|
Post by FZ on Aug 9, 2011 7:08:17 GMT -6
I don't think it takes a "leap of faith". Hundreds of questions go unanswered. The famous "NJ widows", even complained voiciferously the that 9/11 Commission didn't ask real questions.
Show the video of a jet airliner impacting the Pentagon.
Explain how human remains and plane debri from Flight 93 can be scattered over an area 8 miles wide if the plane nosed over and crashed into the ground.
Explain how Building 7 fell at freefall speed.
Explain how within 2-3 hours, Osama is being identified as the culprit.
Explain why several of these "hijackers" are/were training/living on US military bases.
These are just a few unanswered questions. "Truthers" don't endorse theories like "no planes" and "beam weapons", so don't confuse these people with serious researchers. [/size] [/quote] But I think it does... and I've seen just about everything there is on the subjects, albeit some of the stuff just in passing. I don't think it makes me naieve or ignorant of the facts to say the above either. Just like this: The "Jersey Widdows" complaining about the commision is not evidence, it's opinion. Do you need someone with a camcorder filming the pentagon event live as it happened, to confirm what happened to that flight? Scattered debris for miles and miles after a gigantic explosion does not seem like a mystery to me. Building 7 didn't fall at freefall speed, and there is no evidence to prove that it did, yet there is evidence that supports the collapse took nearly 20 seconds if my memory serves. Maybe OBL was involved in plots like this before? IDK, but I think it would have been a good guess at the time. Confusion about names and addresses right after 911 led some to make the leap about the military training hijackers. AFAIK, there was never anything definitive than that. Now I'm not closing the door, just making a reasonable argument here. So just play along for a sec...Do you F12, think that it is/was possible for WTC 1 or 2 to fall after being struck by a Jetliner? I'm being specific too. Not saying "this is what happend" or this is "probable", just, is this even remotely possible.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 9, 2011 8:17:55 GMT -6
"Scattered debris for miles and miles after a gigantic explosion does not seem like a mystery to me"
Well, condsiderng the "gigantic explosion" happened when then plane hit the ground, according to the OS(official story). I would be impossible for human bones and airplane debri to be scattered 8 miles, unless the plane was shot by a missile from one of our planes in midair. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Building 7 didn't fall at freefall speed, and there is no evidence to prove that it did, yet there is evidence that supports the collapse took nearly 20 seconds if my memory serves."
NIST disagrees and acknowledges that WTC 7 DID fall at freefall speed for at least part of the collapse, which is impossible, giving the laws of physics and gravity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Confusion about names and addresses right after 911 led some to make the leap about the military training hijackers. AFAIK, there was never anything definitive than that."
Actually there is no confusion as some hijackers had lived at a Florida military base and others had TAKEN TRAINING at a West coast base. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So just play along for a sec...Do you F12, think that it is/was possible for WTC 1 or 2 to fall after being struck by a Jetliner?"
Absolutely not and NIST agrees once again. So did the construction manager for the towers. He says they were designed to withstand "multiple impacts" from jetliners. They were designed that way, because of the earlier airliner crash into the Empire State building, which BTW, did not cause the Empire State building to collapse.
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle2006 on Aug 9, 2011 9:48:49 GMT -6
F12 there is a Differance in Size and Weigth from a B25 which hit the Empire State building in WW2 a B25 is the plane that we used to Bomb Toyko that we launched from the Carrier Hornet in 1942 and even the later models had a Max Weight of 42,000 LBS. The Engines alone of a 767 weigh about 1/2 that Dry at 18K lbs. The WTC was Designed to Withstand a LOW SPEED Impact from a 707 series of plane incase one got lost on approach to either Newark or JFK. Not a FULL SPEED impact from a plane fully loaded with Fuel. The Planes it was designed to withstand impacts from were LANDING and nearly EMPTY of FUEL.
The Weight Differance of the Planes that it was Designed for Versus what hit it was 50K lbs and the 767 is also 20 feet Wider in the wings. Plus carries around 10K gallons more Fuel in its wing tanks. Also from working with Steel it loses 50% of its strength from being heated above 800 degrees if it ever was heat treated. Jet Fuel Burns a hell of alot hotter than that. Once one floor gave way it was simple Physics.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 9, 2011 10:06:46 GMT -6
I acknowledge the plane was smaller that hit the Empire State building ironeagle. As for whether they designed the WTC towers to be hit by multiple airliners only landing and NOT taking off, well that's a stretch. The construction manager I mentioned made no such statements.
As for the steel, yes is was "heat treated" and was coated with fireproofing. The impacted floors, even had the fireproofing redone. As for the fires, there is no evidence that showed they reached 800 degrees. Most of the fuel burned off on impact and we have pictures of workers standing in the impact holes. I don't know too many folks that would be able to stand in an impact hole with temperatures anywhere near 800 degrees. I too, was a steel fabricator and have experience heating steel beams with an acetylene torch to bend the beams a few millimeters.
"Simple physics"does not cause 30 ton segments of buildings pancaking down, floor upon floor, to be ejected several hundred yards upward, and away from the collapse. Nor do jet fires,explain subway explosions under the towers. "Simple physics" also does not explain ejected steel beams, exploding in midair and changing the direction of their fall. Late exploding ordinance does.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 9, 2011 11:55:31 GMT -6
"Scattered debris for miles and miles after a gigantic explosion does not seem like a mystery to me"
Well, condsiderng the "gigantic explosion" happened when then plane hit the ground, according to the OS(official story). I would be impossible for human bones and airplane debri to be scattered 8 miles, unless the plane was shot by a missile from one of our planes in midair.
How big of an explosion does a plane loaded with jet fuel make? I don't know for sure, but I bet it's pretty big. Big enough to be felt and heard over 10 miles away, documented.
I'd say there was crap blown all over the place and yes, smaller fragments carried miles and miles away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Building 7 didn't fall at freefall speed, and there is no evidence to prove that it did, yet there is evidence that supports the collapse took nearly 20 seconds if my memory serves."
NIST disagrees and acknowledges that WTC 7 DID fall at freefall speed for at least part of the collapse, which is impossible, giving the laws of physics and gravity.
NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. [/u][/i][/b] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Confusion about names and addresses right after 911 led some to make the leap about the military training hijackers. AFAIK, there was never anything definitive than that." Actually there is no confusion as some hijackers had lived at a Florida military base and others had TAKEN TRAINING at a West coast base. Source ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "So just play along for a sec...Do you F12, think that it is/was possible for WTC 1 or 2 to fall after being struck by a Jetliner?" Absolutely not and NIST agrees once again. So did the construction manager for the towers. He says they were designed to withstand "multiple impacts" from jetliners. They were designed that way, because of the earlier airliner crash into the Empire State building, which BTW, did not cause the Empire State building to collapse. I find this hard to believe and almost disingenuous. Ironeagle makes good points above.
If you claim NIST says that the jetliners didn't cause it, then what does NIST say brought them down?
This is the crux of the problems with the Truther movement. It could ONLY happen this particular way(s) we proclaim, and thats it. [/size] [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 9, 2011 11:59:44 GMT -6
And another note: I should clarify, the towers DID withstand the initial impact.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 9, 2011 12:24:27 GMT -6
U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday's terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.-known as the "Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation," according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. (source-Newsweek)
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 10, 2011 11:04:45 GMT -6
U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday's terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.-known as the "Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation," according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. (source-Newsweek) Now anyone could make up something and just say a particular news agency or mag was the source...so since you didn't list the specific source, I'll assume it's this one. www.newsweek.com/id/75797As I pointed out, that article came out days after 911 and even that article itself says there are discrepancies and the names/people may not even be the same as the alleged hijackers.If there's additional sources, feel free to add to the one I listed. AFAIK, nothing ever came out of this story because of the speculation and discrepancies. But, it caught on with truthers because the story fit in so well with their line, regardless of the nature of the information.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 10, 2011 11:09:22 GMT -6
F12 there is a Differance in Size and Weigth from a B25 which hit the Empire State building in WW2 a B25 is the plane that we used to Bomb Toyko that we launched from the Carrier Hornet in 1942 and even the later models had a Max Weight of 42,000 LBS. The Engines alone of a 767 weigh about 1/2 that Dry at 18K lbs. The WTC was Designed to Withstand a LOW SPEED Impact from a 707 series of plane incase one got lost on approach to either Newark or JFK. Not a FULL SPEED impact from a plane fully loaded with Fuel. The Planes it was designed to withstand impacts from were LANDING and nearly EMPTY of FUEL.
The Weight Differance of the Planes that it was Designed for Versus what hit it was 50K lbs and the 767 is also 20 feet Wider in the wings. Plus carries around 10K gallons more Fuel in its wing tanks. Also from working with Steel it loses 50% of its strength from being heated above 800 degrees if it ever was heat treated. Jet Fuel Burns a hell of alot hotter than that. Once one floor gave way it was simple Physics. Ironeagle - reading the above makes me think you know something of aircraft and such...here's a slightly different question regarding another post by F12: Considering the load of jet fuel (15,000 gal? more/less?) Flight 93 had on it, what kind of explosion could one expect when it impacted the ground? is this something you could speculate on?
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 10, 2011 20:23:42 GMT -6
The only reason the debri was scattered over an 8 mile area, was because the plane was shot down. Mutiple witnesses attest to a high pitched whining noise and at least 2 additional aircraft in the area at the time of the crash. One aircraft(according to the OS) was vectored into the area to check on what happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2011 5:45:06 GMT -6
The only reason the debri was scattered over an 8 mile area, was because the plane was shot down. Mutiple witnesses attest to a high pitched whining noise and at least 2 additional aircraft in the area at the time of the crash. One aircraft(according to the OS) was vectored into the area to check on what happened. Just airing the conspiracy room out a bit and letting some fresh air in, like I said I would. This was easy. Consider your crap rebutted...although reality doesn't mean a thing to you...we know that...so, carry on. (I bet you really hate me, don't ya'?) Editors, The. "Popular Mechanics". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved July 20, 2009. Conspiracy Files | Q&A: What really happened". BBC News. February 16, 2007. Retrieved July 20, 2009. "The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine". Skeptic. Retrieved 2010-10-15. "'Black box' from Pennsylvania crash found". CNN. September 13, 2001. Retrieved July 19, 2009. O'Toole, James; Tom Gibb and Cindi Lash (September 14, 2001). "Flight data recorder may hold clues to suicide flight". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved July 12, 2009. "Flight 93". Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report. Popular Mechanics. March 2005. Retrieved July 12, 2009. Carlin, John (August 13, 2002). "Unanswered questions". London: The Independent. Retrieved July 12, 2009. 60 Seconds: Ben Sliney October 4, 2006 "Physics 911 Frequently Asked Questions section". "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective". Editors of Popular Mechanics (2006). Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst Books. ISBN 978-1-58816-635-7. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts by Senator John McCain
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 11, 2011 7:08:16 GMT -6
I was going for the more subtle approach, but, since BB said it, there is some well documented information within the article(s) he posted.
Now, to me, on the surface, I think the theory of the plane being shot down is not that far fetched; but my reasoning would probably be different than the general Truther line of thought.
But, it does seem the bulk of the evidence says it was otherwise, and again.
when looking at "possible" and "probable".... with some shreds of information that points one way, and the bulk that points the other, I don't see how one can dismiss the majority of the evidence to favor a less supported stance and label the other one an impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle2006 on Aug 11, 2011 7:38:40 GMT -6
The Direct line of FLight for that lake is LESS than 2 miles and light Debris will make that flight easy in light Winds. Also the Hijackers Turned off the transponders on all teh Planes they Hijacked the FAA system is based on that Transponder they can not see the plane without it. They get a Skin paint but no Altitude or Flight info without it. 15K gallons of JP-3 Fuel going up at one time would produce roughly a fireball that could reach 900 Feet high and be heard for about 15-20 miles away. Sorry have had a few buddies that have lost their Lives hauling Gas Tankers and when they go UP it is just as Spectakular with Half the load.
Also a Loaded Gas tanker did cause a Bridge to collaspe in California from FIRE alone when it caught fire and MELTED the steel on IIRC I-880 out in San Francisco. So do not give me this Crap that Fire alone will not BRING down a Steel Building. If it can take down an UNDAMAGED Bridge on a major Freeway it can and will speed up the Destruction of a Serverly Damaged Skyscraper that was hit by an Aircraft doing over 500 MPH.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 11, 2011 19:39:50 GMT -6
Wow, say what Ironeagle? They shut off the transponders so the planes were untrackable? Not true at all. Planes are tracked in 2 different ways, ask any air traffic controller. This is a common lie told by supporters of the OS. The is NO evidence fire got hotter than 800 degrees for more than a minute. I see you didn't even touch, how it was possible from people to be standing in the impact holes shortly after the planes hit. Why?
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 11, 2011 19:52:34 GMT -6
Butters- You confirmed most of what I had previously said, but bone fragments were found at Indian Lake also. Rense for a source is a joke. So is Alex Jones and I don't believe I ever used him as a source. You mentioned the plane that was vectored in as I said and I agree on that. Popular Mechanics is a horrible attempt at debunking. McCain? Are you joking? Loose Change the first edition? Please, there's a reason why they didn't include the Cleveland stuff in the next 3 versions of Loose Change.
The OS says, that the plane nosed over a slammed into the ground, with most of the plane burying itself in the hole. So IF the plane crashed the way, it would be impossible for debri to fly up to the clouds and then be picked up in the wind and transported miles away.
I'll issue you a challenge Butters, or anyone else. POST a picture of the field where the plane crashed PRIOR to Sept 11, 2001. You're in for a surprise guys!!
|
|