Printable View
here's something to think about. howcome the rubble outside the footprint fell the same speed as the tower. surely even if the steel could collapse under the weight they held for over 20 years the steel and concrete being crushed would fall slower than that, that only fights air
:lol: :lol: Really? You call this discrediting? Where's your evidence for all the red bits?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Evidence, according to you, is your word, Mr. Knowitall, if Lynx says it, then it must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
You're just a joke, you must be wishing you'd never posted here, because you're taking on a cause you can't win. Four planes went missing, one was found in a field, two were filmed crashing into the WTC, what happened to the other one? According to you there is no proof it crashed into the Pentagon.
Well, http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5177/doh3la.gif
No, Lynx, I don't think you are really more cynical than I am about men, or for that matter women, too, with political power and the abuse of that power. You may be a tad bit more vocal about it than I am, though. :D And in my opinion, that is not a bad thing.
Nah, you really haven't disposed of any evidence for me. But thanks for trying. It has been a long process.....more than a few years of reading everything I could find on this.
One thing....'conspiracy' does kind of 'throw blame.' And in my experience, oftimes history shows that such blame is often misplaced, and even intentionally misdirected. imo 'alternative' theory is a better term and a lot less offsetting to those who have lived with this tragedy.
As for me, I am off to google 'color of black boxes'. :lol:
My husband has a documented genuis level IQ in mechanical problem solving. He also has a license in air frame and power plant mechanics and is a pilot. He has worked on airplanes from one end to the other. Amazing man. (don't tell him I said that or I will deny it. It is my lifes work to keep this man humble) I know I have discussed this some with him along the way, but basically, he encourages me to read and find my own way, and he would be the first to admit he wouldn't have a clue nor does he know anyone that has a clue what exactly happens when a plane hits a building, other than death. He would probably first tell me a lot would depend on the building's structure and how many of the load bearing walls were compromised by the hit. But then again he just might tell me that we had threats, we had gloating and dancing in the streets and responsiblity not only taken but thrown back repeatedly in our faces. What more do I want. ;)
I guess my point is a lot of people in the past with less experience than he has with airplanes and buildings have built alternative theories without having a leg to stand on. And maybe that has fogged things up a bit.
I do want to say that after once again googling all those sites last night, I came away with wondering how can these 'alternative theorists', mostly from other countries, not having been there and dealt with it, determine (from reading the reports from the American experts) that the American experts were so mistaken in their calculations.
Well, my husband did ask me if I knew what color black boxes were,. I am thinking he is suggesting I am out of my element. :lol:
Where possible I'll use sites backing your interpretation for this info:Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
The initial hole was about 75 feet.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=6&c=y
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
They match any commercial airplane wheelOk, you got me there, I should have said the rim matched any commercial airplane wheel, it is an NTSB requirement. It you doubt that remark, check your own link:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
That has never been established
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/1210...nginepart.html
“There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP.
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
There are dozens of other engines that have not been ruled out
Self evident.
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
Blue upholstery laying on ground in photos
Most commercial aircraft seats are similar in design, but it would be virtually impossible to categorically state from the blurred photo that this upholstery even came from an aircraft. What's more, airlines have been severely criticised for the flamability of their seating. Strange that this one managed to survive the terrific temperatures unscathed.
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
SAME part of some fuselage logo in more than 1 photo
There is no way to determine from the photos that this piece of skin has an American Airlines logo on it.
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
That was not established by Rolls-Royce's own expert
Self evident, he didn't.
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
Green and yellow paint found
http://paint.aeroperform.com/catalog/prod_info.asp
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
Their own picture shows that the generator would have to have moved about 30 feet to the south in order to be in line with the engine.
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
See above
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane
Self evident
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane hit the Pentagon
Self evident
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage
This is the best of the lot. The fire burned for about 60 hours. For the first 3 and a half hours it was so intense that fire crews could not get close enough to get water on it. Yet they expect us to believe that they found and identified over 60 bodies. But at the same time other sites tell us that the reason so little of the plane was found is because it burnt up in the intense heat. We should be grateful that the human body is so much more resiliant than an airframe.[/QUOTE]
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
I can't find the site that quoted 60 hours, but that's hardly important. The fact is that the Fire Chief stated that most of the aircraft had burnt up.
You can make yourself look an even bigger idiot and question the bits which are self evident if you like.
But you can't back up your own statements: "According to you there is no proof it crashed into the Pentagon."
I think I've told you that's not my position four times now, I can't be bothered to go back and count. Perhaps you want to dispute that and tell me it is only 3 times.
Now you've got a slight problem.
I've shown that your own link gives you some of the evidence you wanted. Of course, you can claim that evidence is crap if you want, like I've been doing for the last 2 days. But that hardly does your position much good does it. :lol: :lol:
What have you answered? Have you provided any proof that there is no evidence a 757 crashed into the Pentagon? NO!
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. This was from one of the sites you quote, contrary to your assumption.
Did they? Where are these accounts then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4...ececomp4gq.jpgQuote:
There is no way to determine from the photos that this piece of skin has an American Airlines logo on it.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4...irespray3w.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Photo of a burning power generator (green arrow) in front of the Pentagon before the wall has collapsed.
:P
And I wasn't trying to. That's the fifth time I've told you that. Hasn't that sunk in yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
It was from one of the sites I disputed, but backs up your claim, as I clearly stated. But quite frankly look at it, it is a preposterous statement. A brand new matter state. Oh well, throw away all the science books. But let's assume for a second that it could have a grain of truth in it. We've all seen how liquids moving at speed gather themselves together to enter pipes and holes. Oh, wait, no they don't, they just keep going in a straight line.Quote:
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. This was from one of the sites you quote, contrary to your assumption.
I know I said you could make yourself look even more of an idiot, I didn't really think you would take me up on it. I really am not going to bother with this nonsense. :lol: :lol:Quote:
Did they? Where are these accounts then?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Have you ever sat at the end of a runway watching planes land. Ever tried to work out what plane they are or who the carrier is in the few seconds between the plane passing over your head and it touching down? When I pick people up from the local airport there's a place i park where I can see just that much. It is damn difficult I can tell you, and that's when you are expecting planes to be coming.
Now imagine what it is like when you aren't expecting a plane, and it is travelling at well over twice normal landing speed. Still reckon everyone can say what sort of plane it is and who the carrier was. A few aviation experts may get it right, most wouldn't. The general public would certainly get it wrong in the majority of cases.
Nice picture of an aircraft. I'm tempted to concede the point about the logo. Looks like you've finally found a useful site. Care to let us in on what it is?
But the burning generator? There's nothing in that picture to suggest it has been hit or moved. And you imply that a large chunk of wall is about to collapse on it. Good job that won't do any damage then. Like putting a large depression in the top which will later be claimed as impact damage.
Keep it up, I'm enjoying your wriggling. :naughty:
Don't worry about the eyewitness accounts then, l wouldn't want to bother you. As for aircraft identification, l did that in the Air Cadets, so maybe l'm just good at it, living three miles from the runway at Heathrow may have helped too. l can certainly tell a 757 from a Cruise Missile.
Only if you promise not to critique the whole site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Mark Faram
Misrepresenting again? :lol: The CAPTION under the pic says, "Photo of a burning power generator (green arrow) in front of the Pentagon before the wall has collapsed." Who said it was next to the building, and close enough to be collapsed on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/3317/0000gen3gk.jpg
Flight 77 Generator
Pentagon Building Performance Report.
:lol: You wish! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Quote:
Originally Posted by osama bin laden
How about a real source rather than a fake quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html
apparently it was on the BBC site, but i can't find it.
he's right though :naughty:
I don't believe or disbelieve that bin Laden had anything to do with 9\11, I certainly would never take the word of Bush as being true. There has been no proof that he was involved, he certainly claimed at first that he had nothing to do with it, why would he lie? He later claimed, so they say, that he was involved, and why wouldn't he, there was a bounty on his head and he was wanted dead or alive. There is no doubt that al Qaeda benefited from the US vitriol, they made the 'organisation' famous, and brought many Muslims to it's cause. Now, of course, the words al Qaeda have become a rallying call for every disaffected Muslim the world over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
I must have missed something. Who really gives a flying leap about what this religious extremist says?
Plenty of people. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
considering the official story is that this guy is apparently responsible for september 11th, and due to that day being linked to him there's been two wars in the east and tens of thousands of people have died. back over here our rights are being stripped daily and our taxes pay for these wars. i think what he says is pretty importantQuote:
Originally Posted by Everose
he didn't claim responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
osama bin laden
http://911research.com/disinfo/decep...docs/osama.jpg
the guy who confessed
http://911research.com/disinfo/decep.../osamafake.jpg
you've had some convincing arguements so far. about the pentagon. it probably was a plane, if they hijack and kill 3 planes worth why not get 4?
i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives though and it wasn't muslims behind it at all.
i'd like to see someone dispute this though :rolleyes:
follows - this was ONLY possible if 9/11 happened it gives Very good reason to be an "inside" job:
Quote:
This isn’t just a war against Iraqis or Afghanis or even Arabs or Muslims. It is ultimately a war on us all. That’s because the billions and billions of dollars that are being spent on this war—the cost of tanks, rocketry, bullets, and yes, even salaries for the 125,000-plus troops—is money that will never be spent on education, on health care, on the reconstruction of crumbling public housing, or to train and place the millions of workers who have lost manufacturing jobs in the past three years alone.
The war in Iraq is, in reality, a war against the nation’s workers and the poor who are getting less and less while the big defense industries are making a
killing—literally. What’s next? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Venezuela? We’ve already seen the corporate media play megaphone to the White House to build and promote a war based on lies.
It’s been a long time ago, but that great Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, said, “War is utilized by the imperialists, first and foremost, to crush internal enemies.” We’re seeing the truth of his insight when we see the sad state of American education, the rush of seniors to buy affordable medication from the Canadians because American drugs are just too expensive, the threatened privatization of Social Security, and the wave of repression that comes with an increasingly militarized police. Does the Homeland Security Department make you feel any safer?
In Black America things get grimmer every day as resources that are already scarce begin to shrink even further. Young people feel that prisons are
rite-of-passage, an inevitable place to visit. And a decent job seems like a distant dream.
This is a war on all of us, and the struggle against war is really a struggle for a better life for the millions of folks who are in need here in this country. The fight against the war is really to fight for your own interests, not the false interests of the defense industries, or the corporate media, or the White House.
Quote:
Bush’s “grim vision” always recognized that the “war on terror” abroad would require restricted freedoms at home – as well as expanded powers for the police and military. So, just as in 2002, when the “Bush Doctrine” on preemptive wars laid the intellectual groundwork for invading Iraq, new doctrines are now being promulgated to justify the creation of a full-scale “security state” inside the United States.
One Defense Department document, called the “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support,” sets out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an “active, layered defense” both inside and outside U.S. territory.
As a kind of domestic corollary to the Bush Doctrine, the Pentagon strategy paper also has a preemptive element, calling for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to “defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States.” The plan “maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us.”
Global War
Besides lifting the traditional limits on military operations on U.S. soil, the document makes clear that global warfare will be the reality for at least the next decade.
Also:
In effect, the Bush administration is prescribing a large dose of military action and political repression as the cure for Islamic terrorism.
Everyone delusional enough to think this will "cure" the "problem," raise your hand. (We want to know who to blame, when this starts WWIII, as it well might.)
Besides the question of civil liberties, the strategy represents a rejection of advice from counterinsurgency experts who warn that an over-reliance on warfare and inadequate attention to the root causes of Middle East anger could perpetuate terrorism indefinitely, rather than reduce it to a manageable problem that can be handled by law enforcement.
l don't believe the towers were destroyed by explosions, and l haven't seen any proof that they were. There may be an explanation for what appeared to some people to be explosions though. When l left school l worked in a concrete testing laboratory for a company called Concrete Limited. Our job was to test concrete beams and columns to destruction. At the point of destruction they would literally explode, loudly and violently. As the towers started to collapse, extra weight would have been exerted downwards, which could have caused certain parts of the building to appear to explode.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Correct.. except that the act of compression also slows the fall down.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
The rubble outside fell at the same speed as the building.. this, for me is evidence of a controlled demolition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
So if you believe the 'official story' he is important. If you don't believe the official story you still feel what he says is pretty important.
I believe planes were hijacked and flown into buildings. I blame the hijackers for this.
I don't believe I will give credence to this religious extremist. Regardless.
Why, because the author is a Baha'i, that's a bit harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
They're decent spuds.
How much more of this? My dad was telling me that Bush Sr. said that if he didn't pull troops out of middle east when he did, they would've been stuck for 10 years. Then Bush Jr. does the samething his father said shouldn't be done. I'll try to find the book.
Wonder how much he made selling those pics to the media?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Here's his conclusion pageQuote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/penta...en-conclu.html
Here's a link from his site, might appeal to you and The, RF.
http://www.oilempire.us/
Quote:
Originally Posted by maebach
A more likely reason is that the Arab countries (and a good few others in the coalition) were really pissed off about Iraqi troops being buried alive by Americans in one action, and also about the "Highway of Death"...Quote:
Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep', and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.". (quoted in Losing America, pg 154)
..."A World Transformed" George Bush
The UN resolution also only gave authority to go to the Iraqi borders, it was quite specific about that.
To have attempted to invade would have done more than broke up the coalition, it would have left around 500,000 troops surrounded by enemies on all sides, with no practical way to re-supply them.
The initial act of collapse would have created a huge weight gain, a sudden push downwards, like hitting the floors below with a sledgehammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
l cannot see any rhyme or reason in demolishing the buildings, it would mean planting explosives in the building first, and coordinating that with the highjackers, why would they have commited suicide if it were an American plot?
considering a building like this has never collapsed from fire, they needed to make sure they went down.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
whether or not it could have crushed itself, there would have been some resistance, the towers fell almost at terminal velocity onto themselves.
the suicide front was to make it look like muslims did it
So who flew the planes?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
remote control? :ermm:
What about the passengers, wouldn't they have noticed the man outside the window with the remote?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i'm guessing they'd have used something with a longer range than a tv remote.
remember most of the hijackers are still alive and thinking wtf
I dont know.
I dont say they were american pilots either.
I do know that i dont believe the official version of events. This is supported by physical evidence and that there are an extremly suspicious set of co-incidents.
Does this mean that Bush, or anyone else in the administration/security services were involved? Not necessarily, although it does raise the odds from "Impossible" to say "unlikely". They certainly took advantage of the situation though.
The most damning thing for me is the fact that they are encouraging the most unlikely sets of conspiracy theories delibratly.. that lumps all theories in the same boat. People are misdirected to the wildly improbable, such as "It wasnt a 757 that hit the Pentagon". They then dont look too closely at the ones that cant/wont be answered; such as:
Why say the Black Boxes of the ones at WTC werent found, when the people on the ground say they loaded them into an FBI vehicle?
Why refuse to release the video footage that was taken from business' all around the Pentagon?
Why put a gag order on the Firemen?
Why play delaying tactics in the courts with the suit against GW for Treason, and not even allow the media to report there is one? Why not just go to court and get it over with?
Same for the suit under the RICO(?) laws..
Why refuse to answer questions under Oath?
Why were some of the answers given by Rice under oath, different to those she told the world in the Media?
The list goes on and on...
Some, such as the Rice thing, i can understand.... She could have been playing the propaganda card in the media, and couldnt under oath for example.
Others, there is no reason... except they would reveal a trail of lies that politics in general in the USA would never recover from. NOTE: I didnt say "Republicans" i said politics.
If you follow the money; Oil is selling at over $64 a barrel at the moment.. who, in the current administration, gains from selling Oil at high prices?
Weapons and Ordinance were and still are, being bought at hugely increased rates. Who in the administration gains by an upsurge in the weapons trade?
Just about every week, something is uncovered that shows that we were lied to re: Iraq.
Afganistan is now ran by the Warlords that grow the white poppies again..result, a certain pipeline is now being built through Afganistan and Heroin prices are at an altime low on the streets. What happened to "This time we will not forget them"?
Iraq is a quagmire that is, lets face it, a Civil war in the making.
The Kurds are now bombing Turkey, as they were before they were the "allies" in the invasion... when do they get classed as terrorists supporting Al Queda again?
The whole situation from 911 onwards stinks... hell forget 911, from the election in 2000.
Something very suspicious is happening in US Government the last few years.. and it didnt start with Bush Jnr. He's just the daft sod that's been the most blatent :(
@whypikonleo
Thanks for the links, in particular the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It wasn't exactly the sort of title I would have searched for. Very interesting though, it gives some very useful information regarding the position of the generator.
I refer you to figure 3.2 on page 15 of the report (page 12 of the pdf file). This shows the aircraft line of flight to be such that, assuming the generator to be where indicated, the right engine of a 757 would be in line with the generator.
I now refer you to page 36 of that report (page 23 of the pdf file). Look at the supposed path of the plane through the building - straight at the hole in the inner wall of ring c. Yet if you look at the line of damage inside the building it does not proceed in the same direction, and the hole in the wall of ring c is at the very edge of the main damage area.
There is the aircraft wheel just outside the hold in ring c. If that is what has been claimed, it can not be the nose wheel since the nose wheel is different. Ie, it is a main landing gear wheel. This also implies that the nose did not end up in this area.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it is logical to assume that the main line of damage inside the building would follow the original line of flight. Ok, that's probably only a few degrees. But the diagram in figure 3.2 shows the pre-impact aircraft following the same line which ends up at the hole in ring c.
If you adjust the line of flight in this diagram to match the line of damage, then the right engine would completely miss the generator in it's supposed position.
This neither confirms nor denies whether it was a 757 which hit the Pentagon, but it removes yet another piece of "evidence".
Actually, I'm also a little puzzled by an omission from the report. Reports such as these usually try to give as much information as possible, and to that end they include before and after photographs for comparison. Yet there is not one single photograph of how things were before the crash. Was there a shortage? That hardly seems likely, a major reconstruction was about to be completed, it is inconceivable that hundreds of pictures weren't taken.
I notice that Mete Sozen was also one of the authors of the report. There are no references to his liquidized aeroplane theory. Was it perhaps just a little too bizarre for an official document, I wonder.
The actual, exact, path of the plane cannot possibly be known except to a tolerence of maybe +\- a metre or two. The video animation l saw months ago, from some university, (Purdoe? (sp.)), suggested also that the plane, because the left wing ploughed into the ground, may have entered the building with a slight speed bias towards the right (?). l guess the makeup of the building's structure would also hamper any attempt to determine the exact path. They also said that it took the plane only one tenth of a second to travel through the building, and, presumably, come to a complete stop from (x)00kms per hour. When you look at some of the pics in that report they really had a mess to sort out, and not a lot of prior experience of planes crashing into buildings to call on.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if one side digs in, doesn't that side slow down and therefore cause a turn in that direction? I suppose it could simply cause a rotation of the aircraft to the left, but there's no way it could alter the flight path to the right.
A snippet from the co-producers of the video.
Source
I think that interprets as:Quote:
A major challenge has been learning how to combine commercially available software with the special models needed to simulate an airliner hitting a building, Kilic said.
The Purdue team used commercial software that is normally used by auto manufacturers to simulate car crashes. But adapting the software to simulate the plane crash and then combining the realistic-looking graphics with scientific simulation has been especially difficult, Kilic said.
"Integrating these two animations is uncommon," he said. "We are discovering a new territory. We had some interaction with aeronautical engineers, and they had never heard of this kind of a simulation, with an aircraft hitting a building.
Perdue: look what we done
aeronautical engineers: wtf? :blink:
:lol:
That's what l meant, the right side was going faster, it's this grass, l haven't had a smoke for a few days.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Just out of interest, did you look at these >> Pentagon Animations << have a look at number two, 'Fluid'.
I've tried a couple of times to download the main simulation video, but gave up after 30 mins. I assume their server was overloaded.
I haven't had chance to see the one's you've linked to yet, I'll try to look at them tomorrow. One thing though, did you notice the title of number 2 - wing w/o ribs.
I thought this was supposed to be a meaningful representation. AFAIK there is no such thing as a (operational) wing w/o ribs. Jeez, no wonder they made the assumption it liquefied, I shouldn't think a wing made like that would even have to hit anything to fall apart.
Update, I had time to have a quick look at the ones under heading 2.
Did you notice something?
They are animating a full right hand wing.
The same wing that could not possibly have fitted through the hole in the outside of the building.
Unless of course it was a lot smaller.
In which case it wasn't from a 757 :w00t:
Comments?
I noticed their supposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
But which would you have me believe?
1) the aircraft was a 757.
2) their supposition is correct and it wasn't a 757.
Or are you suggesting that it was a 757 but the fuel pulled itself in so that it could get through the hole, then stretched itself back to its original shape in order to perform the pillar cutting act. :wacko:
l'm not making any claims at all, just looking at animations that the authors claim should not be taken as gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx