QUOTE (AnthoNYC+Mar 8 2006, 06:11 AM)
I have to say that until recently I NEVER bought the whole 'demolition' explanation. I live in Manhattan and saw those towers on fire but I didn't stop to watch because I knew even as they burned they were images I was going to see over and over for a long time to come.
In the days, weeks and months after 9-11-01 I came to believe the official line to an extent - I was in a state of shock and it took about 2 1/2 years to get over it. But now looking back I have gone back to the thoughts and conclusions I came to before we even heard about a hit on the Pentagon. My initial thoughts that morning were that this was a military coup. An inside job. I didn't know who was behind it, or what their motives were. But I could tell that it was extremely sophisticated.
No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people.
The best admission of their (the government's) complicity is the way that they have handled security ever since 9-11-01. We still have trash cans on the Subways of New York City. Large trucks park driver-less regularly on the side of the Empire State building while policemen guard the entrance with semi-automatics. Airplanes are still routed to fly over Manhattan at low altitudes. A minority of cargo is screened on commercial flights. The list goes on. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan but we are no safer now than we were on 9-10-01. It's a joke.
And what of the crazy people I know here in Manhattan? One who works for NYPD Special Ops who told me in 2002 that they knew an attack was going to happen the night before (and he did not tell me this in a bragging way - it is nothing to be proud of after all). And another, who used to work for the Clintons and had a knock on his door around 6:30am the morning of 9/11 and was escorted upstate to a military base by two uniformed officials (he told me "if the Democrats knew about it, you sure as hell know the Republicans knew about it"). They could both be mad or lying but they have no motive or malice to do so.
And so with most of the physical evidence destroyed, melted-down, or hidden by this most undemocratic of Governments and witnesses too afraid for their lives to come forward, we are left with the visual evidence of the collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7. One camera may be able to lie, but multiple cameras from different souces cannot. It is time that the visual evidence is given a wider stage in the physics/engineering community.
God help us all.
Don't be fooled. This is nothing more than "Swiftboat veterians for "Truth".
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people. But I also know the evidence they bring is as poor as "Swiftboat Veterians for "Truth".
And as a NYer you should know it's rather racist to think an arab with a degree in civil engineering, an arab who the great America turned to when they needed help pushing the USSR out of Afganhistan, an arab who had millions at the time, no sir, I beg to differ, this arab is"No simple Jihadist". He's indeed the perfect person to have pulled this off. Maybe even the only one. Do you think all these people can do is drive cabs and blow themselves up?
Do some research on Palm island
Or Burj al Arab Hotel
If you really are a NYer you should know all arabs aren't dumb.
All this took was money, (Which Bin Laden had much of) keeping their mouth shut and flight lessons which they had. What part of that is beyond a wealthy civil engineer who pushed the USSR out of a whole country?
This is my site..
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/osama.htm
Why isn't the NYPD Special Ops cop hand cuffing himself to the union hall until they put pressure on the police department to investigate? If it's so blatently obvious this was the largest mass murder on NYC cops in history? Not to mention 300 fireman? Why aren't they parking fire trucks on times square until someone investigates this??? Sorry, I don't buy the context of the stories you mentioned. First, as a NYer I don't believe shiit on web sites unless there is other evidence. Do you have any? Second, there were many memos going back a long time with terror threats. So even if it's true the context could be wrong.
The goverment conspiracy/coverup would have to be massive! You could fill a tower with the people needed to pull this off.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/massivect.htm
Becoming Bush to get rid of Bush isn't the way to do it. Hes done so many stupid and most likely illegal things we just have to pick and choose the real ones and go after him. Below is what I feel is the real crime being over shadowed by these CTers.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Wieght the facts carfully and don't let hate or fear of government blind you.
In the days, weeks and months after 9-11-01 I came to believe the official line to an extent - I was in a state of shock and it took about 2 1/2 years to get over it. But now looking back I have gone back to the thoughts and conclusions I came to before we even heard about a hit on the Pentagon. My initial thoughts that morning were that this was a military coup. An inside job. I didn't know who was behind it, or what their motives were. But I could tell that it was extremely sophisticated.
No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people.
The best admission of their (the government's) complicity is the way that they have handled security ever since 9-11-01. We still have trash cans on the Subways of New York City. Large trucks park driver-less regularly on the side of the Empire State building while policemen guard the entrance with semi-automatics. Airplanes are still routed to fly over Manhattan at low altitudes. A minority of cargo is screened on commercial flights. The list goes on. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan but we are no safer now than we were on 9-10-01. It's a joke.
And what of the crazy people I know here in Manhattan? One who works for NYPD Special Ops who told me in 2002 that they knew an attack was going to happen the night before (and he did not tell me this in a bragging way - it is nothing to be proud of after all). And another, who used to work for the Clintons and had a knock on his door around 6:30am the morning of 9/11 and was escorted upstate to a military base by two uniformed officials (he told me "if the Democrats knew about it, you sure as hell know the Republicans knew about it"). They could both be mad or lying but they have no motive or malice to do so.
And so with most of the physical evidence destroyed, melted-down, or hidden by this most undemocratic of Governments and witnesses too afraid for their lives to come forward, we are left with the visual evidence of the collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7. One camera may be able to lie, but multiple cameras from different souces cannot. It is time that the visual evidence is given a wider stage in the physics/engineering community.
God help us all.
Don't be fooled. This is nothing more than "Swiftboat veterians for "Truth".
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people. But I also know the evidence they bring is as poor as "Swiftboat Veterians for "Truth".
And as a NYer you should know it's rather racist to think an arab with a degree in civil engineering, an arab who the great America turned to when they needed help pushing the USSR out of Afganhistan, an arab who had millions at the time, no sir, I beg to differ, this arab is"No simple Jihadist". He's indeed the perfect person to have pulled this off. Maybe even the only one. Do you think all these people can do is drive cabs and blow themselves up?
Do some research on Palm island
Or Burj al Arab Hotel
If you really are a NYer you should know all arabs aren't dumb.
All this took was money, (Which Bin Laden had much of) keeping their mouth shut and flight lessons which they had. What part of that is beyond a wealthy civil engineer who pushed the USSR out of a whole country?
This is my site..
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/osama.htm
Why isn't the NYPD Special Ops cop hand cuffing himself to the union hall until they put pressure on the police department to investigate? If it's so blatently obvious this was the largest mass murder on NYC cops in history? Not to mention 300 fireman? Why aren't they parking fire trucks on times square until someone investigates this??? Sorry, I don't buy the context of the stories you mentioned. First, as a NYer I don't believe shiit on web sites unless there is other evidence. Do you have any? Second, there were many memos going back a long time with terror threats. So even if it's true the context could be wrong.
The goverment conspiracy/coverup would have to be massive! You could fill a tower with the people needed to pull this off.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/massivect.htm
Becoming Bush to get rid of Bush isn't the way to do it. Hes done so many stupid and most likely illegal things we just have to pick and choose the real ones and go after him. Below is what I feel is the real crime being over shadowed by these CTers.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm
Wieght the facts carfully and don't let hate or fear of government blind you.
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 06:55 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 03:37 AM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 07:08 PM)
Once the collapse begins, the geometric alignment of the columns above and below the collapse initiation area is already lost. So all of those assertions about how much load and energy absorption the columns can take when the building is standing normally are not really valid anymore. Columns on one side are buckled and those on the opposite side are probably fractured at their splices since they got bent and pulled apart from one another (tension as opposed to compression on the buckled face).
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
How do the core columns get out of registry? The core columns were tied together by large girders and I beams.
Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
reasonwhy,
Did you take into account the fact that the top of the north tower should have fallen to the north instead of the south?
The image shows a 14” square interior box column from higher in the towers which runs from left to right is the horizontal beam connecting interior box columns in the image below.
The 1 x 3 “I” beams going in 4 directions in the image,
http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/4302/image51un.jpg
are as follows.
Up to top right: Connects to steel fastened to tapering core face.
Top left to lower right: Beam connecting interior box columns.
To lower left & right: The piece in the foreground to the lower right may not even be attached to the box column. The piece to the lower left runs out to connect with the perimeter walls at the clete to the right of the truss clete shown below.
Quoted, top image: There is also sign of a 100% butt weld about 1 foot right, on the box column, of the joint W/beams. The surface has been ground. I think I see a second one runnig to the lower left but the piece in the far right corner makes me unsure. Mostly the beams out to the perimeter were single beams. At the corners there may have been 2 beams. A second to hold a diagonal span that gets around the corner. Note the cletes below.
Here is an image of the north tower so the taper of the concrete core can be seen.
A full explanation of how to read the image and see the taper is here.
http://concretecore.741.com/#anchor1149808
I think Christopher is trying to hypnotize people into thinking the core had concrete. That or hes hypnotised himself into thinking it.
I wish I were kidding but Christopher has a lot of weird documents on his sight. Many have to do with hypnosis.
Is this an experiment in telepathic hypnosis? You never know with chris...
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
How do the core columns get out of registry? The core columns were tied together by large girders and I beams.
Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
reasonwhy,
Did you take into account the fact that the top of the north tower should have fallen to the north instead of the south?
The image shows a 14” square interior box column from higher in the towers which runs from left to right is the horizontal beam connecting interior box columns in the image below.
The 1 x 3 “I” beams going in 4 directions in the image,
http://img436.imageshack.us/img436/4302/image51un.jpg
are as follows.
Up to top right: Connects to steel fastened to tapering core face.
Top left to lower right: Beam connecting interior box columns.
To lower left & right: The piece in the foreground to the lower right may not even be attached to the box column. The piece to the lower left runs out to connect with the perimeter walls at the clete to the right of the truss clete shown below.
Quoted, top image: There is also sign of a 100% butt weld about 1 foot right, on the box column, of the joint W/beams. The surface has been ground. I think I see a second one runnig to the lower left but the piece in the far right corner makes me unsure. Mostly the beams out to the perimeter were single beams. At the corners there may have been 2 beams. A second to hold a diagonal span that gets around the corner. Note the cletes below.
Here is an image of the north tower so the taper of the concrete core can be seen.
A full explanation of how to read the image and see the taper is here.
http://concretecore.741.com/#anchor1149808
I think Christopher is trying to hypnotize people into thinking the core had concrete. That or hes hypnotised himself into thinking it.
I wish I were kidding but Christopher has a lot of weird documents on his sight. Many have to do with hypnosis.
Is this an experiment in telepathic hypnosis? You never know with chris...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 03:04 PM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 11:04 AM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
Because its partly an optical illusion.
You are SO FAR AWAY, that much detail is lost, you know, like the floors.
We also don't know WHEN this was taken, there may NOT have been much, if any interior drywall.
But so many of the key features are there and are as expected that to ASSUME its a fake makes no sense.
Look, I found it on a CT'ers site and posted it simply because I'd not seen it before. We've already SEEN his ability to with graphics (CRUDE AT BEST) so to think he doctored this picture is downright SILLY.
But it doesn't surprise me any longer.
ANYTHING that doesn't agree with your CONSPIRACY oriented view is IMMEDIATELY branded as suspect.
Also the MANNER in which you approach everything has become downright funny.
HOW CAN XXXX POSSIBLY BE TRUE SINCE WE CAN SEE YYYYY IN A SINGLE PICTURE?????
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and this is based on a single view of the towers which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
But you have to look at the collapse from MULTIPLE ANGLES to realize that the TRUTH is the tower is simply TILTING away from the camera in the earlier view, thus making it APPEAR as if the antenna is falling before the tower does.
Arthur
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
Because its partly an optical illusion.
You are SO FAR AWAY, that much detail is lost, you know, like the floors.
We also don't know WHEN this was taken, there may NOT have been much, if any interior drywall.
But so many of the key features are there and are as expected that to ASSUME its a fake makes no sense.
Look, I found it on a CT'ers site and posted it simply because I'd not seen it before. We've already SEEN his ability to with graphics (CRUDE AT BEST) so to think he doctored this picture is downright SILLY.
But it doesn't surprise me any longer.
ANYTHING that doesn't agree with your CONSPIRACY oriented view is IMMEDIATELY branded as suspect.
Also the MANNER in which you approach everything has become downright funny.
HOW CAN XXXX POSSIBLY BE TRUE SINCE WE CAN SEE YYYYY IN A SINGLE PICTURE?????
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and this is based on a single view of the towers which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
But you have to look at the collapse from MULTIPLE ANGLES to realize that the TRUTH is the tower is simply TILTING away from the camera in the earlier view, thus making it APPEAR as if the antenna is falling before the tower does.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 10:32 AM)
Don't be fooled. This is nothing more than "Swiftboat veterians for "Truth".
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 07:15 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Guest,
RC has never let facts ( diesel needs a typical compression ratio of 15-20) stand in the way of wild unfounded speculation. I am surprised people even have the patience to answer his questions.
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Guest,
RC has never let facts ( diesel needs a typical compression ratio of 15-20) stand in the way of wild unfounded speculation. I am surprised people even have the patience to answer his questions.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 07:34 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 10:32 AM)
Don't be fooled. This is nothing more than "Swiftboat veterians for "Truth".
I have to say that until recently I NEVER bought the whole 'demolition' explanation. I live in Manhattan and saw those towers on fire but I didn't stop to watch because I knew even as they burned they were images I was going to see over and over for a long time to come.
In the days, weeks and months after 9-11-01 I came to believe the official line to an extent - I was in a state of shock and it took about 2 1/2 years to get over it. But now looking back I have gone back to the thoughts and conclusions I came to before we even heard about a hit on the Pentagon. My initial thoughts that morning were that this was a military coup. An inside job. I didn't know who was behind it, or what their motives were. But I could tell that it was extremely sophisticated.
No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people.
The best admission of their (the government's) complicity is the way that they have handled security ever since 9-11-01. We still have trash cans on the Subways of New York City. Large trucks park driver-less regularly on the side of the Empire State building while policemen guard the entrance with semi-automatics. Airplanes are still routed to fly over Manhattan at low altitudes. A minority of cargo is screened on commercial flights. The list goes on. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan but we are no safer now than we were on 9-10-01. It's a joke.
And what of the crazy people I know here in Manhattan? One who works for NYPD Special Ops who told me in 2002 that they knew an attack was going to happen the night before (and he did not tell me this in a bragging way - it is nothing to be proud of after all). And another, who used to work for the Clintons and had a knock on his door around 6:30am the morning of 9/11 and was escorted upstate to a military base by two uniformed officials (he told me "if the Democrats knew about it, you sure as hell know the Republicans knew about it"). They could both be mad or lying but they have no motive or malice to do so.
And so with most of the physical evidence destroyed, melted-down, or hidden by this most undemocratic of Governments and witnesses too afraid for their lives to come forward, we are left with the visual evidence of the collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7. One camera may be able to lie, but multiple cameras from different souces cannot. It is time that the visual evidence is given a wider stage in the physics/engineering community.
God help us all.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
I have noticed Offical conspiracy supporter use the race card quite often. I did not see anything racial in his post.
Does this mean he is also trailer trash?
I think Christopher is trying to hypnotize people into thinking the core had concrete. That or hes hypnotised himself into thinking it.
Shamans UNITE
What I really like about this picture is the good view of the Hat Truss on the WTC 1 tower (the one on the right) and a good look at how HOLLOW the core was, as seen in WTC 2.
The construction on WTC 2 is sorta bare bones at this point, but ALL the STRUCTURAL elements of the CORE are in place as well as all the Elevator shafts (which make the core look more massive than it is, but they of course were NOT structural).
That's ALL there is folks.
The reason the core looks different in the two towers is the one on the right has the long side of the core facing the camera, the one on the left has the narrow side facing. The one on the right is also much more finished, with drywall in place etc.
Arthur
I have to say that until recently I NEVER bought the whole 'demolition' explanation. I live in Manhattan and saw those towers on fire but I didn't stop to watch because I knew even as they burned they were images I was going to see over and over for a long time to come.
In the days, weeks and months after 9-11-01 I came to believe the official line to an extent - I was in a state of shock and it took about 2 1/2 years to get over it. But now looking back I have gone back to the thoughts and conclusions I came to before we even heard about a hit on the Pentagon. My initial thoughts that morning were that this was a military coup. An inside job. I didn't know who was behind it, or what their motives were. But I could tell that it was extremely sophisticated.
No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people.
The best admission of their (the government's) complicity is the way that they have handled security ever since 9-11-01. We still have trash cans on the Subways of New York City. Large trucks park driver-less regularly on the side of the Empire State building while policemen guard the entrance with semi-automatics. Airplanes are still routed to fly over Manhattan at low altitudes. A minority of cargo is screened on commercial flights. The list goes on. Billions are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan but we are no safer now than we were on 9-10-01. It's a joke.
And what of the crazy people I know here in Manhattan? One who works for NYPD Special Ops who told me in 2002 that they knew an attack was going to happen the night before (and he did not tell me this in a bragging way - it is nothing to be proud of after all). And another, who used to work for the Clintons and had a knock on his door around 6:30am the morning of 9/11 and was escorted upstate to a military base by two uniformed officials (he told me "if the Democrats knew about it, you sure as hell know the Republicans knew about it"). They could both be mad or lying but they have no motive or malice to do so.
And so with most of the physical evidence destroyed, melted-down, or hidden by this most undemocratic of Governments and witnesses too afraid for their lives to come forward, we are left with the visual evidence of the collapses of WTC 1,2 & 7. One camera may be able to lie, but multiple cameras from different souces cannot. It is time that the visual evidence is given a wider stage in the physics/engineering community.
God help us all.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
I have noticed Offical conspiracy supporter use the race card quite often. I did not see anything racial in his post.
Does this mean he is also trailer trash?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 11:11 AM)
I think Christopher is trying to hypnotize people into thinking the core had concrete. That or hes hypnotised himself into thinking it.
Shamans UNITE
What I really like about this picture is the good view of the Hat Truss on the WTC 1 tower (the one on the right) and a good look at how HOLLOW the core was, as seen in WTC 2.
The construction on WTC 2 is sorta bare bones at this point, but ALL the STRUCTURAL elements of the CORE are in place as well as all the Elevator shafts (which make the core look more massive than it is, but they of course were NOT structural).
That's ALL there is folks.
The reason the core looks different in the two towers is the one on the right has the long side of the core facing the camera, the one on the left has the narrow side facing. The one on the right is also much more finished, with drywall in place etc.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 11:41 AM)
I have noticed Offical conspiracy supporter use the race card quite often. I did not see anything racial in his post.
This last one was rather tame.
Just "No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people."
vs the more overt "raghead sitting in a cave" ....
but the implication is that "dumb Arabs (or Muslims) couldn't have thought this up or pulled this off"
And THAT is what is racist about this COMMON pronouncement.
Arthur
This last one was rather tame.
Just "No simple Jihadist sitting in a cave in a remote region of Afghanistan could have come up with the burned-in-the-brain date of 9/11 and time the second aircraft to hit just far enough apart that the whole world would witness the second strike. This is the stuff of Madison Avenue folks, people who understand how to market terror to the American people."
vs the more overt "raghead sitting in a cave" ....
but the implication is that "dumb Arabs (or Muslims) couldn't have thought this up or pulled this off"
And THAT is what is racist about this COMMON pronouncement.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 11:15 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
And here we have another "RC Analogy Fly by"
Zoooooooooooommmmmmm
Arthur
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
And here we have another "RC Analogy Fly by"
Zoooooooooooommmmmmm
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 11:04 AM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
Because its partly an optical illusion.
You are SO FAR AWAY, that much detail is lost, you know, like the floors.
We also don't know WHEN this was taken, there may NOT have been much, if any interior drywall.
But so many of the key features are there and are as expected that to ASSUME its a fake makes no sense.
Look, I found it on a CT'ers site and posted it simply because I'd not seen it before. We've already SEEN his ability to with graphics (CRUDE AT BEST) so to think he doctored this picture is downright SILLY.
But it doesn't surprise me any longer.
ANYTHING that doesn't agree with your CONSPIRACY oriented view is IMMEDIATELY branded as suspect.
Also the MANNER in which you approach everything has become downright funny.
HOW CAN XXXX POSSIBLY BE TRUE SINCE WE CAN SEE YYYYY IN A SINGLE PICTURE?????
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and this is based on a single view of the towers which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
But you have to look at the collapse from MULTIPLE ANGLES to realize that the TRUTH is the tower is simply TILTING away from the camera in the earlier view, thus making it APPEAR as if the antenna is falling before the tower does.
Arthur
wow. it's really a great pic, though.
metamars, i'm myopic in the optic, and in the morning when the sun shines through the blinds, the difference between what i see with glasses on and glasses off is practically night and day. with no glasses, i can see the clouds and the trees and the colour of the sky through the CLOSED blinds. however, if i put on my glasses, i see the blinds, mostly, with only tiny slits of light that give no clue as to what's on the other side of the blind.
if that picture was taken before they filled(completely) the building with tenants, i personally would not have a problem with it's 'authenticity'. i think it's possible for light to go through. ever see someone standing in front of a bright light? the light appears to 'wrap around' them at the edges. i've got a pretty funny picture of myself that has light 'wrapping' like this, and it made my head look exactly like a 'conehead' from SNL, by 'cutting off' the corners with saturation.
arthur and commen sense and reality check will say the camera was working perfectly, .
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
Because its partly an optical illusion.
You are SO FAR AWAY, that much detail is lost, you know, like the floors.
We also don't know WHEN this was taken, there may NOT have been much, if any interior drywall.
But so many of the key features are there and are as expected that to ASSUME its a fake makes no sense.
Look, I found it on a CT'ers site and posted it simply because I'd not seen it before. We've already SEEN his ability to with graphics (CRUDE AT BEST) so to think he doctored this picture is downright SILLY.
But it doesn't surprise me any longer.
ANYTHING that doesn't agree with your CONSPIRACY oriented view is IMMEDIATELY branded as suspect.
Also the MANNER in which you approach everything has become downright funny.
HOW CAN XXXX POSSIBLY BE TRUE SINCE WE CAN SEE YYYYY IN A SINGLE PICTURE?????
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and this is based on a single view of the towers which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
But you have to look at the collapse from MULTIPLE ANGLES to realize that the TRUTH is the tower is simply TILTING away from the camera in the earlier view, thus making it APPEAR as if the antenna is falling before the tower does.
Arthur
wow. it's really a great pic, though.
metamars, i'm myopic in the optic, and in the morning when the sun shines through the blinds, the difference between what i see with glasses on and glasses off is practically night and day. with no glasses, i can see the clouds and the trees and the colour of the sky through the CLOSED blinds. however, if i put on my glasses, i see the blinds, mostly, with only tiny slits of light that give no clue as to what's on the other side of the blind.
if that picture was taken before they filled(completely) the building with tenants, i personally would not have a problem with it's 'authenticity'. i think it's possible for light to go through. ever see someone standing in front of a bright light? the light appears to 'wrap around' them at the edges. i've got a pretty funny picture of myself that has light 'wrapping' like this, and it made my head look exactly like a 'conehead' from SNL, by 'cutting off' the corners with saturation.
arthur and commen sense and reality check will say the camera was working perfectly,
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 05:47 AM)
It is CLEAR evidence against a gravity driven collapse
But go ahead Arty, prove me wrong.
Find a still picture of a gravity driven collapse with a fireball that looks remotely like that.
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
But go ahead Arty, prove me wrong.
Find a still picture of a gravity driven collapse with a fireball that looks remotely like that.
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 11:54 AM)
if that picture was taken before they filled(completely) the building with tenants, i personally would not have a problem with it's 'authenticity'. i think it's possible for light to go through. ever see someone standing in front of a bright light? the light appears to 'wrap around' them at the edges. i've got a pretty funny picture of myself that has light 'wrapping' like this, and it made my head look exactly like a 'conehead' from SNL, by 'cutting off' the corners with saturation.
arthur and commen sense and reality check will say the camera was working perfectly, .
For once I agree with newton.
Arthur
ps do you eat Fiberglass?
arthur and commen sense and reality check will say the camera was working perfectly,
. For once I agree with newton.
Arthur
ps do you eat Fiberglass?
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 8 2006, 03:26 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 03:04 PM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
The perimeter columns were made of steel. Furthermore, the spandrels which joined them covered up about 1/3 of the height of each story.
Furthermore, though I'm mostly guessing, the idea that the frame would be entirely built up and THEN work begun on the interior strikes me as incredibly time wasting. As this particular point is a matter of fact, not opinion, perhaps somebody can weigh in with an appropriate reference to settle it.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
The perimeter columns were made of steel. Furthermore, the spandrels which joined them covered up about 1/3 of the height of each story.
Furthermore, though I'm mostly guessing, the idea that the frame would be entirely built up and THEN work begun on the interior strikes me as incredibly time wasting. As this particular point is a matter of fact, not opinion, perhaps somebody can weigh in with an appropriate reference to settle it.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 04:15 PM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 8 2006, 03:26 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 03:04 PM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
The perimeter columns were made of steel. Furthermore, the spandrels which joined them covered up about 1/3 of the height of each story.
Furthermore, though I'm mostly guessing, the idea that the frame would be entirely built up and THEN work begun on the interior strikes me as incredibly time wasting. As this particular point is a matter of fact, not opinion, perhaps somebody can weigh in with an appropriate reference to settle it.
What work on the interior would there be? It would be time consuming to put an interior they would take out..
The only interior there was was installed by the tenants.
Also, the spandrels were on each floor level. That leaves 2/3rds of the building window-column-window-column.. space.
I'm telling you, accounting is better for you.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The floor plans were completely open. There were very few drywall partitions.
We can't see through steel columns and drywall interiors, thats why there appears to be a solid core. The outter facades windows are placed evenly and would let a majority of light through, as we can see in the picture.
The perimeter columns were made of steel. Furthermore, the spandrels which joined them covered up about 1/3 of the height of each story.
Furthermore, though I'm mostly guessing, the idea that the frame would be entirely built up and THEN work begun on the interior strikes me as incredibly time wasting. As this particular point is a matter of fact, not opinion, perhaps somebody can weigh in with an appropriate reference to settle it.
What work on the interior would there be? It would be time consuming to put an interior they would take out..
The only interior there was was installed by the tenants.
Also, the spandrels were on each floor level. That leaves 2/3rds of the building window-column-window-column.. space.
I'm telling you, accounting is better for you.
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and [B]this is based on a single view of the towers [/B]which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
No it isn't.
Gordon
No it isn't.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 04:44 PM)
Its like Gordon going on and on about the "theory being invalid" because the "core collapsed first" and [B]this is based on a single view of the towers [/B]which APPARENTLY shows the Antenna attached to the core falling into the tower.
No it isn't.
Gordon
I'm guessing gordon is refering to FEMA's 2002 report chapter 2 which states
"Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building."
It could be that it was various angles that all faced the north (unlikely) or that FEMA missed it because they didn't pay attention closely enough to the other angles. Either way seems appearent that the core didn't give way first and NIST new assesment is clearly damaging to CT claims.
If Jones wasn't so lazy he could simply find out himself by reviewing the other angles like I did, or e-mail FEMA and ask them on their thoughts.
Anyway, don't except CT'er to give up on this fight.
No it isn't.
Gordon
I'm guessing gordon is refering to FEMA's 2002 report chapter 2 which states
"Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building."
It could be that it was various angles that all faced the north (unlikely) or that FEMA missed it because they didn't pay attention closely enough to the other angles. Either way seems appearent that the core didn't give way first and NIST new assesment is clearly damaging to CT claims.
If Jones wasn't so lazy he could simply find out himself by reviewing the other angles like I did, or e-mail FEMA and ask them on their thoughts.
Anyway, don't except CT'er to give up on this fight.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 03:04 PM)
How can this photo:
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The nature of light at a distance silhouetting is to bleed over the solid object.
Leslie Robertson commented on the effect.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtcsilouette.jpg
possibly be real? Since when can we see through steel columns and drywall interiors, just because the sun is behind the building??
C'mon, guys.
The nature of light at a distance silhouetting is to bleed over the solid object.
Leslie Robertson commented on the effect.
I'm guessing gordon is refering to FEMA's 2002 report chapter 2 which states
Guess again.
Gordon
Guess again.
Gordon
Post 9/11 Conspiracism
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html
In highlighting conspiracist allegation as a form of scapegoating, it is important to remember the following:
-All conspiracist theories start with a grain of truth, which is then transmogrified with hyperbole and filtered through pre-existing myth and prejudice,
-People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, which has concrete consequences in the real world,
-Conspiracist thinking and scapegoating are symptoms, not causes, of underlying societal frictions, and as such are perilous to ignore,
-Scapegoating and conspiracist allegations are tools that can be used by cynical leaders to mobilize a mass following,
-Supremacist and fascist organizers use conspiracist theories as a relatively less-threatening entry point in making contact with potential recruits,
-Even when conspiracist theories do not center on Jews, people of color, or other scapegoated groups, they create an environment where racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice and oppression can flourish.
http://www.publiceye.org/top_conspire.html
I just found this. It's a great little site.
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html
In highlighting conspiracist allegation as a form of scapegoating, it is important to remember the following:
-All conspiracist theories start with a grain of truth, which is then transmogrified with hyperbole and filtered through pre-existing myth and prejudice,
-People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, which has concrete consequences in the real world,
-Conspiracist thinking and scapegoating are symptoms, not causes, of underlying societal frictions, and as such are perilous to ignore,
-Scapegoating and conspiracist allegations are tools that can be used by cynical leaders to mobilize a mass following,
-Supremacist and fascist organizers use conspiracist theories as a relatively less-threatening entry point in making contact with potential recruits,
-Even when conspiracist theories do not center on Jews, people of color, or other scapegoated groups, they create an environment where racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice and oppression can flourish.
http://www.publiceye.org/top_conspire.html
I just found this. It's a great little site.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 07:50 PM)
I'm guessing gordon is refering to FEMA's 2002 report chapter 2 which states
Guess again.
Gordon
OOOHH OOOHH! ME, ME NEXT!!!
You never saw any, you red it from a web site?!?
Guess again.
Gordon
OOOHH OOOHH! ME, ME NEXT!!!
You never saw any, you red it from a web site?!?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 07:34 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 10:32 AM)
Don't be fooled. This is nothing more than "Swiftboat veterians for "Truth".
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
THE BUSH ORGANIZATION
THE BUSH ORG
THE BORG
Resistance is futile
Arthur receives talking points through his Borgian down load network. Because a drone is incapable of ORIGINAL thought, uploading is limited to monitoring the local environment.
Central command, AKA Rush (neoxy-con) Limbaugh, played the race card against the democrats in the port dispute. All drones download now!
Since 9/11, they pounded the table, endlessly, about the threat from Al-Qaida. Killed and maimed ,untold, tens of thousands; then rounded up thousands more, most of whom, were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Suspended habeas corpus. Suspended the Geneva Convention. Utilized incendiary munitions against loosely defined civilian targets. Distributed tons of DU particles into the ground, water and air, which is expected to cause, a sharp increase in birth defects and cancer. Created indefinite internment camps. Engaged in the documented torture of Arabs.
Gee, after you guys raged, like an out of control wild fire, about the threats in Afghanistan, then Iraq and now Iran, one might think that selling the ports TO the Arabs would be a derailment OF the fear mongered induced, solidarity policy .
Since you have us, all fearful OF THEM, why not, just reverse course and sell our ports, TO THEM. When we object, the hungry fox is suddenly concerned about the racial dignity of the chickens. Yeah, and Hitler was concerned about Germans telling, too many, Jewish jokes. Anybody other than the borgs among us, buying into this overt and obvious deception.
Beg, borrow or steal.
Goliath is now practicing with David's sling shot.
All is fair, in hate and war.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA –
2nd Edition Updates, Jan. 2006
Table of Contents
Preface:
“LIHOP and MIHOP” Analyses of 9/11
THE FIFTEEN DRILLS OF 9/11
ABLE DANGER: 2.5 TERABYTES OF TREASON
SAS CAR BOMBERS IN BASRA
Appendix:
The London Explosions, The Rogue Network, Bush, and Iran
The Phony War on Terror: Time to Quarantine the Real Aggressors
DOWNLOAD PDF
http://www.waronfreedom.org/synth/synter2ed.pdf
I also grew up in NY. I grew up in the shadows of the towers on the lower east side of Manhattan, Alphabit city. I also watched the towers burn from NJ. I hate Bush as much as any one of these people.
These new posters come on the forum with a certain SAMENESS.
They use the same set of "conspiracy Talking Points".
The racist overtones are remarkable though.
Arthur
THE BUSH ORGANIZATION
THE BUSH ORG
THE BORG
Resistance is futile
Arthur receives talking points through his Borgian down load network. Because a drone is incapable of ORIGINAL thought, uploading is limited to monitoring the local environment.
Central command, AKA Rush (neoxy-con) Limbaugh, played the race card against the democrats in the port dispute. All drones download now!
Since 9/11, they pounded the table, endlessly, about the threat from Al-Qaida. Killed and maimed ,untold, tens of thousands; then rounded up thousands more, most of whom, were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Suspended habeas corpus. Suspended the Geneva Convention. Utilized incendiary munitions against loosely defined civilian targets. Distributed tons of DU particles into the ground, water and air, which is expected to cause, a sharp increase in birth defects and cancer. Created indefinite internment camps. Engaged in the documented torture of Arabs.
Gee, after you guys raged, like an out of control wild fire, about the threats in Afghanistan, then Iraq and now Iran, one might think that selling the ports TO the Arabs would be a derailment OF the fear mongered induced, solidarity policy .
Since you have us, all fearful OF THEM, why not, just reverse course and sell our ports, TO THEM. When we object, the hungry fox is suddenly concerned about the racial dignity of the chickens. Yeah, and Hitler was concerned about Germans telling, too many, Jewish jokes. Anybody other than the borgs among us, buying into this overt and obvious deception.
Beg, borrow or steal.
Goliath is now practicing with David's sling shot.
All is fair, in hate and war.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 07:53 PM)
Post 9/11 Conspiracism
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
to the comment i bolded......
SAYS YOU! but, then, you're just another body of illuminati gatekeepers.
prove that you're not, HAHA!
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites, as does the bildebergers and the trilateral commision, and indeed the 911 whitewash commission.
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory.
bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage. that's a pretty out there theory, but it WOULD explain a lot(like vanishing anthrax attack concerns and blatant law breaking by the admin.).
the thing that's EXTRA funny about these 'debunking' articles, is that they admit that there are conspiracies, but they won't admit that conspiracies can be 'big'. extra funny.
the 'many unanswered questions' about the attacks are just that, UNANSWERED. so, how can this esteemed body of thinkers not apply their own rigorous critical thinking to the problem. that is, in absence of proof that there was NO grand conspiracy, how can one CONCLUDE that there wasn't/isn't?
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
to the comment i bolded......
SAYS YOU! but, then, you're just another body of illuminati gatekeepers.
prove that you're not, HAHA!
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites, as does the bildebergers and the trilateral commision, and indeed the 911 whitewash commission.
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory.
bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage. that's a pretty out there theory, but it WOULD explain a lot(like vanishing anthrax attack concerns and blatant law breaking by the admin.).
the thing that's EXTRA funny about these 'debunking' articles, is that they admit that there are conspiracies, but they won't admit that conspiracies can be 'big'. extra funny.
the 'many unanswered questions' about the attacks are just that, UNANSWERED. so, how can this esteemed body of thinkers not apply their own rigorous critical thinking to the problem. that is, in absence of proof that there was NO grand conspiracy, how can one CONCLUDE that there wasn't/isn't?
Luketober,
The fact that someone is or is not a racist has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.
BUT I object to someone USING RACISM in support of their argument.
I would expect that you would agree with this position.
From your last post it is not clear if you do or don't.
Arthur
The fact that someone is or is not a racist has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.
BUT I object to someone USING RACISM in support of their argument.
I would expect that you would agree with this position.
From your last post it is not clear if you do or don't.
Arthur
QUOTE
The main premise of the war on terror is the myth of September 11 – 3,000 people allegedly killed by a group of 19 hijackers including Mohammed Atta, all members of al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden operating from a cave in Afghanistan with a laptop computer, etc.
My main point today is that this premise is a big lie, as I argue in my book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made inUSA (Joshua Tree CA: Progressive Press, 2005).
The 9/11 events were a deliberate provocation carried out from within the US military, security, and intelligence apparatus by a deeply entrenched faction variously called the invisible government, the secret government, the parallel government, the rogue network, the secret team. This faction cuts across the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, the FBI, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other key parts of government. It is a faction which has been operating for more than a century.
It meshes with the British MI-6 and Defence Ministry.
9/11 was a successful coup d’état designed to shift the Bush White House into the War of Civilizations mode described by Samuel Huntington. The Arab and Islamic worlds were the first targets, to be followed by China, and also Russia, as per the Wolfowitz doctrine. 9/11 thus joinsthe tradition of self-inflicted or imaginary attacks going back to the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898, which launched the Spanish-American War, and with it US mperialism.
The secret government tried to stage a fascist march on Washington against
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and tried to assassinate him. They have brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy assassination, the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident (partly admitted in recent weeks by the NSA), the Vietnam War, the attempted assassination of Reagan, the gun-running and drug-running of the Iran-contra affair, the bombing of Serbia, the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, and, their crowning achievement, 9/11, followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. US presidents are generally puppets of this rogue network, which responds to the needs of Wall Street and the City of London.
It was the rogue network which sent Bush an ultimatum on 9/11 with the words: “Angel is next.” The meaning was: launch the war on civilizations, or be liquidated. Bush speedily complied, turning the US government over to the rogue network.
My main point today is that this premise is a big lie, as I argue in my book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made inUSA (Joshua Tree CA: Progressive Press, 2005).
The 9/11 events were a deliberate provocation carried out from within the US military, security, and intelligence apparatus by a deeply entrenched faction variously called the invisible government, the secret government, the parallel government, the rogue network, the secret team. This faction cuts across the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, the FBI, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other key parts of government. It is a faction which has been operating for more than a century.
It meshes with the British MI-6 and Defence Ministry.
9/11 was a successful coup d’état designed to shift the Bush White House into the War of Civilizations mode described by Samuel Huntington. The Arab and Islamic worlds were the first targets, to be followed by China, and also Russia, as per the Wolfowitz doctrine. 9/11 thus joinsthe tradition of self-inflicted or imaginary attacks going back to the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898, which launched the Spanish-American War, and with it US mperialism.
The secret government tried to stage a fascist march on Washington against
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and tried to assassinate him. They have brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy assassination, the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident (partly admitted in recent weeks by the NSA), the Vietnam War, the attempted assassination of Reagan, the gun-running and drug-running of the Iran-contra affair, the bombing of Serbia, the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, and, their crowning achievement, 9/11, followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. US presidents are generally puppets of this rogue network, which responds to the needs of Wall Street and the City of London.
It was the rogue network which sent Bush an ultimatum on 9/11 with the words: “Angel is next.” The meaning was: launch the war on civilizations, or be liquidated. Bush speedily complied, turning the US government over to the rogue network.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA –
2nd Edition Updates, Jan. 2006
Table of Contents
Preface:
“LIHOP and MIHOP” Analyses of 9/11
THE FIFTEEN DRILLS OF 9/11
ABLE DANGER: 2.5 TERABYTES OF TREASON
SAS CAR BOMBERS IN BASRA
Appendix:
The London Explosions, The Rogue Network, Bush, and Iran
The Phony War on Terror: Time to Quarantine the Real Aggressors
DOWNLOAD PDF
http://www.waronfreedom.org/synth/synter2ed.pdf
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 07:53 PM)
Post 9/11 Conspiracism
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
You forgot a sentence.
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
wouldn't stupidity have a lower limit?
anyway, i just said i heard something. unlike you, i do not instantly dismiss new information if it doesn't fit my existing reality templates.
you will say you know something about these suitcase nukes. i won't. it seems too farfetched to me.
i will say i know nothing of suitacase nukes from russia, only that i heard a rumour. i was tossing that one out, much like other EXTREME conspiracy theory i MADE UP for your entertainment a few hundred pages ago, to illustrate that conspiracy theorists DON'T believe everything they read on conspiracy sites.
i personally don't think the bushwhack admin NEEDS to threaten anyone that way.
although...., the anthrax thing is quite real. i DO think they used the anthrax mailings to 'persuade' any opposition to see things their way. 'nukes' are too drastic, and would inspire a backlash as herd survival instincts kicked in, whereas anthrax is quiet and personal, and inspires no 'heroism' in the victim.
this is much like the helicopter flashes, which as far as you're concerned, are irrelevent.
as far as i'm concerned, they MAY be irrelevent, but until they are identified, they are not irrelevent.
you can GUESS that it was a searchlight, and all the power to ya. and, now that you have changed your 'guess' to a 'fact', you can comfortably procede to the next fact which needs 'debunking'.
i DO know that this is the most secret administration EVER.
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
You forgot a sentence.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 04:22 PM)
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 04:22 PM)
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
wouldn't stupidity have a lower limit?
anyway, i just said i heard something. unlike you, i do not instantly dismiss new information if it doesn't fit my existing reality templates.
you will say you know something about these suitcase nukes. i won't. it seems too farfetched to me.
i will say i know nothing of suitacase nukes from russia, only that i heard a rumour. i was tossing that one out, much like other EXTREME conspiracy theory i MADE UP for your entertainment a few hundred pages ago, to illustrate that conspiracy theorists DON'T believe everything they read on conspiracy sites.
i personally don't think the bushwhack admin NEEDS to threaten anyone that way.
although...., the anthrax thing is quite real. i DO think they used the anthrax mailings to 'persuade' any opposition to see things their way. 'nukes' are too drastic, and would inspire a backlash as herd survival instincts kicked in, whereas anthrax is quiet and personal, and inspires no 'heroism' in the victim.
this is much like the helicopter flashes, which as far as you're concerned, are irrelevent.
as far as i'm concerned, they MAY be irrelevent, but until they are identified, they are not irrelevent.
you can GUESS that it was a searchlight, and all the power to ya. and, now that you have changed your 'guess' to a 'fact', you can comfortably procede to the next fact which needs 'debunking'.
i DO know that this is the most secret administration EVER.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 03:34 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 07:15 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Guest,
RC has never let facts ( diesel needs a typical compression ratio of 15-20) stand in the way of wild unfounded speculation. I am surprised people even have the patience to answer his questions.
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
Guest,
RC has never let facts ( diesel needs a typical compression ratio of 15-20) stand in the way of wild unfounded speculation. I am surprised people even have the patience to answer his questions.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 03:52 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 11:15 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
[Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
And here we have another "RC Analogy Fly by"
Zoooooooooooommmmmmm
Arthur
Guest, reasonwhy, adoucette et al.
Guest Please note that the POINT was the IGNITION SYSTEM/METHOD....there was no mention of Diesel-air fuel mixtures....but there WERE plenty of combustible-soot/vapours etc that did NOT require as great temps for their ignition. Also please note that all these mixtures on the fire floors had been heated ALREADY to 'near-ignition' temps, so that any compression heating from collapse would have supplied the necessary 'top-up' energy to sustain FORCE-HEATED combustion chain-reaction where that chain reaction might not otherwise have been able to sustain itself. Moreover, do you know the potential PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES produced when tons and tons of force are concentrated on SMALL-AREA contact points (like between heavy beam ends and concrete/steel surface)? Do you know WHAT causes 'sparks/deformation' between steel-steel/concrete-concrete materials at such contact points? Yes, it is the SUDDENLY CONCENTRATED and HIGH temps/pressures produced ('Ball' mills which pulverise materials in industry utilise a modified/controlled application of this principle to break/compound materials...and the transient temps/pressures between the steel balls at each impact are great....and THEY do not even have anywhere near the energy of MILLIONS OF POUNDS of falling building behind their impacts, heh?). And even if there was deisel-air mixtures, I think the 'contact' pressure temps in that chaos would have ignited that too. Thanks anyway for your attempt at clarification, Guest; the sentiment is appreciated anyway, mate! Cheers!
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
The following are a few of the fallacies of logic employed by Griffin and Meyssan, with initial descriptions of each fallacy provided by Stephen Downes (Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies - http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/).
Fallacies of Distraction:
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options.
Example in Griffin: it is asserted that the evidence suggests Bush either caused the attacks on 09/11/01 or knew about them in advance and did nothing to stop them. One option not given (or repeatedly dismissed) is that Bush should have known that an attack was imminent, but failed to take the proper measures to stop them.
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.
Example in Griffin: A superficial search of the web by Griffin source Holmgren fails to discover evidence that AP Radio reporter Dave Winslow exists, therefore Holmgren asserts that Winslow's quotes are false, and that Winslow may not exist at all.
Inductive Fallacies:
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.
Example in Griffin: Finding only 19 witnesses quoted on the web who claim they saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon, and then finding reasons to dismiss their claims, and then concluding the witness evidence does not support the claim that a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. In fact, there are many more than 19 persons who claim they saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon, but since they were not found in a superficial web search, they are not counted as part of the sample.
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.
Example in Griffin: Highlighting the handful of people who say they saw or heard a missile heading toward or striking the Pentagon, when most people describe a commercial passenger jet.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Example in Griffin: Meyssan and Griffin claim that the explosion at the Pentagon cannot be explained by the burning of Jet aviation fuel, therefore a missile strike is a likely explanation. There is abundant evidence (not mentioned) that Jet aviation fuel actually can explode when vaporized and create an extremely high temperature.
Example in Griffin: The World Trade Center towers would only have collapsed if bombs had been placed inside the buildings. This claim is refuted by numerous structural engineers and forensic engineers. [Read example 1] [Read example 2] [Read example 3]
Non Sequitur:
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Example in Griffin: If a heat-seeking missile hit United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, it would have knocked off the jet engine. A jet engine from the aircraft was found miles from the main crash wreckage, therefore this is evidence that a heat-seeking missile hit United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.
Example in Griffin: If Bush knew about the 09/11/01 attacks in advance, he would remain in a classroom talking with children, (and the Secret Service would not whisk him away to safety). Bush stayed talking with children, therefore this is evidence that Bush knew about the 09/11/01 attacks in advance.
Causal Fallacies:
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
Example in Griffin: Bush wanted to pass legislation expanding the powers of intelligence agencies; invade Afghanistan, and invade Iraq. The passage of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq are evidence that Bush caused the attacks on 09/11/01 or allowed them to happen.
Fallacies of Explanation:
Non-support: Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased:
Example in Meyssan and Griffin: The fireballs of the commercial jets that struck the World Trade Center towers are different from the fireball at the Pentagon, therefore the fireball at the Pentagon was not caused by a commercial jet airliner. The fireballs are indeed different. The fireballs at the World Trade Center towers are in mid-air and can attain a rounded shape against the walls of the building and the holes in the walls. The fireball at the Pentagon is shaped by the wall of the building, the hole in the wall of the building, and the ground, therefore the blast is shaped differently and is forced upwards in a distinctive shape.
Changing the Subject:
Appeal to Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field.
Example in Griffin: Meyssan is cited by Griffin where Meyssan is making conclusions about scientific, military, and engineering matters when he has no expertise in any of these fields, much less expertise in the forensic analysis of phenomena related to these fields.
Example in Griffin: "the most obvious problem is that since the aircraft penetrated only the first three rings of the Pentagon, only the nose of a Boeing 757 would have gone inside.... The rest of the airplane would have remained outside." p. 29.
Fallacies of Ambiguity:
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings.
Example in Griffin and Meyssan: Throughout their discussion of the "nose" of flight 77, and the attack on the Pentagon, they and the people they quote refer to the "nose" of the airplane, but it is clear that sometimes people are describing the small fragile nose cover that protects electronic equipment at the tip of the aircraft, and sometimes they are talking about the entire front part of the aircraft.
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Do you realize the enormous pressures required to ignite a diesel-air mixture in the absence of an ignition source?
And here we have another "RC Analogy Fly by"
Zoooooooooooommmmmmm
Arthur
Guest, reasonwhy, adoucette et al.
Guest Please note that the POINT was the IGNITION SYSTEM/METHOD....there was no mention of Diesel-air fuel mixtures....but there WERE plenty of combustible-soot/vapours etc that did NOT require as great temps for their ignition. Also please note that all these mixtures on the fire floors had been heated ALREADY to 'near-ignition' temps, so that any compression heating from collapse would have supplied the necessary 'top-up' energy to sustain FORCE-HEATED combustion chain-reaction where that chain reaction might not otherwise have been able to sustain itself. Moreover, do you know the potential PRESSURES/TEMPERATURES produced when tons and tons of force are concentrated on SMALL-AREA contact points (like between heavy beam ends and concrete/steel surface)? Do you know WHAT causes 'sparks/deformation' between steel-steel/concrete-concrete materials at such contact points? Yes, it is the SUDDENLY CONCENTRATED and HIGH temps/pressures produced ('Ball' mills which pulverise materials in industry utilise a modified/controlled application of this principle to break/compound materials...and the transient temps/pressures between the steel balls at each impact are great....and THEY do not even have anywhere near the energy of MILLIONS OF POUNDS of falling building behind their impacts, heh?). And even if there was deisel-air mixtures, I think the 'contact' pressure temps in that chaos would have ignited that too. Thanks anyway for your attempt at clarification, Guest; the sentiment is appreciated anyway, mate! Cheers!
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 04:22 PM)
i think the CFR qualifies as a tiny club of elites....
i just heard a heavy duty conspiracy theory. bush and co. have a big raft of suitcase nukes, and they're holding the entire country hostage.
newton once again proves that there is no ABSOLUTE upper limit to STUPIDITY.
http://www.publiceye.org/aboutpra/pra_people.html
Arthur
The following are a few of the fallacies of logic employed by Griffin and Meyssan, with initial descriptions of each fallacy provided by Stephen Downes (Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies - http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/).
Fallacies of Distraction:
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options.
Example in Griffin: it is asserted that the evidence suggests Bush either caused the attacks on 09/11/01 or knew about them in advance and did nothing to stop them. One option not given (or repeatedly dismissed) is that Bush should have known that an attack was imminent, but failed to take the proper measures to stop them.
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.
Example in Griffin: A superficial search of the web by Griffin source Holmgren fails to discover evidence that AP Radio reporter Dave Winslow exists, therefore Holmgren asserts that Winslow's quotes are false, and that Winslow may not exist at all.
Inductive Fallacies:
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.
Example in Griffin: Finding only 19 witnesses quoted on the web who claim they saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon, and then finding reasons to dismiss their claims, and then concluding the witness evidence does not support the claim that a commercial jet hit the Pentagon. In fact, there are many more than 19 persons who claim they saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon, but since they were not found in a superficial web search, they are not counted as part of the sample.
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.
Example in Griffin: Highlighting the handful of people who say they saw or heard a missile heading toward or striking the Pentagon, when most people describe a commercial passenger jet.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Example in Griffin: Meyssan and Griffin claim that the explosion at the Pentagon cannot be explained by the burning of Jet aviation fuel, therefore a missile strike is a likely explanation. There is abundant evidence (not mentioned) that Jet aviation fuel actually can explode when vaporized and create an extremely high temperature.
Example in Griffin: The World Trade Center towers would only have collapsed if bombs had been placed inside the buildings. This claim is refuted by numerous structural engineers and forensic engineers. [Read example 1] [Read example 2] [Read example 3]
Non Sequitur:
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Example in Griffin: If a heat-seeking missile hit United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, it would have knocked off the jet engine. A jet engine from the aircraft was found miles from the main crash wreckage, therefore this is evidence that a heat-seeking missile hit United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.
Example in Griffin: If Bush knew about the 09/11/01 attacks in advance, he would remain in a classroom talking with children, (and the Secret Service would not whisk him away to safety). Bush stayed talking with children, therefore this is evidence that Bush knew about the 09/11/01 attacks in advance.
Causal Fallacies:
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
Example in Griffin: Bush wanted to pass legislation expanding the powers of intelligence agencies; invade Afghanistan, and invade Iraq. The passage of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq are evidence that Bush caused the attacks on 09/11/01 or allowed them to happen.
Fallacies of Explanation:
Non-support: Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased:
Example in Meyssan and Griffin: The fireballs of the commercial jets that struck the World Trade Center towers are different from the fireball at the Pentagon, therefore the fireball at the Pentagon was not caused by a commercial jet airliner. The fireballs are indeed different. The fireballs at the World Trade Center towers are in mid-air and can attain a rounded shape against the walls of the building and the holes in the walls. The fireball at the Pentagon is shaped by the wall of the building, the hole in the wall of the building, and the ground, therefore the blast is shaped differently and is forced upwards in a distinctive shape.
Changing the Subject:
Appeal to Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field.
Example in Griffin: Meyssan is cited by Griffin where Meyssan is making conclusions about scientific, military, and engineering matters when he has no expertise in any of these fields, much less expertise in the forensic analysis of phenomena related to these fields.
Example in Griffin: "the most obvious problem is that since the aircraft penetrated only the first three rings of the Pentagon, only the nose of a Boeing 757 would have gone inside.... The rest of the airplane would have remained outside." p. 29.
Fallacies of Ambiguity:
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings.
Example in Griffin and Meyssan: Throughout their discussion of the "nose" of flight 77, and the attack on the Pentagon, they and the people they quote refer to the "nose" of the airplane, but it is clear that sometimes people are describing the small fragile nose cover that protects electronic equipment at the tip of the aircraft, and sometimes they are talking about the entire front part of the aircraft.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:01 PM)
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
i wanna go to reality check university. i'll be able to build a hot fusion reactor our of a toaster and a marshmallow, using the amazing bellows, hot crunch, and amazing coincidental thermobaric bomb, and the amzing coincidental thermite reaction theories.
no, really.
look, people. there was already a spark, and indeed, a fire, and lots of soot and char. where is the very large volume of unspent fuel coming from, is the question in my mind.
adoucette, would YOU say there was already a spark? can i get you two lovebirds to disagree on ONE THING!? HAHAHAHA!
and, reality check, shame on you for dissing jones and crew for not checking their wild theories. you're the KING of wild speculation turned gospel.
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
I stand corrected, you did already show me one. I guess the wait is over.
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
Hi Guest! Are you saying that in a collapsing burning building, whether collapsing from CD or fire-damage, the fall/compression of the top half on the bottom half would reasonably be expected to blow fireballs out the fire levels?
RC.
.
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
i wanna go to reality check university. i'll be able to build a hot fusion reactor our of a toaster and a marshmallow, using the amazing bellows, hot crunch, and amazing coincidental thermobaric bomb, and the amzing coincidental thermite reaction theories.
no, really.
look, people. there was already a spark, and indeed, a fire, and lots of soot and char. where is the very large volume of unspent fuel coming from, is the question in my mind.
adoucette, would YOU say there was already a spark? can i get you two lovebirds to disagree on ONE THING!? HAHAHAHA!
and, reality check, shame on you for dissing jones and crew for not checking their wild theories. you're the KING of wild speculation turned gospel.
Hellooooo newton! I note you didn't quote the whole post for the sake of completeness? Something offended you in the info to Guest?
And you're as studiedly-stupid as ever, I see. Where was the unburnt 'fuel'? Why not ask Foxx, metamars et al? THEY know that the fires were 'oxygen starved' and so produced PLENTY of black, fuel-laden 'smoke' that would burn further, given sufficient air/energy input. And guess what, non-newton (that moniker is too good for such self-educated-ignoramuses as yourself, mate), there WAS plenty of such energy input (impact/compression) AS WELL AS 'ready-to-blow' fuel-air fumes present in copious quantities....as ALL CTers constantly point out (did your 'keen;' witty-witlessness miss it the umpteenth time around?). And there were 'STOREROOMS FULL' of office fuels/cleaners/solvents/toner etc which would have been crushed/heated etc. Moreover, some of that jetfuel that seeped down to lower floors (and 'soaked' coverings/materials) that hadn't been entirely consumed by fire before collapse started, would be INSTANTLY compression-heated/vapourised/ignited by red-hot chunks from the ALREADY VERY HOT MATERIALS from fire floors above. Do use your wits and imagination for something OTHER than witless witticisms, mate. It's starting to get boring witnessing that profound and well-studied moronicity that adoucette observed in you from day one. Just because YOU have nothing to offer science and technology DOESN'T mean OTHERS are likewise prevented by true and diligently-applied originality and wit in possibly coming up with something that hadn't been thought of before (especially by you, heh?). After all, THAT'S WHAT INNOVATION/INVENTION IS ALL ABOUT, heh non-newton? Just because you have no original thoughts in your head, it doesn't necessarily follow that no-one else in the world can possibly out-do the famous 'non-newton', and actually HAVE original ideas, hmmm?
Give your witlessnesss muscle a rest, mate, or you'll go blind! hehehe.
RC.
.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
i wanna go to reality check university. i'll be able to build a hot fusion reactor our of a toaster and a marshmallow, using the amazing bellows, hot crunch, and amazing coincidental thermobaric bomb, and the amzing coincidental thermite reaction theories.
no, really.
look, people. there was already a spark, and indeed, a fire, and lots of soot and char. where is the very large volume of unspent fuel coming from, is the question in my mind.
adoucette, would YOU say there was already a spark? can i get you two lovebirds to disagree on ONE THING!? HAHAHAHA!
and, reality check, shame on you for dissing jones and crew for not checking their wild theories. you're the KING of wild speculation turned gospel.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:01 PM)
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
I stand corrected, you did already show me one. I guess the wait is over.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 8 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:01 PM)
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its gravity driven collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out the side as it collapses.
But since there are MANY (hundreds?) of buildings that WE KNOW were demolished using CD one should EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT?????
Still waiting........
Arthur
If you can find me a very large building that was on fire prior to its controlled demolition collapse I suspect we will be able to find a picture of a fireball being blown out of the side as it collapses.
But since there are NO buildings that WE KNOW were on fire before they were demolished using CD one should not EASILY be able to find ONE with a fireball?
RIGHT???
Still waiting.......
Hi Guest! Are you saying that in a collapsing burning building, whether collapsing from CD or fire-damage, the fall/compression of the top half on the bottom half would reasonably be expected to blow fireballs out the fire levels?
RC.
.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 8 2006, 08:10 PM)
... AKA Rush (neoxy-con) Limbaugh...
Good one!
Good one!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
reasonwhy Mate, you are starting to go the way of Jone's et al....they TOO are so anxious to disparage that they TOO 'publish' without bothering to check the info they depend on for their incompetent and too-hasty disparagement. Did you understand? The 'diesel' IGNITION PROCESS and NOT the DIESEL FUEL. OK? Ciao!
adoucette I sometimes wonder what they teach in schools where these people went (perhaps BYU 'affiliate' schools?). It just seems an awful lot of work when straightforward analogies/principles illustrating/encapsulating ordinary everyday processes ARE FLYING OVER THESE PEOPLE'S HEADS. How do professional teachers DO it, facing such fundamental obtuseness/ignorance every weekday of their working lives? Such teachers are made of sterner stuff than I, that's for sure! Au revoir, adoucette!
RC.
.
i wanna go to reality check university. i'll be able to build a hot fusion reactor our of a toaster and a marshmallow, using the amazing bellows, hot crunch, and amazing coincidental thermobaric bomb, and the amzing coincidental thermite reaction theories.
no, really.
look, people. there was already a spark, and indeed, a fire, and lots of soot and char. where is the very large volume of unspent fuel coming from, is the question in my mind.
adoucette, would YOU say there was already a spark? can i get you two lovebirds to disagree on ONE THING!? HAHAHAHA!
and, reality check, shame on you for dissing jones and crew for not checking their wild theories. you're the KING of wild speculation turned gospel.
Hellooooo newton! I note you didn't quote the whole post for the sake of completeness? Something offended you in the info to Guest?
And you're as studiedly-stupid as ever, I see. Where was the unburnt 'fuel'? Why not ask Foxx, metamars et al? THEY know that the fires were 'oxygen starved' and so produced PLENTY of black, fuel-laden 'smoke' that would burn further, given sufficient air/energy input. And guess what, non-newton (that moniker is too good for such self-educated-ignoramuses as yourself, mate), there WAS plenty of such energy input (impact/compression) AS WELL AS 'ready-to-blow' fuel-air fumes present in copious quantities....as ALL CTers constantly point out (did your 'keen;' witty-witlessness miss it the umpteenth time around?). And there were 'STOREROOMS FULL' of office fuels/cleaners/solvents/toner etc which would have been crushed/heated etc. Moreover, some of that jetfuel that seeped down to lower floors (and 'soaked' coverings/materials) that hadn't been entirely consumed by fire before collapse started, would be INSTANTLY compression-heated/vapourised/ignited by red-hot chunks from the ALREADY VERY HOT MATERIALS from fire floors above. Do use your wits and imagination for something OTHER than witless witticisms, mate. It's starting to get boring witnessing that profound and well-studied moronicity that adoucette observed in you from day one. Just because YOU have nothing to offer science and technology DOESN'T mean OTHERS are likewise prevented by true and diligently-applied originality and wit in possibly coming up with something that hadn't been thought of before (especially by you, heh?). After all, THAT'S WHAT INNOVATION/INVENTION IS ALL ABOUT, heh non-newton? Just because you have no original thoughts in your head, it doesn't necessarily follow that no-one else in the world can possibly out-do the famous 'non-newton', and actually HAVE original ideas, hmmm?
Give your witlessnesss muscle a rest, mate, or you'll go blind! hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
i edit the quotes so noone has to muddle their way through irrelevent info to get at the meat.
self-educated-------wild unfounded theory 'established' as fact by unreality check(although, politics and history was never something i studied at college(university was so snobbish)
toner cartridges and cans of varsol used to blow up skyscrapers------------wild unfounded theory established as 'fact' by unreality check
the difference between 'spent' fuel and 'unspent' fuel------important fact banished to the black hole by unreality check. i never said the fires were oxygen starved. i said they had spent most of their fuel. nist says so, too.
when you say i've done something UNscientific, i take it as confirmation that my science is bang on, reality check. whenever you say i'm irrelevent, i take it as a sure sign that what i'm doing IS relevent, unreality check.
when you say i'm witty, ....well, ....i just can't agree. i don't see it, UC? get it? 'u' 'c' for Unreality Check. well, you'll be seeing it more, as you've decided that you must constantly barage me with put-downs.
p.s. you're wasting your vitriol, dude. i have no ego.
self-educated-------wild unfounded theory 'established' as fact by unreality check(although, politics and history was never something i studied at college(university was so snobbish)
toner cartridges and cans of varsol used to blow up skyscrapers------------wild unfounded theory established as 'fact' by unreality check
the difference between 'spent' fuel and 'unspent' fuel------important fact banished to the black hole by unreality check. i never said the fires were oxygen starved. i said they had spent most of their fuel. nist says so, too.
when you say i've done something UNscientific, i take it as confirmation that my science is bang on, reality check. whenever you say i'm irrelevent, i take it as a sure sign that what i'm doing IS relevent, unreality check.
when you say i'm witty, ....well, ....i just can't agree. i don't see it, UC? get it? 'u' 'c' for Unreality Check. well, you'll be seeing it more, as you've decided that you must constantly barage me with put-downs.
p.s. you're wasting your vitriol, dude. i have no ego.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
QUOTE (newton+Mar 8 2006, 10:06 PM)
i edit the quotes so noone has to muddle their way through irrelevent info to get at the meat.
self-educated-------wild unfounded theory 'established' as fact by unreality check(although, politics and history was never something i studied at college(university was so snobbish)
toner cartridges and cans of varsol used to blow up skyscrapers------------wild unfounded theory established as 'fact' by unreality check
the difference between 'spent' fuel and 'unspent' fuel------important fact banished to the black hole by unreality check. i never said the fires were oxygen starved. i said they had spent most of their fuel. nist says so, too.
when you say i've done something UNscientific, i take it as confirmation that my science is bang on, reality check. whenever you say i'm irrelevent, i take it as a sure sign that what i'm doing IS relevent, unreality check.
when you say i'm witty, ....well, ....i just can't agree. i don't see it, UC? get it? 'u' 'c' for Unreality Check. well, you'll be seeing it more, as you've decided that you must constantly barage me with put-downs.
p.s. you're wasting your vitriol, dude. i have no ego.
Let's see: MANY STOREROOMS FULL' of flammables/combustibles PLUS 'unburnt jet fuel' on floors just below the lowest impact/fire floors PLUS plenty of fuel-air 'smoke' PLUS already HOT materials from fire floors above PLUS sudden air movements/flows started by collapse/compression PLUS the molten aluminium/plastics spattered' into aerosol during collapse chaos PLUS any fuels/solvents/greases/oils on machine levels.
Does all that seem a 'piddling' amount to you, non-newton?
And do we need any of that to 'blow up' the tower once the TOP-BOX+HAT-TRUSS+UPPER-CORE+UPPER FLOORS are ALREADY FALLING on the fire floors and below?
Your futile attempt to 'minimise' the forces/fuels present in that overwhelming catastrophe is indicative of a mind devoid of any real physics evidence/arguments to put.
You are 'failing' in the 'everyday university'....everyone can see it.
How about giving us the benefit of YOUR insights?
Don't forget to say it's only a 'candle' burning at the window!
And that it's only a 'feather' touch from the upper stories onto the lower!
And that there IS NO unburnt 'fuels/materials' in the lower, less-fire-involved floors.
And that there was NO planeload of Aluminium and jetfuel! etc etc etc. Cheers!
RC.
.
self-educated-------wild unfounded theory 'established' as fact by unreality check(although, politics and history was never something i studied at college(university was so snobbish)
toner cartridges and cans of varsol used to blow up skyscrapers------------wild unfounded theory established as 'fact' by unreality check
the difference between 'spent' fuel and 'unspent' fuel------important fact banished to the black hole by unreality check. i never said the fires were oxygen starved. i said they had spent most of their fuel. nist says so, too.
when you say i've done something UNscientific, i take it as confirmation that my science is bang on, reality check. whenever you say i'm irrelevent, i take it as a sure sign that what i'm doing IS relevent, unreality check.
when you say i'm witty, ....well, ....i just can't agree. i don't see it, UC? get it? 'u' 'c' for Unreality Check. well, you'll be seeing it more, as you've decided that you must constantly barage me with put-downs.
p.s. you're wasting your vitriol, dude. i have no ego.
Let's see: MANY STOREROOMS FULL' of flammables/combustibles PLUS 'unburnt jet fuel' on floors just below the lowest impact/fire floors PLUS plenty of fuel-air 'smoke' PLUS already HOT materials from fire floors above PLUS sudden air movements/flows started by collapse/compression PLUS the molten aluminium/plastics spattered' into aerosol during collapse chaos PLUS any fuels/solvents/greases/oils on machine levels.
Does all that seem a 'piddling' amount to you, non-newton?
And do we need any of that to 'blow up' the tower once the TOP-BOX+HAT-TRUSS+UPPER-CORE+UPPER FLOORS are ALREADY FALLING on the fire floors and below?
Your futile attempt to 'minimise' the forces/fuels present in that overwhelming catastrophe is indicative of a mind devoid of any real physics evidence/arguments to put.
You are 'failing' in the 'everyday university'....everyone can see it.
How about giving us the benefit of YOUR insights?
Don't forget to say it's only a 'candle' burning at the window!
And that it's only a 'feather' touch from the upper stories onto the lower!
And that there IS NO unburnt 'fuels/materials' in the lower, less-fire-involved floors.
And that there was NO planeload of Aluminium and jetfuel! etc etc etc. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
Actually the US is the leader in flight training for foriegn students. This is ONE place where they could train and few would bat an eye.
Flying a plane is not that difficult and the ability to fly is not the same as being a commercial pilot
They didn't need to know how to fly on insturments and of course, they didn't have to know how to takeoff or land.
Arthur
Flying a plane is not that difficult and the ability to fly is not the same as being a commercial pilot
They didn't need to know how to fly on insturments and of course, they didn't have to know how to takeoff or land.
Arthur
Uh, ok....go ahead and stick with that
I'm sure you'll gain lots and lots of new support with that line of reasoning.
I'm sure you'll gain lots and lots of new support with that line of reasoning.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
See ScottS's post.
Oh, and one more thing. Don't believe everything you read from conspiracy theory sites. They tend to lie.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
See ScottS's post.
Oh, and one more thing. Don't believe everything you read from conspiracy theory sites. They tend to lie.
Foxx claims it was a "pidelly fire to begin with"
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention they don't have to be qualifed in take off and landing if you don't do either. They just needed to know how to push on the thrust controls and hold the yoke in the right direction. Knowing how to turn off radar/ID sensors is a bonus.
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention they don't have to be qualifed in take off and landing if you don't do either. They just needed to know how to push on the thrust controls and hold the yoke in the right direction. Knowing how to turn off radar/ID sensors is a bonus.
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
When they talk about Antenna on the roof, it was ONE huge antenna.
See any signs of it in the wreckage?
pict give a view of how far these towers have to fall.
Arthur
See any signs of it in the wreckage?
pict give a view of how far these towers have to fall.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 08:46 PM)
As for the racism, I don't even think they realize what they're saying. They just parrot a sight without thinking about what it means.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention they don't have to be qualifed in take off and landing if you don't do either. They just needed to know how to push on the thrust controls and hold the yoke in the right direction. Knowing how to turn off radar/ID sensors is a bonus.
Reasonwhy likes my post. To that I say great... Pass it around
Start with the flight instuctor quotes...
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
The Engineering News Report is published by McGraw Hill Construction, a respected independant engineering news source. Although that does not make them 'popes', the articles collected by the Guardian/Nerdcities author from these early reports were not collected from the web, but rather hardcopies from his own collection which he independantly published to the web when he saw certain important construction details being cleaned from the web and other sources.
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory. But, let's presume for a moment that the above picture is real. When all reports state that the core was sheathed in gyrock, why would this photo tend to discount that in favour of concrete? The last I heard light doesn't shine through either... so the photo is no evidence at all that there is a concrete core in there.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! - just as the Guardian said. He knew enough about the construction of the towers to realize when he saw the walls of the mechanical floors being blown out ahead of the collapse, he KNEW something was amiss.
Check it out...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosives.jpg
The darker grey bands are the mechanical floors. This series of images is taken from a video of the south tower collapse. When the fires began to die out in the south tower they had to blow the mechanical floor (78th) - only a couple of floors below the south tower impact fire zone. It is these explosions which caused the south tower to begin to lean and twist. All four or five of the above floors could have pancaked / collapsed onto this mechanical floor with no fear of it collapsing because remember the mechanical floors were not truss floors but were constructed of regular heavy steel framing beams (IIRC) these beams were something like 2 feet in depth. Someone should do some quantitative studies on how much impact THOSE floors would have supported. IF all five fire floors let go of their connections and slid like records down a spindle (of the core) would those five floors impart sufficient force to break through the mechanical floor beams. I think not.
It was the heavy beam construction of the Madrid Windsor mechanical floors which halted that collapse. This is one thing that many seem not to take into account with this pancaking floor nonsense. Look at how many floors collapsed down to the mechanical floor in the Windsor.
This is the same way that the towers were constructed. Note the massive columns which extend up TO the mechanical floor, and then begin to taper to the top. One can easily see how much more robust the lower section was built and would stand up to the forces exerted from the lighter 'collapsing' top section. Some here would have you believe that the whole building was the same from top to bottom. Not True.
This is how a building (built to the same overall design as the twin towers) 'collapses'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
For those who haven't seen it here's a video of that collapse...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
Madrid Fire Galleries...
http://www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
Back to the South Tower...The following series clearly show that the 'top' of the south tower did not act as a piston and remain in one piece but disintegrated before the intact structure below.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...intergrates.jpg
From this page - http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
The Engineering News Report is published by McGraw Hill Construction, a respected independant engineering news source. Although that does not make them 'popes', the articles collected by the Guardian/Nerdcities author from these early reports were not collected from the web, but rather hardcopies from his own collection which he independantly published to the web when he saw certain important construction details being cleaned from the web and other sources.
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory. But, let's presume for a moment that the above picture is real. When all reports state that the core was sheathed in gyrock, why would this photo tend to discount that in favour of concrete? The last I heard light doesn't shine through either... so the photo is no evidence at all that there is a concrete core in there.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! - just as the Guardian said. He knew enough about the construction of the towers to realize when he saw the walls of the mechanical floors being blown out ahead of the collapse, he KNEW something was amiss.
Check it out...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosives.jpg
The darker grey bands are the mechanical floors. This series of images is taken from a video of the south tower collapse. When the fires began to die out in the south tower they had to blow the mechanical floor (78th) - only a couple of floors below the south tower impact fire zone. It is these explosions which caused the south tower to begin to lean and twist. All four or five of the above floors could have pancaked / collapsed onto this mechanical floor with no fear of it collapsing because remember the mechanical floors were not truss floors but were constructed of regular heavy steel framing beams (IIRC) these beams were something like 2 feet in depth. Someone should do some quantitative studies on how much impact THOSE floors would have supported. IF all five fire floors let go of their connections and slid like records down a spindle (of the core) would those five floors impart sufficient force to break through the mechanical floor beams. I think not.
It was the heavy beam construction of the Madrid Windsor mechanical floors which halted that collapse. This is one thing that many seem not to take into account with this pancaking floor nonsense. Look at how many floors collapsed down to the mechanical floor in the Windsor.
This is the same way that the towers were constructed. Note the massive columns which extend up TO the mechanical floor, and then begin to taper to the top. One can easily see how much more robust the lower section was built and would stand up to the forces exerted from the lighter 'collapsing' top section. Some here would have you believe that the whole building was the same from top to bottom. Not True.
This is how a building (built to the same overall design as the twin towers) 'collapses'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
For those who haven't seen it here's a video of that collapse...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
Madrid Fire Galleries...
http://www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
Back to the South Tower...The following series clearly show that the 'top' of the south tower did not act as a piston and remain in one piece but disintegrated before the intact structure below.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...intergrates.jpg
From this page - http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! -
Well, .............. you did not answer the question. In fact you tried to get rid of the REASON for asking it by removing the image showing the steel reinforced concrete tubular core I KNOW existed. This IS the core of WTC 2.
Ill ask again. Why are the columns you assert exist not seen in the above photo?
Foxx wrote
The inner core columns are clearly visible.
I did not notate this image. Whoever did, believed in steel core columns per the official story, but they were honest and could only find them around the outside and so no arrows point to the core interior. The vertical stel we see there is much smaller than the heavy columns surrounding the core. That inner steel is elevator guide rails.
Below you don't say WHO.
Foxx wrote
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity
Your linked image of the towers silhouetted at sunrise is coming from another source. Here is mine.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg
So your question.
Foxx wrote
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site.
Is already answered, look at the url of the image link you used.
The image is a form of evidence for the concrete core but it is circumstancial. It is evidence because the core that was supposed to be ther will not reflect light as is seen in the image, and the light MUST be reflected because we are not looking directly down the hallways. See this page for a full explanation.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I've also seen reports of people of people cutting through the gypsum to find concrete. Many stairwell and elevator walls inside the concrete exterior were gypsum.
And yes, the mechanical floors were blown out with high explosives and the BBC core is not the correct concrete core.
What if I said "I don't think those Ten Gallon Hat krackers from Texas could have pulled this off." Do you think someone would have pointed out that racist remark? I know I would have.
The fact that they're Arab/Muslim has NOTHING to do with the ability to fly planes into buildings.
NOTHING!
Anytime someone brings that up I'm going to call them on it like the good liberal I am.
The fact that they could not fly planes SOME may find relevant eh?
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention THEY TOOK LESSONS.
The managers -- Hugh Sims, 65, and Tim Nelson, 45 -- said they saw red flags before Moussaoui even showed up at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota, 29 days before the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center and left a smoldering hole in the Pentagon. (Watch the men who suspected Moussaoui -- 6:53)
Those instincts earned the men, both Air Force veterans, a Senate proclamation last year commending them for their bravery that "possibly prevented another attack against our nation."
It was an e-mail from Moussaoui to the flight school's Miami, Florida, headquarters that first piqued their suspicion. In it, Moussaoui -- using the handle "zuluman tango tango" -- said he wanted to learn how to fly 747 passenger jets.
"I need to know if you can help me achieve my 'goal,' my dream," Moussaoui wrote, listing five types of Boeing and Airbus jets. "To be able to pilot one of these Big Birds, even if I am not a real professional pilot."
Moussaoui further claimed to be a British businessman, and in the e-mail -- laced with grammatical errors -- he said he wanted to learn how to take off and land, communicate with air traffic controllers and navigate between London, England, and New York City.
But Moussaoui had no pilot's license and only 55 hours of flying time on small aircraft at a flight school in Oklahoma. He had never flown solo.
"I know it could be better, but I am sure you can do something. After all, we are in AMERICA, and everything is possible," Moussaoui wrote.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.
According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/valentine.htm
Not the flight school thing again....
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Thanks ScottS, you just proved they were not qualified for a commercial Jets. The greatest conspiracy of all time and years of planning with a Multi-millionaire bankrolling the operation and they can not even get qualified pilots for the most important port of the plan. Then they train in the USA for some reason instead of a country they would not be suspicious.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
You forgot to mention they don't have to be qualifed in take off and landing if you don't do either. They just needed to know how to push on the thrust controls and hold the yoke in the right direction. Knowing how to turn off radar/ID sensors is a bonus.
Reasonwhy likes my post. To that I say great... Pass it around
Start with the flight instuctor quotes...
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 8 2006, 08:45 AM)
QUOTE
Originally published by Christophera
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
The Engineering News Report is published by McGraw Hill Construction, a respected independant engineering news source. Although that does not make them 'popes', the articles collected by the Guardian/Nerdcities author from these early reports were not collected from the web, but rather hardcopies from his own collection which he independantly published to the web when he saw certain important construction details being cleaned from the web and other sources.
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory. But, let's presume for a moment that the above picture is real. When all reports state that the core was sheathed in gyrock, why would this photo tend to discount that in favour of concrete? The last I heard light doesn't shine through either... so the photo is no evidence at all that there is a concrete core in there.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! - just as the Guardian said. He knew enough about the construction of the towers to realize when he saw the walls of the mechanical floors being blown out ahead of the collapse, he KNEW something was amiss.
Check it out...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosives.jpg
The darker grey bands are the mechanical floors. This series of images is taken from a video of the south tower collapse. When the fires began to die out in the south tower they had to blow the mechanical floor (78th) - only a couple of floors below the south tower impact fire zone. It is these explosions which caused the south tower to begin to lean and twist. All four or five of the above floors could have pancaked / collapsed onto this mechanical floor with no fear of it collapsing because remember the mechanical floors were not truss floors but were constructed of regular heavy steel framing beams (IIRC) these beams were something like 2 feet in depth. Someone should do some quantitative studies on how much impact THOSE floors would have supported. IF all five fire floors let go of their connections and slid like records down a spindle (of the core) would those five floors impart sufficient force to break through the mechanical floor beams. I think not.
It was the heavy beam construction of the Madrid Windsor mechanical floors which halted that collapse. This is one thing that many seem not to take into account with this pancaking floor nonsense. Look at how many floors collapsed down to the mechanical floor in the Windsor.
This is the same way that the towers were constructed. Note the massive columns which extend up TO the mechanical floor, and then begin to taper to the top. One can easily see how much more robust the lower section was built and would stand up to the forces exerted from the lighter 'collapsing' top section. Some here would have you believe that the whole building was the same from top to bottom. Not True.
This is how a building (built to the same overall design as the twin towers) 'collapses'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
For those who haven't seen it here's a video of that collapse...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
Madrid Fire Galleries...
http://www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
Back to the South Tower...The following series clearly show that the 'top' of the south tower did not act as a piston and remain in one piece but disintegrated before the intact structure below.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...intergrates.jpg
From this page - http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally published by Christophera engineer, Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core? |
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
The Engineering News Report is published by McGraw Hill Construction, a respected independant engineering news source. Although that does not make them 'popes', the articles collected by the Guardian/Nerdcities author from these early reports were not collected from the web, but rather hardcopies from his own collection which he independantly published to the web when he saw certain important construction details being cleaned from the web and other sources.
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory. But, let's presume for a moment that the above picture is real. When all reports state that the core was sheathed in gyrock, why would this photo tend to discount that in favour of concrete? The last I heard light doesn't shine through either... so the photo is no evidence at all that there is a concrete core in there.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! - just as the Guardian said. He knew enough about the construction of the towers to realize when he saw the walls of the mechanical floors being blown out ahead of the collapse, he KNEW something was amiss.
Check it out...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosives.jpg
The darker grey bands are the mechanical floors. This series of images is taken from a video of the south tower collapse. When the fires began to die out in the south tower they had to blow the mechanical floor (78th) - only a couple of floors below the south tower impact fire zone. It is these explosions which caused the south tower to begin to lean and twist. All four or five of the above floors could have pancaked / collapsed onto this mechanical floor with no fear of it collapsing because remember the mechanical floors were not truss floors but were constructed of regular heavy steel framing beams (IIRC) these beams were something like 2 feet in depth. Someone should do some quantitative studies on how much impact THOSE floors would have supported. IF all five fire floors let go of their connections and slid like records down a spindle (of the core) would those five floors impart sufficient force to break through the mechanical floor beams. I think not.
It was the heavy beam construction of the Madrid Windsor mechanical floors which halted that collapse. This is one thing that many seem not to take into account with this pancaking floor nonsense. Look at how many floors collapsed down to the mechanical floor in the Windsor.
This is the same way that the towers were constructed. Note the massive columns which extend up TO the mechanical floor, and then begin to taper to the top. One can easily see how much more robust the lower section was built and would stand up to the forces exerted from the lighter 'collapsing' top section. Some here would have you believe that the whole building was the same from top to bottom. Not True.
This is how a building (built to the same overall design as the twin towers) 'collapses'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
For those who haven't seen it here's a video of that collapse...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/m...sor.fire.ap.wmv
Madrid Fire Galleries...
http://www.newsfocus.org/gallery_madrid.htm
http://www.el-mundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/
Back to the South Tower...The following series clearly show that the 'top' of the south tower did not act as a piston and remain in one piece but disintegrated before the intact structure below.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...intergrates.jpg
From this page - http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
QUOTE
Originally published by Christophera
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
This photo should clear up some misinformation regarding the central core columns....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
There were 47 steel columns within the central core of the WTC towers. The inner core columns are clearly visible. Anyone who claims they didn't exist is either mistaken or is a disinformationist.
There was no concrete core (regardless of some erroneous references made to such, by some uninformed sources).
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity with the engineering of the towers because he began publishing true construction details at a time when the mass media was putting out gross misinformation regarding the central core, such as BBC's ridiculous reinforced concrete core information...
The photo below (presented as 'evidence' that the light is blocked by a concrete core in the photo) is not evidence at all...
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site. It's so diffused that it could simply be a computer generated image and there would be no way to tell.
In the first place, all evidence from engineering reports to witnesses escaping the elevator shafts by cutting their way through gyprock walls... discount the concrete core theory.
However, on a side issue... IF the photo is real, then it does show one thing... The mechanical floors did not have windows but were solid walls. IF so say good-bye to the dust and debris squibbs being ejected by pressure pulses caused by the piston effect, blowing out windows... the squibb-ejections blew through the mechanical floors, so they weren't simply air pushing out windows... THEY were Blowing through WALLS !!! -
Well, .............. you did not answer the question. In fact you tried to get rid of the REASON for asking it by removing the image showing the steel reinforced concrete tubular core I KNOW existed. This IS the core of WTC 2.
Ill ask again. Why are the columns you assert exist not seen in the above photo?
Foxx wrote
The inner core columns are clearly visible.
I did not notate this image. Whoever did, believed in steel core columns per the official story, but they were honest and could only find them around the outside and so no arrows point to the core interior. The vertical stel we see there is much smaller than the heavy columns surrounding the core. That inner steel is elevator guide rails.
Below you don't say WHO.
Foxx wrote
It is my opinion that he had some intimate familiarity
Your linked image of the towers silhouetted at sunrise is coming from another source. Here is mine.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsunriseshilouette.jpg
So your question.
Foxx wrote
Where did you get this photo, Christophera? I have never seen it before except on your site.
Is already answered, look at the url of the image link you used.
The image is a form of evidence for the concrete core but it is circumstancial. It is evidence because the core that was supposed to be ther will not reflect light as is seen in the image, and the light MUST be reflected because we are not looking directly down the hallways. See this page for a full explanation.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I've also seen reports of people of people cutting through the gypsum to find concrete. Many stairwell and elevator walls inside the concrete exterior were gypsum.
And yes, the mechanical floors were blown out with high explosives and the BBC core is not the correct concrete core.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 11:06 PM)
Well, .............. you did not answer the question. In fact you tried to get rid of the REASON for asking it by removing the image showing the steel reinforced concrete tubular core I KNOW existed. This IS the core of WTC 2.
What do you mean you KNOW existed? Nothing you have posted gives one shred of evidence that there was a concrete core. How does that image "prove" that there is a concrete core? *** are you smoking?
What do you mean you KNOW existed? Nothing you have posted gives one shred of evidence that there was a concrete core. How does that image "prove" that there is a concrete core? *** are you smoking?
Concrete removal
Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001-09...llapse_Dunn.htm
Repeat after me... There was no concrete CORE... there was no concrete CORE... there was no concrete CORE...
Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.
http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001-09...llapse_Dunn.htm
Repeat after me... There was no concrete CORE... there was no concrete CORE... there was no concrete CORE...
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 11:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
You know I flew a plane back in 2001, it was a small low wing plane but the avionics had GPS-like system built in it (I think it used ground based repeaters) and all you had to do was put in your destination and it would tell you which way to fly the plane. On much larger aircraft it is even more automated. What I don't get is why people think it is so hard to stear a plane into a building? Being a commercial pilot is hard and takes a lot of work, but flying a plane is pretty freaking easy.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
You know I flew a plane back in 2001, it was a small low wing plane but the avionics had GPS-like system built in it (I think it used ground based repeaters) and all you had to do was put in your destination and it would tell you which way to fly the plane. On much larger aircraft it is even more automated. What I don't get is why people think it is so hard to stear a plane into a building? Being a commercial pilot is hard and takes a lot of work, but flying a plane is pretty freaking easy.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 11:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
I simply don't have a big problem with your (and brians) comments.
You seemed to like my last quotes, I say send it to your local congressman or web group.
Leave it just as it is. Please!! Don't forget to include:
"Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?"
And don't forget your comments either.
If I thought it was a problem I would of said something like I did with the antenna or the various smoke footage from building 7. Or the dishonest link he gave me on the flight schools.
Or the dishonest photo from Jones or the many out of context quotes etc etc....
I really don't feel that Danielle O'Brien's quotes are a threat to the flight instuctors comments.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
I simply don't have a big problem with your (and brians) comments.
You seemed to like my last quotes, I say send it to your local congressman or web group.
Leave it just as it is. Please!! Don't forget to include:
"Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?"
And don't forget your comments either.
If I thought it was a problem I would of said something like I did with the antenna or the various smoke footage from building 7. Or the dishonest link he gave me on the flight schools.
Or the dishonest photo from Jones or the many out of context quotes etc etc....
I really don't feel that Danielle O'Brien's quotes are a threat to the flight instuctors comments.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
The corner stone of every conspiracy, quotes taken out of context.
I also few a Mooney Ranger. One like this...
http://www.aircraftbrowser.com/1974%20Moon...eft%20Front.jpg
It's not hard to point it in the right direction. Even YOU can do it with this and the right airport frequency.
http://www.meriweather.com/767/center/hsi_capt.html#top
So in effect you STILL look rediculous.
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
So, 9/11 Myths.com dose not have a response and you don’t know what to say? You better write the Web Site and complain they are making you look ridicules.
The corner stone of every conspiracy, quotes taken out of context.
I also few a Mooney Ranger. One like this...
http://www.aircraftbrowser.com/1974%20Moon...eft%20Front.jpg
It's not hard to point it in the right direction. Even YOU can do it with this and the right airport frequency.
http://www.meriweather.com/767/center/hsi_capt.html#top
So in effect you STILL look rediculous.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:43 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 11:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
I'm no expert, (I don't fly nor do I pretend to) but does Sagadevan currently hold a pilot certificate in the US.
Have you tried giving this to other experts such as rec.aviation.piloting or different other expert panels. What do they say?
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
I'm no expert, (I don't fly nor do I pretend to) but does Sagadevan currently hold a pilot certificate in the US.
Have you tried giving this to other experts such as rec.aviation.piloting or different other expert panels. What do they say?
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 11:14 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 8 2006, 11:01 PM)
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said."
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
Brian,
I am also a pilot and that article is one VIEW of the situation, but certainly not the only one that is valid.
First off, they are CONSTANTLY referred to as NON PILOTS.
They WERE pilots.
They HAD TRAINING.
THEY KNEW HOW TO NAVIGATE
THEY KNEW HOW TO DO AN INSTRUMENT SCAN
THEY KNEW THE INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS THEY WOULD NEED TO TURN, DESCEND, LEVEL OFF, SLOW DOWN, SPEED UP.
He refers to "video games" as simulators but they paid for training in JET SIMULATORS.
Whats more, the current PC based video simulators are DEAD ON accurate as to instruments and layout.
Go to ANY FBO and you can BUY instrument layouts for these jets as well as operating manuals etc (a lot of guys are trying to move up)
He refers to pilots flying IFR, Instrument Flight Rules, but it was a CAVU day, Clear Air, Visibility Unlimited, thus NO NEED FOR IFR.
It is true that flying very high is a BIT LIKE IFR, but all of them descended almost immediately, and as soon as that nose comes down then there is a EXCELLENT horizon for use in VFR (visual flight rules) type flying.
He fails to mention the AUTO PILOT that allows "dialing in" a destination and will handle keeping the wings level and even making turns.
He fails to mention that the SIMPLE TO USE VOR navigation works the SAME on a 767 as it does on a Cessna 172. All you do is dial in the frequency of the station (Reagan Natl anyone?) and then turn in the direction the needle is off-center, till it centers, then keep the needle centered till you get there.
He refers to 52 year old Chick Burlingame as "Big and Burly" supposedly because he was a Fighter Pilot. Got news for you, don't take "Big and Burly" to be a FP.
Besides Chick would have had shoulder straps on, been unarmed and unfortunately, unprepared for multiple guys wielding box cutters and trained in Martial arts.
As far as 'flipping' the jet on its back to throw his attackers against the roof, give me a break, it ain't a friggin fighter.
And NOW I KNOW where galdur got his "you can't fly a jet a few feet off the ground" BS
HERE
Notice what he "shan't" get into.... (that is just so Brokeback!)
What he "shan't" get into is WHAT ISN'T TRUE.
These issues are all dealt with in the pentagon thread.
I like this part:
Notice what he "shan't" get into.... (that is just so Brokeback!)
What he "shan't" get into is WHAT ISN'T TRUE.
These issues are all dealt with in the pentagon thread.
I like this part:
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
I'll do it if he provides the Jet, but what REALLY gets me is the fallacy that a commercial jet has LOW WING LOADING. Compared to what? An F-18? Certainly not to any plane I fly....
So, to sum up, its a propaganda article, meant to convince people who know LITTLE about flying that it was impossible.
It is and was not.
Arthur
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I suspect Steve will agree, but regradless, IMHO:
Visually it does to a certain extent, in that unlike the WTC 1 & 2 which OBVIOUSLY collapsed from the point of plane impact DOWN, the WTC 7 building fails down low.
What I've NEVER seen, and what I think would be QUITE NOTICABLE, since people were standing around WAITING for it to fall, would be the SHARP REPORTS from the HIGH EXPLOSIVES as the key supports were cut.
That I have NEVER heard.
Nor do I SEE any obvious signs of DEMOLITION.
And so no, it doesn't APPEAR from an AUDIO/VISUAL point of view to be a CD.
Arthur
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
Boy is that a logical fallacy.
Controlled demolition = explosions on lower floors remove lower supports (legs) out from under it.
Collapse by fire in building 7 = fire on lower floors removes lower supports (legs) out from under it.
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
I'll toss you one more bone.
There have been errors that are pro conspracy which I have e-mailed to 911myths so he as the right information. Such as this link:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
I e-mailed him this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...874000&adxnnl=1
Maybe someone here will have the courage to have Jones correct his many errors.
wow, THIS 'bin laden' confesses, but THAT bin laden says america did it to itself.
who to beLIEve? who to beLIEve?
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
You are not tossing me a bone. If you said no I would have put you in the disinformation group.
There is still hope for you. You do realize you are supporting a conspiracy theory , don’t you. It really gets annoying when someone thinks they are superior calling others conspiracy theorist. Most of the posters here don’t actually have a theory and only know the official story does not make sense.
"Some abilities" and pointed that plane" turn into -
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
http://september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Is there one, just ONE, aspect of the official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
Over to the Whopper Factory.
Uh..., so he flew the plane in an unsafe manner...like a fighter jet....yes....so
Scotts, you seem willing to accept all manner of strange happenings, I wonder why. Perhaps simple ignorance, hope this helps -
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. --
Full article - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Sagadevan21Feb2006.html
Brian,
I am also a pilot and that article is one VIEW of the situation, but certainly not the only one that is valid.
First off, they are CONSTANTLY referred to as NON PILOTS.
They WERE pilots.
They HAD TRAINING.
THEY KNEW HOW TO NAVIGATE
THEY KNEW HOW TO DO AN INSTRUMENT SCAN
THEY KNEW THE INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS THEY WOULD NEED TO TURN, DESCEND, LEVEL OFF, SLOW DOWN, SPEED UP.
He refers to "video games" as simulators but they paid for training in JET SIMULATORS.
Whats more, the current PC based video simulators are DEAD ON accurate as to instruments and layout.
Go to ANY FBO and you can BUY instrument layouts for these jets as well as operating manuals etc (a lot of guys are trying to move up)
He refers to pilots flying IFR, Instrument Flight Rules, but it was a CAVU day, Clear Air, Visibility Unlimited, thus NO NEED FOR IFR.
It is true that flying very high is a BIT LIKE IFR, but all of them descended almost immediately, and as soon as that nose comes down then there is a EXCELLENT horizon for use in VFR (visual flight rules) type flying.
He fails to mention the AUTO PILOT that allows "dialing in" a destination and will handle keeping the wings level and even making turns.
He fails to mention that the SIMPLE TO USE VOR navigation works the SAME on a 767 as it does on a Cessna 172. All you do is dial in the frequency of the station (Reagan Natl anyone?) and then turn in the direction the needle is off-center, till it centers, then keep the needle centered till you get there.
He refers to 52 year old Chick Burlingame as "Big and Burly" supposedly because he was a Fighter Pilot. Got news for you, don't take "Big and Burly" to be a FP.
Besides Chick would have had shoulder straps on, been unarmed and unfortunately, unprepared for multiple guys wielding box cutters and trained in Martial arts.
As far as 'flipping' the jet on its back to throw his attackers against the roof, give me a break, it ain't a friggin fighter.
And NOW I KNOW where galdur got his "you can't fly a jet a few feet off the ground" BS
HERE
QUOTE
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude.
Notice what he "shan't" get into.... (that is just so Brokeback!)
What he "shan't" get into is WHAT ISN'T TRUE.
These issues are all dealt with in the pentagon thread.
I like this part:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. |
Notice what he "shan't" get into.... (that is just so Brokeback!)
What he "shan't" get into is WHAT ISN'T TRUE.
These issues are all dealt with in the pentagon thread.
I like this part:
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
I'll do it if he provides the Jet, but what REALLY gets me is the fallacy that a commercial jet has LOW WING LOADING. Compared to what? An F-18? Certainly not to any plane I fly....
So, to sum up, its a propaganda article, meant to convince people who know LITTLE about flying that it was impossible.
It is and was not.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I suspect Steve will agree, but regradless, IMHO:
Visually it does to a certain extent, in that unlike the WTC 1 & 2 which OBVIOUSLY collapsed from the point of plane impact DOWN, the WTC 7 building fails down low.
What I've NEVER seen, and what I think would be QUITE NOTICABLE, since people were standing around WAITING for it to fall, would be the SHARP REPORTS from the HIGH EXPLOSIVES as the key supports were cut.
That I have NEVER heard.
Nor do I SEE any obvious signs of DEMOLITION.
And so no, it doesn't APPEAR from an AUDIO/VISUAL point of view to be a CD.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
Boy is that a logical fallacy.
Controlled demolition = explosions on lower floors remove lower supports (legs) out from under it.
Collapse by fire in building 7 = fire on lower floors removes lower supports (legs) out from under it.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 9 2006, 12:23 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
I'll toss you one more bone.
There have been errors that are pro conspracy which I have e-mailed to 911myths so he as the right information. Such as this link:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
I e-mailed him this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion...874000&adxnnl=1
Maybe someone here will have the courage to have Jones correct his many errors.
wow, THIS 'bin laden' confesses, but THAT bin laden says america did it to itself.
who to beLIEve? who to beLIEve?
A question for the shills...
Are they giving you any sort of stocks or bond in the New World Government, or are you simply without scruples and willing to sell out mankind for a quick buck?
Obviously, you are either unaware or unconcerned with the possible ramifications of your dishonest actions.
I enjoy a profound feeling of satisfaction knowing that when your time comes, after you have endured the hellish cruelty of the global paramilitary dictatorship, and you are called to stand before your maker, you will be slain.
Have a nice day.
Are they giving you any sort of stocks or bond in the New World Government, or are you simply without scruples and willing to sell out mankind for a quick buck?
Obviously, you are either unaware or unconcerned with the possible ramifications of your dishonest actions.
I enjoy a profound feeling of satisfaction knowing that when your time comes, after you have endured the hellish cruelty of the global paramilitary dictatorship, and you are called to stand before your maker, you will be slain.
Have a nice day.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 9 2006, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 8 2006, 03:51 PM)
Yes paint me the robot.
Didn't you try that before;)
Ok ScottS. Answer this simple question. Does the collapse of WTC7 resemble a controlled demolition? Just yes or no, I would like your honest opinion.
I'll toss you a bone...if you just look at the symmetry a little...yes. I've got nothing to hide here.
That's what hooks some of the CTer's.
Unlike many CTer's I think honesty is very important.
You are not tossing me a bone. If you said no I would have put you in the disinformation group.
There is still hope for you. You do realize you are supporting a conspiracy theory , don’t you. It really gets annoying when someone thinks they are superior calling others conspiracy theorist. Most of the posters here don’t actually have a theory and only know the official story does not make sense.
QUOTE (Ln(x)+Mar 9 2006, 12:41 AM)
A question for the shills...