Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Wolfenhoffen

Fox News: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Recommended Posts

monkeyman237

 

The emphasis being on internal fires which absolutely f*cking will demolish a building. We've pretty much already covered the fire explanation, which involves the steel support beams being significantly weakened by having their temperature raised.

Your argument appears invalid when you consider that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from internal fires alone - bar world trade center building 7 of course. And the two towers, however they sustained damage from two planes so you could at least argue that one. Take this into consideration:

 

 

The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more than 17 hours, and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976.

 

Considering it was made of steel, built around a similar timeframe if not before building seven, and it was burning for over double the time, and it was over far more floors, it seems ridiculous how a similar, governmental building containing numerous wall street investigations, falls in 7 hours, after only buring on 3 to 4 floors and sustaining little damage to one side of the building with no damage to the roof from falling debris. Makes a lot of sense.

 

 

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

 

Larry Silverstein, who issued a 99 year insurance policy for the world trade center complex just weeks before 9/11, said this about WTC building seven. "Pull it" is a term used by the demolition industry meaning to take down a building using explosives, but there are those who will argue to differ.

 

 

 

As for the collapse, you can clearly see in some shots that the MIDDLE of the tower starts to fall first. Just look at the videos of it collapsing, it falls into a perfect pile of rubble without damaging nearby buildings, supposedly because of internal fires? In which case the chances of it falling symetrically is highly unlikely.

 

 

 

 

what would the US have to gain from 9/11?

 

Lots. You're saying that the USA didn't need any pretext for an invasion of the middle east? So they could send all their troops to afghanistan and the likes and nobody questions why? Don't be ridiculous. The 9/11 bombings provided an excellent pretext to send troops over to the middle east, and kickstart the 'war on terror'. In short, war brings in money, and thats a fact. Lots and lots of money for the USA every year comes from the wars there. You could also argue that the oil reserves may be a source of income but I'm unsure on the subject.

 

Many do not know about the large gold deposit under the WTC complex either that many american banks apparently benefitted from;

 

 

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close by the vault held. Seven weeks after the September 11 attacks, $230 million in precious metals were removed from basement vaults of 4 WTC, which included 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars and 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars.

 

This is not to mention the various people who benefitted from 9/11, including larry silverstein;

 

 

Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers.

 

There was also around $2.5m worth of unclaimed put options after 9/11; http://www.oilempire.us/put-options.html

 

Just had to put it out there, there is so much that people do not know about 9/11, I appreciate those who take the time to read.

Edited by monkeyman237

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pyramid head
Fox News correspondent Geraldo covers the mystery surrounding WTC buillding #7, which collapsed on 9/11, hours after the Twin Towers collapsed. Building #7 was not hit by any plane.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAUODUEJSk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAUODUEJSk

Pigs will fly before anyone in the US goverment publicly acknowledges that 9/11 was an inside job

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_the_Vegetarian

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2218/235282..._87910c2571.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

monkeyman, I took the time to read. Instead of dissecting your post, inch by inch, I urge you to do it instead.

 

But again, if you care to have any serious discussion, whatsoever, then please. Go read through this topic.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=255581

 

Then start a new topic in that area, if you still feel like debating. I'd appreciate you taking the time to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robinski

I always get the feeling that 9/11 truthers only believe their own shtick because of some form of denial. Deep down, they'd rather that the cause of all this death an destruction be in something cold like monetary or political gain rather than accept that there are some people in the world that hate them, and the society they belong to, so much that they're willing to fly a plane into a building and kill themselves along with countless others.

 

Now, that I can actually understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

The emphasis being on internal fires which absolutely f*cking will demolish a building. We've pretty much already covered the fire explanation, which involves the steel support beams being significantly weakened by having their temperature raised.

Your argument appears invalid when you consider that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from internal fires alone - bar world trade center building 7 of course. And the two towers, however they sustained damage from two planes so you could at least argue that one. Take this into consideration:

 

 

The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more than 17 hours, and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976.

 

Considering it was made of steel, built around a similar timeframe if not before building seven, and it was burning for over double the time, and it was over far more floors, it seems ridiculous how a similar, governmental building containing numerous wall street investigations, falls in 7 hours, after only buring on 3 to 4 floors and sustaining little damage to one side of the building with no damage to the roof from falling debris. Makes a lot of sense.

 

Quite true. However, no other buildings have been subject to the same combination of impact force shearing primary support columns, combined with significant fire damage weakening the structural rigidity of the steel in others. You cannot use ancedotal evidence of other fires as a comparison, as they are incomparable. A closer analogy would be a high bristance explosive blast, like those used in demolition or weapon warheads, which are designed to damage the structural aspects of buildings- thermobaric weapons create a reasonably applicable paralell. The severing of main support columns by the impact and subsiquent explosion (including pressure wave created by the detonation of thousands of gallons of kerosene based jet fuel being vapourised by the release of pressure in the fuel tanks on impact) placed undue stress on the remaining supports that then collapsed due to their weakening through steel oxidation caused by the heat.

 

I've worked with companies that have run BIM modelling simulations to assess the risk of such damage to high-rise buildings, including one who did an independent analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. With proper, professional modeling, the chance of such a collapse occurring are very high. Besides, there have been other cases where the damaging effect of fire alone has been insutrmental in the failure of main structural supporting beams leading to the collapse of floor spaces. In the design of WTC 1 and 2 the central columns support the weight of the walls, not vice versa. Load transferrence would place enormous amounts of stress on remaining columns that had been weakend to around 20% of their original strength by the fire, thus leading to their failure and the collapse of the building.

 

WTC7 collapsed, as I have said before, as a direct result of the collapse of the North tower. Sharing the same foundation bedrock and soil subsection meant enormouse vibrational shockwaves were transferred through the ground that compounded the already weakened structural integrity of the building, causing a collapse.

 

 

[
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

 

Larry Silverstein, who issued a 99 year insurance policy for the world trade center complex just weeks before 9/11, said this about WTC building seven. "Pull it" is a term used by the demolition industry meaning to take down a building using explosives, but there are those who will argue to differ.

 

 

 

As for the collapse, you can clearly see in some shots that the MIDDLE of the tower starts to fall first. Just look at the videos of it collapsing, it falls into a perfect pile of rubble without damaging nearby buildings, supposedly because of internal fires? In which case the chances of it falling symetrically is highly unlikely.

 

 

 

Logically, a building costructed in the same way as WTC1 and 2 were WOULD collapse in a relatively uniform manner. As the external walls were afixed to the central supports, the tendancy would be for the building to collapse inwardly from floor to floor, rather than outwardly. If the main structural rigidity of the building was focused around the four corners you would expect and explosive demolition. With a central structural area you expect an implosive one. That's the reason many high-rise blocks can be demolished relatively easily without their debris scattering into neighbouring plots.

 

The shots of both collapses show varying points of collapse origin, which is completely logical since the impact damage caused structural supports to fail in an irregular way. This resulted in load transfer being placed on different supporting beams in different areas of the building, and it's perfectly feasible that a failure in one of these areas would cause a chain of support failures in different floors of the building almost simultaneously.

 

That's not to mention the fact that a top-down or centre-out demolition would cause a completely different debris pattern from the ones exhibited in either tower. The reason demolitions are done bottom-up is that starting the demolition at the top, even on a building with centralised supports, throws debris over a wide area due to the blast force of the explosives nessesary to destroy support columns. In demolition, smaller charges are used working bottom-to-top and the load weighting of the bottom columns failing, and the shock of that, is used to demolish the floors above. The WTC collapse demonstrated a completely different method of collapse, with the floors falling inward from the top down- impossible to achieve with a controlled demolition without scattering most of New York with pieces of the building- which you yourself has professed is not what happened.

 

 

[
what would the US have to gain from 9/11?

 

Lots. You're saying that the USA didn't need any pretext for an invasion of the middle east? So they could send all their troops to afghanistan and the likes and nobody questions why? Don't be ridiculous. The 9/11 bombings provided an excellent pretext to send troops over to the middle east, and kickstart the 'war on terror'. In short, war brings in money, and thats a fact. Lots and lots of money for the USA every year comes from the wars there. You could also argue that the oil reserves may be a source of income but I'm unsure on the subject.

 

Many do not know about the large gold deposit under the WTC complex either that many american banks apparently benefitted from;

 

 

One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close by the vault held. Seven weeks after the September 11 attacks, $230 million in precious metals were removed from basement vaults of 4 WTC, which included 3,800 100-Troy-ounce registered gold bars and 30,000 1,000-ounce silver bars.

 

This is not to mention the various people who benefitted from 9/11, including larry silverstein;

 

 

Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers.

 

There was also around $2.5m worth of unclaimed put options after 9/11; http://www.oilempire.us/put-options.html

 

Just had to put it out there, there is so much that people do not know about 9/11, I appreciate those who take the time to read.

I suggest you do a little more research into realism in international relations, especially offensive realism. It's the system through which most international policy is run- it basically dictates that there is a state of total anarchy between all states, and all nations serve only their interests. No nation needs any premice to conduct unilateral action- it's just nice to have one to bring other people on your side. Did the 9/11 attacks bring about the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Not really, seen as US intelligence, as well as intellgience agencies around the world, had pinpointed the perpetrators were Saudi Arabian or from the UAE, the plot was originated by a Kuwaiti operating out of the Phillippines, most of whom trained in the Yemen and some of those involved fought in Bosnia, and the entire project was overseen by a Saudi ringleader. Short of being the source of the training camp for two of the hijackers, Afghanistan had nothing to do with it and that was evident almost immediately.

 

As for the gold/silver/oil theories- this kind of thing always crops up in disasters, particularly violent ones. Take Swissair Flight 111, which crashed due to an onboard fire in 1998- a number of US and European diplomats were due to be on board the aircraft, but changed arrangements. Did they do so to avoid an attack of some variety? Did they hell, it's complete coincidence that they changed their arrangements. People like turning coincidences into conspiracies, and the more violent and surprising the coincidence, the more feasible the conspiracy. It doesn't stop it all being total crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown Sugar

i have to say these conspiracy folk are quite extraordinary, i thought the usa was supposed to be the most patriotic country in the world but no, there are so many americans who think that everything was plotted by the government, it's just quite retarded to think that any government would do something like this to their own country, there has already been enough evidence on this topic to prove that terrorists flew planes into the twin towers so i'll leave it at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Who are you, Bill Hicks? A rather pessimistic if not nihilistic view of the world there, man. tounge.gif  Generally better educated?  Real investigative reporters? People cared more about what was going on around them?  Oddly sentimental, especially coming from you.

 

I have to ask though - does this mean you're going back on your assertions that the 'official story' is not physically possible; that there was no plane at the Pentagon?  I was really hoping you and leftcoast would complete that physical simulation sometime. tounge.gif

I used to teach basic physics to freshmen at university. This generation cannot build a space shuttle. In fact, evidence suggests it can't even maintain one.

 

And I still see no way that an object that struck Pentagon could have been a 757, no. It just doesn't fit with it being an inside job, either. If it was, they'd hit it with a 757. On the other hand, if military shot it down somewhere over water, and quickly needed a crash site somewhere public enough, yet where they could keep everyone they didn't want away, can you think of a better place than a currently unoccupied wing of a Pentagon? It explains the missing passengers and the vanishing, then reappearing, debris. Only question is what they hit it with. Wasn't a cruise missile. Had to be a UAV. Large, single turbofan engine. There are a few fighters retrofitted to UAV, but I'm not quite sure if one of these has the mass.

 

Edit: That's just crazy speculation. Trying to fit facts to assumption that it wasn't a 757 with minimum other assumption. The one assumption I'm pretty certain of, though. Unless you can explain to me how a 757 can punch a hole through several rings of reinforced concrete structure, and leave an entry hole that's smaller than engine-to-engine span.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I hate to play the Mordecai card here, but the small pool of freshmen students they let you teach at 'university' does not equate to a fair sampling of the population.

 

And, to paraphrase you my friend, our physical world breaks free of our expectations on a daily basis. Alas I cannot offer you any more proof than the many university (probably not the ones you teach at, I'm guessing?) models and studies, evidence at the scene, eyewitness and sparse video accounts. What I can guarantee you, however, is that were it not for the multitude of footage of planes hitting the twin towers, people would be claiming it was rockets or missiles.

 

Robinski's got a point. When we are confronted with the awesome and unpredictable nature of the chaotic world around us, perhaps it's easier to claim conspiracy than to compromise our delusions.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Oh, I'm taking that into account, Otter. I know there is a good distribution of intelligence there, but if they were taught sh*t-all in school, it doesn't matter how smart a few individuals among them are. You cannot learn higher mathematics if you just start at it at the university.

 

 

A missile hit looks very different from an airplane hit. That's why I'm telling you that anyone who says Pentagon hit was a missile are smoking something funny. A missile carries HE. Lots of shock damage, but thermal damage is very limited. The temperature spike is high, but it dissipates as soon as the shock wave is gone. An airplane does damage in two ways. First it hits the structure like a torrent of fluid, then the fireball finishes the job. WTC hits are consistent with large jet impact. So is the Pentagon. Videos or no, I'd tell you that Pentagon and WTC were jet hits. No question about it.

 

The problem is that in initial impact, before the heat of the flames does additional damage, the airframe behaves as a fluid, and so the only factor in damage it does is the density distribution. Watch WTC impact simulations. They demonstrate that wonderfully. (They even take engines into account. Seriously, watch it.) On a 757, the engines, combined, weigh almost as much as the fuselage. And while fuselage impact is stretched over long time, engine impacts are brief. They generate the highest amount of force, and that's where the structure gives, if anywhere.

 

In every aircraft impact, we see that the engines are what penetrate the most structure, and leave a distinctive path through whatever they hit. In the Pentagon, we see a single entry, not wide enough for both engines of the 757 to go through. In that center entry hole found are remains of a turbine, claimed to be the 757's APU. Yet the engines seem to have evaporated before the impact? Absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

perhaps it's easier to claim conspiracy than to compromise our delusions.

 

That's about it. Show me crash examples of jets flying into reinforced concrete structures at high speed. It doesn't happen often, if ever, right? So aside from hypotheses and your own interpretation of the facts (which is disputed by published, credible professionals, mind you) what else have you got to hold up your argument? Why should anyone believe your opinion over the simplest most obvious explanation?

 

Edit - especially when you bring up already long debunked crap like missing passengers and "reappearing wreckage". wink.gif

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cidamelo

When the 9/11 happened I was going to the beach, and I thought it was a movie lol.gif When I saw it was true, I was shocked! My husband worked in the World Trade Center. But I think it may be an inside job. Conspiracy ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEantiX

Google Physics

Learn

?????

Profit. Then you will relize it WAS a Inside job, Now tell me this.

 

Is there ANYTHING the American Goverment doesnt lie about? Come on prove me the f*ck wrong but we ALL know how much they lie, On daily BASIS.

 

1 Word: Illuminati. Long version short: KILLUMINATI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cidamelo

SWEantiX the Illuminati has something to do with Freemasonry? I believe the USA has an ocult government to rule the world devil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

 

"It was a cartoon!" "We don't know how they did it" "Clearly a controlled demolition!" - this is your champion, conspiracy nuts.

 

Also....crash tests are awesome.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Edit - especially when you bring up already long debunked crap like missing passengers and "reappearing wreckage".  wink.gif

Missing passengers refer to the commonly asked question, if it wasn't the 757 that hit the pentagon, then where did the real flight and its passengers go? Conspiracy theorists get to absurd on that one claiming that they were all FBI and NSA agents. I simply suggest that the real crash site is elsewhere. I know if I gave an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner, as reasonable as that decision would be, I wouldn't want the general public to know about it. No sinister plot. Nothing implausible.

 

It also explains where wreckage of the plane presented to the press afterwards came from. Yes, I'm aware of the pictures taken from Pentagon lawn with pieces of fuselage, but I've never seen any pictures showing the whole picture where you'd be able to spot identifiable wreckage. Not saying that it proves anything, only that it doesn't disprove anything either.

 

 

That's about it. Show me crash examples of jets flying into reinforced concrete structures at high speed. It doesn't happen often, if ever, right? So aside from hypotheses and your own interpretation of the facts (which is disputed by published, credible professionals, mind you) what else have you got to hold up your argument? Why should anyone believe your opinion over the simplest most obvious explanation?

a) There have been incidents where jets flew into buildings. Look up pictures. Compare them to pictures from Pentagon. make sure to find pictures of Pentagon before part of the the structure collapsed. Compare. Yes, Pentagon is far better reinforced, so yes, I do expect the amount of damage to the building to be less, but you should be able to see that i) Engine-to-engine section of the airplane does as much damage as the fuselage projection and ii) wing wreckage doesn't just disappear into the hole. Let me know if you need help looking up images.

 

b) I'm not really trying to convince general public. It's useless. Trying to convince people with Physics? When a good chunk of them don't believe in evolution? F*ck that. Show me anyone who can actually produce an explanation on how an aluminum can punctures through several rings of Pentagon, and a jet engine packed with dense titanium alloys and weighing at the significant fraction of the former doesn't punch through the outer wall, and yet somehow disappears, and then I'm going to be interested in talking to that person.

 

Saying "But I've heard the experts!!!" isn't doing anything, really. If you'd rather believe people who were payed to write reports than me, that's fine. I would expect you to know, by now, that I generally know what I'm talking about in anything involving Physics, but if you really think I'm unqualified or have a stake in this, I can't convince you of anything else. I'm not going to teach you Physics. If I write a simulation, you shouldn't believe it any more than my word, because either is going to rely on my credibility as a Physicist. So what can I do to convince you? And why should I bother?

 

You asked me if it was a 757 that hit Pentagon. I answered and I gave you the reasons for why I answer that way. Anything else is your problem.

 

Edit: Otter, comments on videos you posted.

1) Ha, ha. Yeah, the WTC collisions are consistent with physics, and these have been simulated. But then again, what do you expect from an ECONOMICS professor. These people write economics forecasts to make weather reports look good, and then they try to understand physics. It's funny.

 

2) Yes, if the Pentagon didn't give AT ALL, that's exactly what I'd expect to see. Notice that the shrapnel really does behave as a fluid. Problem is, the Pentagon walls did give out. And if the fuselage, which hits a wall like an empty tin can and behaves accordingly, as you can see in that crash test, punctures a wall, then so will the engines.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robinski

In addition to what I said earlier: I do believe a lot of truthers have their beliefs because they'd like a cold explanation rather than the pure hatred of man against man, but there is another type too. This is the type who buys into all the hype because it makes them appear smart and clued in, unlike all those stupid sheeple (they'll use that awful word, too) just gulping down what the government spoon feeds them. They aren't that stupid. They're better than you.

 

For reference: SWEantiX's post.

EDIT: I guess you could check out 4chan too, if you're feeling masochistic.

Edited by Robinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

I really don't get how people still can't believe it. You honestly believe that 19 or so hijackers were able to over take the the United States Air Force? We even had practice runs of a terrorist attack On the WTC days before 9/11.. Theres a video of a former FBI agent admitting to the government being tied in with all these false flag attacks. Seriously what more does it take to realize that the government is working for their own good, throwing all our rights down the drain while making themselves some pretty pennies..? Just look at the pictures of the pentagon and tell me that a 747 Boeing flew threw that with no marks of any wings.. right? lol

 

You're telling me that a hole just over the height of a human is equivalent to that of a Boeing 747.. and I'm the crack pot idiot? lol

user posted image

user posted image

 

Seriously anyone that cannot use their own brain to think, rather than just being told from television and whatnot on what to think, you'd easily be able to realize that a commercial airliner DID NOT make the hole at the pentagon, Yes the twin towers were hit with planes, but were also made sure to be brought down with some sort of explosive to make sure the job is finished from the first try in '93.

 

 

NY Fire workers describing the bombs going off in the WTC

 

 

 

And if you don't believe bombs went off in the WTC then explain these..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robinski

 

I really don't get how people still can't believe it. You honestly believe that 19 or so hijackers were able to over take the the United States Air Force? We even had practice runs of a terrorist attack On the WTC days before 9/11.. Theres a video of a former FBI agent admitting to the government being tied in with all these false flag attacks. Seriously what more does it take to realize that the government is working for their own good, throwing all our rights down the drain while making themselves some pretty pennies..? Just look at the pictures of the pentagon and tell me that a 747 Boeing flew threw that with no marks of any wings.. right? lol

 

You're telling me that a hole just over the height of a human is equivalent to that of a Boeing 747.. and I'm the crack pot idiot? lol

You're telling me that a government capable of pulling the whole thing off left this "mistake" in as an oversight? I doubt that. If you're gonna do something that ballsy, something like that doesn't slip through the cracks.

 

And yeah, pre-Sept 11th I do believe a small group of people who have the jump on the security forces could pull this off. People are unpredictable and a small number of them with one deplorable goal can cause a lot of damage very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeyman237

@Otter: Thanks for the link, I'll have to read it somtime.

 

@dog_day_sunrise: Fair enough, I can't argue with a lot of your thoughts on how the buildings should collapse, you obviously know a lot more about the physics behind it all than I do and I appreciate the input. However IMO I still don't think your idea on how WTC 7 collapsed adds up. For one, a lot of the force from the falling debris from the North Tower should be absorbed by WTC 5 and 6, which are between the NT and WTC 7, no? And also, neither of them fully collapsed, despite being closer to the zone of impact and had stronger ongoing fires. Albeit both buildings are not comparable to WTC 7 in size which I understand.

 

And from looking at other photos, there were much closer skyscrapers to the point of impact (within falling debris range of the south tower) that would have received more force from debris and (possibly) fires, that did not collapse. Why? Other buildings should have gone too due to the vibrations as you say, especially the ones closest that had no such shielding. It makes sense that because they were built around the same foundations that they should feel the vibrations but why building seven was the only to fall doesn't make sense. From the information and pictures, the fires on roughly 4 floors would not have been enough to significantly compromise the stability of the building by any standards. Combined with the vibrations that may/may not have been as much as you think, I honestly don't think those two aspects should be able to topple a 47 storey steel building, 7 hours after the collapse of the two towers, unless something more significant affected it, but feel free to prove me wrong. The way you put it, the building seems too fragile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

Edit: That's just crazy speculation. Trying to fit facts to assumption that it wasn't a 757 with minimum other assumption. The one assumption I'm pretty certain of, though. Unless you can explain to me how a 757 can punch a hole through several rings of reinforced concrete structure, and leave an entry hole that's smaller than engine-to-engine span.

Christ, is this still going?

 

I give up trying to explain this logically and sensibly. No-one who supports the idea of 9/11 being an inside job can refute a single thing I've said. If you don't believe the logical and sensible truths, then you're quite clearly an idoit.

 

Oh and

user posted image

Has it not occurred to anyone here that the initial impact of an airliner with a building as heavily reinforced as the Pentagon would cause it to completely disintegrate before the wings were able to hit it as a single solid mass? Hence why the two quite clear and distinct holes punched by the engines (the only solid mass on an aircraft even remotely capable of withstanding that kind of force) are clearly visible on many of the images.

 

Oh- and Grandmaster- 1) none of the aircraft that hit, well, anything was a 747 and 2) that's a hole punched by an engine that detatched from the bulk of the aircraft. You can tell because of the complete lack of any real tangible fire damage as you'd expect from a JP1 related fireball. And before you say "oh, but that just further proves it was a UAV" have you ever seen a UAV? They have enormous wingspans- often much larger than fast jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

@Grand Master, that's the hole from the inner ring. On the OTHER side of the building from impact. According to official report, it was punched through by nose gear and some assorted wreckage dragged with it. That part is not inconsistent with the report.

 

 

Oh and

http://www.beaugrande.com/Pentagon%20crash.jpg

Has it not occurred to anyone here that the initial impact of an airliner with a building as heavily reinforced as the Pentagon would cause it to completely disintegrate before the wings were able to hit it as a single solid mass?

Has it occurred to you that I actually study physics, and have taken that into account? Collisions at these speeds do NOT happen as solid masses. Airplane would behave as fluid. Still doesn't fit.

 

Your image is post-collapse.

 

Same section BEFORE it collapsed due to fire and loss of structural integrity.

user posted image

 

See the difference?

 

 

 

If you want to understand what happens to a plane when it collides with a building, watch this video.

 

 

Again, collision with Pentagon would have been different in many ways, but the main aspects are preserved. The damage to core structure is done by wing-to-wing section, and engines traverse the building practically unimpeded.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
See the difference?

Your the physicist. So what caused that then? It sure as hell isn't a missile, cruise or other, or a UAV. There's nowhere near enough bristance damage for it to be a true explosive, and at the time of the attacks the US had only one UAV powered by a jet-based engine, the Global Hawk, and that in terms of construction density is much stronger than an airliner and only 3 airframes had been produced by Northprop Grumman by 9/11 and all three were undergoing operational testing hundreds of miles from New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

That's a terrible photo comp, first of all. The perspective on the foreground is way out of whack, and then even moreso to force to perspective to match the other shot.

 

Secondly, I do see engine holes. I do believe that the engines would have continued to fall even as the fuselage was smashing into the wall, and that they were torn apart not only by the wall but by contact with the ground itself. I still fail to see how anyone, let alone someone who's studied physics and has pointed out in the past that physics very often disobey our understanding can flat out deny that it's possible. That's the real mystery, here - how a sane individual can possibly conclude that, without a shadow of a doubt, there's no possible way it was a 757, based off of crappy photo comps and an alleged (and again, debunked) lack of debris.

 

Again again we go around in a circle. I wonder, when the pentagon finally releases the video footage of the attack, if you're still going to remain so bloody adamant in your assertion. It's just f*cking goofy, man. Goofy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Otter, get official report on Pentagon incident. It has a map of beams that were destroyed. You can measure the distance there, compare it to the photo above, even. The distance is significantly less than engine-to-engine span of the aircraft.

 

@DDS - A medium to large aircraft with either a single engine or fuselage-mounted twin engines. That's about all I can tell you. There were some Navy fighters retrofitted with UAV system that might have done the job. It's a large aircraft, about the size of a business jet, with enough fuel on board to cause the right size fireball. It's also traveling faster, so it will be able to punch through, and can be remote controlled. I'll try to find the actual plane I'm thinking of.

 

But that's just speculation. The only thing I'm telling you with a degree of certainty on my part is that it wasn't a 757 and it wasn't a cruise missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I really don't get how people still can't believe it. You honestly believe that 19 or so hijackers were able to over take the the United States Air Force? We even had practice runs of a terrorist attack On the WTC days before 9/11.. Theres a video of a former FBI agent admitting to the government being tied in with all these false flag attacks. Seriously what more does it take to realize that the government is working for their own good, throwing all our rights down the drain while making themselves some pretty pennies..? Just look at the pictures of the pentagon and tell me that a 747 Boeing flew threw that with no marks of any wings.. right? lol

 

You're telling me that a hole just over the height of a human is equivalent to that of a Boeing 747.. and I'm the crack pot idiot? lol

You're telling me that a government capable of pulling the whole thing off left this "mistake" in as an oversight? I doubt that. If you're gonna do something that ballsy, something like that doesn't slip through the cracks.

 

And yeah, pre-Sept 11th I do believe a small group of people who have the jump on the security forces could pull this off. People are unpredictable and a small number of them with one deplorable goal can cause a lot of damage very quickly.

Its people like you that blindly support America just cause the tv tells you to.. You don't think we had air forces capable of taking down the planes pre 9-11? All of this sh*t is already planned ahead. They first started off creating terrorists bills that wouldn't have been allowed to have passed without a tragic thing happening such as 911 which all basically took away our constitutional rights, then the next step is creating a scare of domestic terrorism practically scaring American citizens from their own neighbors. We are now being encouraged to tell on our neighbors and such in case of suspicious activity. Obama has already passed bills allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens WITHOUT WARRANT! Obama also now has to authority to ASSASSINATE American citizens.. Totally illegal but all has been passed through the eyes of 'saving terrorism'.. We now since 911 have fusion centers located all across the United States gather information on nearly every single citizen and targets you if you A, support ron paul B, believe in end time prophecies, C, are pro-life, pro-gun, or anti-abortion and D, believe in the NWO. They openly said these things... this is seriously modern day hitler sh*t reliving itself and people have their heads so far up americas propaganda its ridiculous.. We even have FEMA camps being set up all around the US and Fema has hundreds and thousands of plastic coffins just sitting around on their property, you can even go look it up yourself. If you look at everything, this worldwide economic crisis is being played out on purpose, to propose a one world government and currency to 'make sure it doesn't happen again' even though the problems lay at how we create money out of thin air and sell it at interest.. to fix the problem we need to abolish the federal reserve, yet as of right now they're are only selling even more money making the debt only increase even more..

Its only a matter of time when the government will be telling us how many children we are allowed to have, or telling us we can only choose this healthcare, or that kind of car, or only shop from this corporation all for the sake of 'preventing global warming' or 'stopping terrorism.. sarcasm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Otter, get official report on Pentagon incident. It has a map of beams that were destroyed. You can measure the distance there, compare it to the photo above, even. The distance is significantly less than engine-to-engine span of the aircraft.

You misunderstood me - the photo is misleading because it looks like those spools are practically attached to the side of the building. A 2D source being manipulated in 3 dimensions to appear as if it were part of the original image leads to all sorts of artifacts.

 

Anyhow. I mean, as long as we're digging up old videos. Here's one from Perdue - the exact same place that created the simulation of the WTC you posted.

 

 

And a pretty clear interpretation here, even showing that you can possibly see the tail of jet from the security footage.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Anyhow. I mean, as long as we're digging up old videos. Here's one from Perdue - the exact same place that created the simulation of the WTC you posted.

 

Good one. Haven't seen it before. And yup, it knocks out the beams in the engine-to-engine span. In the official report, the width of the area with knocked out beams is less than engine-to-engine span. So far, this seems to only support my statement.

 

Just to clarify, take the front row of beams. Count them. Open official report. Count them. I think you'll find a discrepancy of 1-2 beams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
@DDS - A medium to large aircraft with either a single engine or fuselage-mounted twin engines. That's about all I can tell you. There were some Navy fighters retrofitted with UAV system that might have done the job. It's a large aircraft, about the size of a business jet, with enough fuel on board to cause the right size fireball. It's also traveling faster, so it will be able to punch through, and can be remote controlled. I'll try to find the actual plane I'm thinking of.

Well it's not an aircraft with fuselage mounted engines, that's for sure. There are a number of shots showing pieces of the cowling of a comercial grade high-bypass turbofan- externally mounted, rather than internal. The only solely military aircraft in active US service that fits that description is the S3 Viking. And they're all carrier-borne antisubmarine aircraft.

 

I believe you're referring to one of the many aircraft the US converted to use as target drones. The problem with that theory is that they have the vast majority of their fuel tanks taken up with avionics and control equipment and can only generally carry enough fuel for an hour or so's flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Well holy sh*t. Given that I have more infinitely more faith in you as a physicist than I do in the government as record keepers, perhaps the real issue here is that there are mistakes in the official report? I mean, not only would the pentagon be interested in keeping its construction somewhat classified, but there are also theories that the government itself is behind a lot of these conspiracy theories. A whole nest of conspiracies.

 

But yeah, again, a government document? I sign one every time I fly into the states that asks me, in coach, if I want to delcare cash over the amount of $10,000. Bureaucracy, diligence and accurate data don't mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robinski
Words words words with no paragraphing.

Good job at misrepresenting me there man. Well for one, I don't "support America", especially so because I don't even live there. It's the US that's been allowed to forcibly exporting its views on "anti-terror" precautions and the like on the rest of the world because what you guys consider liberal is quite far on the right in most of the Western world. It's the US approach to anti terror that means if I see an abandoned bag on a train I'm expected to sh*t myself rather than think "I'll have that".

 

I'd hate to live under the Patriot Act personally, and I'm thankful I don't have to. But thanks for taking my stance on one issue and extrapolating it into a straw amn who unquestioningly supports everything that a foreign government does icon14.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.