World trade center video

[whypikonme]

You make me laugh, where are you .. Yorkshire or somewhere? Did you go to the Pentagon immediately after the crash? Of course not, you just have some magical fountain of indisputable knowledge, the problem is, you fail to point to it, as usual. Talk about flimsy. It seems you hold yourself up as an expert on everything, even aeroplanes crashing into buildings, maybe your statistical knowledge points to it?

This conspiracy theory is crap, so where do you get your info from? Instead of rubbishing everyone else, come up with your evidence, show us your sources, seeing as you have no first hand knowledge of what happened.

[lynx]

You make me laugh, where are you .. Yorkshire or somewhere? Did you go to the Pentagon immediately after the crash? Of course not, you just have some magical fountain of indisputable knowledge, the problem is, you fail to point to it, as usual. Talk about flimsy. It seems you hold yourself up as an expert on everything, even aeroplanes crashing into buildings, maybe your statistical knowledge points to it?

This conspiracy theory is crap, so where do you get your info from? Instead of rubbishing everyone else, come up with your evidence, show us your sources, seeing as you have no first hand knowledge of what happened.

Are you some sort of dickhead? Don't you ever read anything before you post?

I've consistently said I'm making no claims. I think most of the conspiracy theories are bunk. You wrote earlier about misrepresentation, yet that's all you and the links you make ever do. You never produce any hard incontrovertible evidence.

Your problem is you respond to the theories with links to sites which contain an equal amount of crap. These sites put themselves forwards as fountains of truth, and you latch on to them as if they contained messages from your god. Are you suggesting we should just meekly accept your "truth".

You clearly haven't checked out your sources, it is only right that someone should. And when I tear your flimsy evidence to shreds you have the cheek to say I'm the one who needs to produce evidence. Evidence of what? I'm making no claims, merely showing that your's aren't valid.

[whypikonme]

Evidence of what? I'm making no claims, merely showing that your's aren't valid.

Showing my what aren't valid? A plane crashed into the Pentagon, that isn't MY claim, it's the claim of everyone who KNOWS anything about it, and you haven't shown that all the evidence isn't valid at all. You just come up with a pile of half-arsed theories about the damage done by planes crashing into buildings. A 757 was hijacked, people phoned from the plane, it was seen crashing into the Pentagon by several people, bits were found, the black box was found, bodies were found, if you don't accept that, then you should have reasons you don't believe it, instead, you rubbish people. Where is the plane and all the passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon? If it was a set-up, what about the ones that crashed into the WTC? Or is that just a coincidence?

This is your 'evidence' ..

The guy who wrote that report (Mete Sozen) assumed that metal will bend, just as it does in an automobile accident. But at the speeds involved there's one slight problem with that assumption. The metal simply does not have time to bend. But that's what you get when you ask an expert on static structures to explain the effect of a high speed impact. Unless of course you want the wrong conclusion to be drawn.

At best the wing will shear off. And if it shears off then there is nothing to draw it into the hole made by the fuselage, instead it will keep going in a straight line and therefore must either make its own hole or be left outside. There is no evidence it did either, so the correct assumption is that either it wasn't a 757, or that part or all of the wing was absent at the time of impact.

So you're an expert on high speed impacts are you? Another string to your astonishing bow.

Let's not forget this little gem as well,

"If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Well, he actually got that bit right, it didn't happen

[Cheese]

Welcome to this week's edition of "When People Don't Read Posts Properly".

[lynx]

Showing my what aren't valid? A plane crashed into the Pentagon, that isn't MY claim, it's the claim of everyone who KNOWS anything about it, and you haven't shown that all the evidence isn't valid at all. You just come up with a pile of half-arsed theories about the damage done by planes crashing into buildings. A 757 was hijacked, people phoned from the plane, it was seen crashing into the Pentagon by several people, bits were found, the black box was found, bodies were found, if you don't accept that, then you should have reasons you don't believe it, instead, you rubbish people. Where is the plane and all the passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon? If it was a set-up, what about the ones that crashed into the WTC? Or is that just a coincidence?

This is your 'evidence' ..

The guy who wrote that report (Mete Sozen) assumed that metal will bend, just as it does in an automobile accident. But at the speeds involved there's one slight problem with that assumption. The metal simply does not have time to bend. But that's what you get when you ask an expert on static structures to explain the effect of a high speed impact. Unless of course you want the wrong conclusion to be drawn.

At best the wing will shear off. And if it shears off then there is nothing to draw it into the hole made by the fuselage, instead it will keep going in a straight line and therefore must either make its own hole or be left outside. There is no evidence it did either, so the correct assumption is that either it wasn't a 757, or that part or all of the wing was absent at the time of impact.

So you're an expert on high speed impacts are you? Another string to your astonishing bow.

Let's not forget this little gem as well,

"If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Well, he actually got that bit right, it didn't happen

You really have lost the plot haven't you. And once again you haven't read what I said.

You stated the conspiracy theories were crap. Do you want to dispute that as being different from a claim? Anyway, maybe they are crap. You won't find anywhere that I've said anything to the contrary. The problem comes with the way you try to back up your statements. I am simply pointing out that the evidence you presented is as crap as the theories they purport to disprove.

Blurred images, pictures whose location at the crash site is extremely dubious, pictures which they admit have been doctored, presentation of theory as "obvious fact" and "impacts" which simply could not have happened. If you can do better than that, why didn't you? You presented that site as some sort of proof, are you now claiming it is unimpeachable?

Are you disputing that the fire burnt for 60 hours?
Are you claiming that only Boeing use green and yellow paint?
Are you saying that abovetopsecret's Rolls-Royce expert identified an RB211 engine?

I haven't said that the conspiracy theories were true, despite your attempts to infer the opposite. What I've done is to thoroughly discredit your evidence. There may well be evidence out there which will comprehensively back up your statement that the conspiracy theories are nonsense. If you want to produce evidence like that I will be happy to accept it. I'm just saying that the evidence you've "produced" so far doesn't do it.

[neon]

http://immortal-technique.com/forums...showtopic=4020
9/11 Movies, truth and opinions.
any opinions? check it. ^^^^^ ?

[lynx]

And on the WTC7 building.........I decided against the conspiracy theories when I realized this Larry Silverstein has never owned this building. A 99 year lease from the New York Port Authority by Silverstein Properties, Inc. doesn't constitute ownership to me. And that being the case......what right would he have to even think of demolishing?

I have to agree I can't think of a single legal reason.

However, he was paying out $3.2 billion over 99 years, but he expected insurance policies to cover him and his company for around $9.2 billion. That's 6 billion illegal reasons. Unfortunately for him he didn't get $3.5 billion of that money. My heart bleeds for him.

[Everose]

Yeah, I read about the insurance policies, too, Lynx. But would someone admit to demolishing a building in this way when it would negate his collecting insurance. Insurance claims adjusters on this big of a claim would be tough.

And as far as the structural engineer, I only read that he was the first structural engineer on the site.

I think a lot of confusion has been based on the surreal demand for literal interpretations of investigators, and others words..........some taken right after dealing with the aftermath of this horrendous disaster, some taken down the road a bit when just being asked about it brings back the horror of the situation.

I have seen a lot of 'it could have been this, too,' but I haven't seen much proof to discount facts as they were best able to report them.

I can only imagine the horror of the moment and dealing with the after effects. I don't feel like this is taken into account when people.s statements are being literally taken apart and analyzed word by word. I am by no means perfect, but saying I held a wing in my own hands after dealing with this horror, is very possible. I don't know if my mind could be very good at thinking I needed to get the exact proper adjective in my statement. I would hope people would understand human nature and use their common sense to understand what I meant....I could in no way hold a whole 757's wing, tail section, or whatever.

I may be wrong here, but after reading what I have read.......here and elsewhere.........about the bodies found afterwards at the pentagon. With such an impact, I doubt all body parts remained in the immediate area of the fire. It seems feasible that parts were flung about, and it also seems feasible to me that a large part of them would be flung about. I have even gone so far to think that even though bones burn....do teeth? Comparing passenger lists against remains would be a tedious task. But I also imagine those sixty passengers had loved ones that wanted proof, and I haven't seen one single family member dispute the proof given them.

What I have seen is a tremendous amount of credence and space given to websites, mostly based in other countries, disputing this. After reviewing them last evening, I can only ask what is up with that?

[Santa]

To demolish a building in the center of manhattan in the middle of a national crisis = Power (aka - networking - do you have this power?)
According to close architect buddies of mine - the world trade centers could easily collapse after their necks where removed and the top collapsed after a sidewards impulse wack from a plane

I am pro "Less Architecture"

unless lives are taken

[lynx]

@Everose, I totally agree with your sentiments, though I am perhaps a little more cynical about the motives of the men in positions of influence/power. I haven't actually seen what Larry Silverstein is supposed to have said, and even if I had I'm pretty sure it would have been out of context. I was merely countering your position that he had no legal right/reason for demolishing World Trade Building 7 with the suggestion that he had a lot of illegal reasons.

I also completely agree that some of the statements by Kilsheimer were obviously taken out of context, but I was simply quoting those statements. I wasn't the one who removed the context element, that was done by those who were trying to misuse them to prove an alternative viewpoint. And that's largely been my whole point throughout, that just as much effort has been put in to misrepresenting evidence to counter conspiracy theories as has been used to promote them.

Does fire destroy teeth? I'm no expert but as far as I'm aware teeth are simply modified bone material so they should be affected by heat in much the same way. Are teeth regularly found in the ashes produced from a cremation? I've only seen the results twice and I can't say I studied them too closely so I don't atually know, but that process certainly doesn't produce temperatures anything like those reported at the Pentagon.

As you say, the loved ones of the passengers may have wanted some sort of proof. But what sort of proof could they have been given? Even if they were really shown teeth and bones there is no way that they could have independently matched these to their own family members. Only a DNA analysis would be of use, and if there was a cover-up I feel pretty certain there would be plans in place to meet that possibility.

One other small point that has occured to me. It doesn't prove anything about conspiracies, it simply questions some of the unofficial "evidence". I'm referring to the theory of the "liquidized" aeroplane. It is compared to what happens in an avalanche where solids behave as liquids.

The thing about avalanches is that the solid material is composed of relatively small pieces which roll over one another. For the same thing to happen to these aircraft they would have to have shattered into small fragments. I can't think of any reason why that should have happened, It has never been suggested to have happened in any other air crahs, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it did in this instance either.

But let's assume that there was some condition in the impacts on the towers which did cause the aircraft to shatter. The crash at the Pentagon did not nearly match the conditions in the tower impacts, so why would we get the same effect?

Another piece of dodgy "evidence" disposed of, I think.