who try to "break it all down" for us, because watching a dude throw a punch might be a little complicated for some viewers. They even go as far as create a CGI model that outlines techniques. This always starts with basics like punching and kicking... Sound exciting? Check out the video on the right and listen to the oh-so-riveting description of Savate pointe au foie (which is just a fancy French name for kicking and punching).
Jurassic Fight Club
I don't want to sound like a creationist, but a show about CGI dinosaurs fighting each other isn't really historic... it's kinda scientific, but barely. I mean, we can prove there were dinosaurs, but there is still a lot of guessing going on when you talk about which ones lived when exactly and would have run into whichever other species of dinosaurs were around. I'm not saying they shouldn't make this show, CGI dino artists have families to feed too... Just don't air this crap on the History Channel. Put this on Discovery or maybe Animal Planet.
What you may not know is that the Discovery Channel had basically this same show a while ago. Back then it was called Animal Face-Off and it featured non-extinct animals. Each episode started with some dude asking scientists how each animal hunts, fights, kills etc. Then he makes a mechanical version of each animal's jaws or claws (whichever they fight with) and tears up some **it so you get an idea of how powerful the real animal is. I never knew why they made steal and pneumatic mock ups, but whatever... At the end of the show there was a two or three minute long CGI fight between the two animals chosen for that week. My favorite was Gorilla versus Leopard, embedded below. You can see how lame the show was, apparently the folks at the History Channel thought this was groundbreaking television...
Ice Road Truckers
I absolutely hate this show. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's on the History Channel. My hatred of this show is purely based on how incredibly stupid the premise of this show is. Ok, we'll give these truckers a camera to take with them while they drive sixteen hours over a frozen lake and then we'll cut the footage into a 23 episode long season and air it in weekly installments. This show would work if there was any real drama involved. But there isn't, it's one dude in a truck, driving on ice. Sure the ice could break, but it's not gonna happen every episode... So what ends up happening is that your usual episode climax is centered around a trucker that got stuck in the snow for a couple hours and he might end up being late delivering some mechanical gizmo to an oil drilling station. Great television it is not.
I'm guessing this program came to be after the "success" of the Deadliest Catch on the Discovery Channel. I'm sure a couple executives got together and tried to brain storm up a worthy successor and this is the best they could come up with. I should say that I actually like the Deadliest Catch. Well, like is maybe a little to strong. I've watched the first couple of seasons and I'd probably watch more on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I'm not going to go out and buy the DVDs or anything. The difference between these two shows is that there is actual drama on The Deadliest Catch. Not just because crab fishing in the Bering Strait is more dangerous, but because there is more that one dude per boat. There is plenty of overstated drama on The Deadliest Catch as well, like the time some dude was going to miss a court date because the boat was late getting back to shore, then it turned out he got back sooner than he thought. Yawn. If both shows were just about one dude in a truck or one dude in a crab boat, alone... driving around... it'd be equally boring. Imagine Cops with only one cop, and he didn't get out of his car because he might freeze or fall through some ice. It's just a horrible idea for a television show.
Now, with all of that being said, why the hell is Ice Road Truckers even on the History Channel? There is nothing 'historic' about their job, they even point this out in the show. You couldn't do this kind of job all that very long ago because **it would freeze up and these fools would die... A historical take on this show would be comparing them to dog sled teams, but then why not just do a show about dog sled teams? Or how about the story of Leningrad in the Second World War, when the city was besieged and had to be supplied by caravans that ran over Lake Ladoga. There is a good example of a historic case of actual "ice road truckers" that would be an interesting documentary because their contributions had real results. There was actual drama... See how it works?
I really don't like the direction the History Channel is going. I'd much rather watch those old documentaries about World War II that I've seen a million times instead of Ice Road Truckers. It seems like the History Channel is trying to get rid of all of their programming that has a basis in history, sort of like how MTV has stopped airing music videos. I made this correlation at the start so I'll close by taking this to the logical extreme. If the History Channel wants to imitate MTV they should start by copying MTV's programming in earnest. The History Channel version of Road Rules can feature the dudes from Ice Road Truckers. Just throw them each in a Winnebago and make them do stupid tricks out on the tundra in order to earn enough gas money to make it to the next stop. History Channel's Real World can be set in a log cabin for a sense of historic flair. What happens when a Civil War reenactor, a Smithsonian curator, a Muay Thai kickboxer and someone who lived through the 1989 San Francisco earthquake stop being polite - and start being REAL?! Or how about History Channel's Pimp My Ride, where Hunter Ellis takes some poor twenty-something's beater and tricks it out like a Victorian era cottage, like so much Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. I might actually watch that.. |
So back on Topic it is. Plus a shovel full of dirt on the ridiculous official version.
source:http://blackenheimer.com/history_channel_bullshit_programming_200808
Cole |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
theking
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 19, 2008
Posts: 689
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Conspiracy theorists creating conspiracies about conspiracy debunking being apart of the *gasp* government conspiracy. Who would have thought?
Does no one but me see the humor in this? |
|
_________________
"I fear not for the banning of the book. I fear for the hunger to read the book. Why should one ban a book no one cares to read?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7732
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I don't think humour is the word.
The word I'm thinking of begins with "s", and ends in "tupidity". |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
BloodStone
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 1942
Location: Poconos, USSA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
yes that makes sense humpy...
BloodStone... |
|
_________________
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Cole_Trickle
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 650
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
A popcorn FART has more mojo that the three of you put together.
Ridiculous~
Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?
It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.
Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.
Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.
You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.
At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.
1) Actually use planes.
2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.
Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."
Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.
This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion
This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.
What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.
In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.
So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.
Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.
Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced thatthey just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.
So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.
Now to the other problem.
Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.
Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.
Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.
This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Remote control.
Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.
1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.
Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.
Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.
Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.
Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.
And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.
And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.
2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strike
These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.
And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.
In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.
As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media
In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.
The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.
This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources
Where or where is " SLIM PICKENS " when you need him?????
Das source: http://www.911closeup.com/
Trust me. I'm about to get dead serious!!
Cole |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7732
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
We're living in silly times alright.
The kinda times where thousands of people witness a plane going into a building, there is lots of video footage of said plane going into a building, thousands more heard the plane going into the building, wreckage and bodies are recovered, there is damage to the building from a plane, hijackers, a motive, and the blatantly obvious fact that a fricking plane went into a building, yet there are people who think it was done by energy beams and holograms, for NO APPARENT REASON!
Oh yeah, and people made phone calls from the plane that was being hijacked, telling us it was being hijacked!!!
Silly indeed! |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Scared
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
seriously cole, you come up with these claims about 9-11 but you show no independant evidence to back it up. you post links through biased sites. It makes the hard knock skeptics more skecptical, because lets face it, the actually likely hood of what you are saying having actually happened are slim to none.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usatcov-wtcsurvival.htm
This is a very interesting read.
how the hell if the building was so compromised by fire have someone from the 91/2nd floor survive. If you guys seriously believe what you are saying that it was totally fire that brought both towers down, a fair number of floors would have had to been engulphed in fire. but the truth of the matter is that it would have been a gradule thing and be all accounts hadn't spread that far down. Sure i agree there would have been fire along the way but not enough to cause the damage that it did. Please guys start to use your own brain and stop listening to what you are being told. just use your own eyes and read some things other than these debunking sites. seek out some independant evidence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
theking
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 19, 2008
Posts: 689
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I can do nothing but laugh.
These towers were meant to withstand enough damage from a plane to safely evacuate everyone from the building and the area, not be indestructable man-god pillars of American rancor... |
|
_________________
"I fear not for the banning of the book. I fear for the hunger to read the book. Why should one ban a book no one cares to read?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
BloodStone
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 1942
Location: Poconos, USSA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
_________________
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
fortwynt
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 05, 2008
Posts: 1550
Location: WV
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Well I guess that settles it, right?
Not a chance.
I still say it's highly unlikely that a building would collapse, virtually STRAIGHT DOWN at near free-fall speed, or very close to it, simple by thermal expansion of steel. Tne analogy of running hot water over a jar lid may seem apt, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Aluminum isn't steel....and again, for a building to collapse straight down like that would require the steel to be "softened" in quite an even spread pattern....the damage listed as the cause just doesn't bear this out. Of course I'm no structural engineer, but given the highly suspect nature of the other two collapses I can't help but consider this one right in bed with those. |
|
_________________
there would be no flowers at all, without a compost pile
--fk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
theking
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 19, 2008
Posts: 689
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| WTC didn't fall straight down. The upper portion collapsed at an angle and CLEARLY lagged behind the side that wasn't "softened" by a 737. |
|
_________________
"I fear not for the banning of the book. I fear for the hunger to read the book. Why should one ban a book no one cares to read?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
|
