ok a question for all.

[biggins]

i need some clarification here. the family members of those that died in the 9/11 sued the government and many of them are receiving millions of dollars!i mean no disrespect for anyone anywhere and the loss of a family should definately be mourned and respected. but why are we giving them all this money? why do these family members think that we are not subject to terrorist attacks and how did they decide the value of the individuals lives?

[golgiaparatus]

Really? Damn if I had a country and one of my citicens tried to sue me for anything...

BAM... your out of my country, no pass go, no collect $200

[biggins]

Really? Damn if I had a country and one of my citicens tried to sue me for anything...

BAM... your out of my country, no pass go, no collect $200

they are suing on the basis that it could have and should have been prevented. now i hate bush he is low down dirty twisted sick racist redneck biggot P.O.S but i must agree when they say there is nothing they could have done. there was no way. the only thing they could have done is not piss off those crazy fvckers in the first place.

the real problem lies in the fact that americans think everything is everyone elses responsibility.
we are not immune to terrorist attacks!we live in the wealthiest country and the most consuming country on the planet earth do ya really think that nothing was ever going to happen?

[biggins]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-911-families-cover-usat_x.htm

linky poo fo you


"With the Dec. 22 deadline to apply for government payments nearing, the relatives of 1,995 deceased victims have submitted claims. The families are lining up for settlement checks that are averaging nearly $1.5 million, and are agreeing not to sue airlines, airports, security companies or other U.S. entities that might be faulted in the fatal hijackings."

[biggins]

hey we lost our famiyl memebers but dont worry about changing the way we do anything, just give me a cool 1.5 and i'll forgive and forget.

[RhinofromWA]

I thought the purpose was to eliminate teh flood of suites on or legal system and deliver aid to the families that had suffered a loss of thier bread winner....

Not saying I agree with it but I remember something about them trying to quench the stupid countries thurst for blood($$$) in the courts by doing this.

Saw on Howard Stern of how some 9/11 widow got a boob job and picked up a trophy BF and is on easy street after getting her 9/11 money. It was a while ago and I was dang near asleep....the detail are fuzzy. She had her daughter on the show (teenager) and the all talked about doing drugs or something. :rolleyes: again the details are kinda fuzzy.

[biggins]

well, in that case anytime someone dies the family should get 1.5 million? is it now the goverments job to make sure no one dies and if they do give the family lots of money to make it all better. i mean they were trying to set up a fund for the families but the families decided it was all the govments fault and they could get more money through a law suit. i just dont understand how the gov was supposed to stop what happened and why in america we have decided that money is the universal soother of the soul.

[Westy]

I can't find a source but I was listening to the radio last week and heard a report that the family of a soldier was suing the gov. because their son was not killed in action but in a "terrorist" attack in Iraq? WTF? It seems that if you can work the word terrorism into a sentence someone owes you money.

[biggins]

yeah westy, i will never understand it. thats why i had to ask the question.

[Changleen]

And soldiers' families only get $9000 (less now I hear) when the Soldier is KIA. Go figure.

[TheMontashu]

dam i bet all that money payed out to the families could pay for the war in iraq

[Changleen]

I was reading this thread and I got to Rhino's first post, and I was like ' Hmm, Deja vu, I'm sure I've read something like that before...' Then I got to my own post and was like 'Oh yeah....'

Anyway, I think they're being paid off so they don't start lawsuits which investigate the actual circumstances of 9/11 and maybe come across stuff like this:

<warning: conspiricy mode on>

http://911review.org/Wget/www.lightscion.com/no_plane_hit_pentagon.htm

I'm not sure I believe this stuff, but the more of it I read - the thing about the cell phones for example seems pretty convincing.. I dunno... I'm in a funny mood today...

[Toshi]

dam i bet all that money payed out to the families could pay for the war in iraq
here's some help with arithmetic. :rolleyes:

~2000 victims * avg settlement of 1.5 million = 3 billion dollars.

from http://costofwar.com/, the current tab is at 126 billion dollars.

3 << 126.

this is not to say that i think that these settlements are a good idea or just. saying they are on the scale of THE WAR, which just for the record, IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO 9/11, DESPITE WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, is stupid.

[MikeD]

And soldiers' families only get $9000 (less now I hear) when the Soldier is KIA. Go figure.

That's a 'death beneft,' (Ha.) intended to go towards expenses connected with the death. Actually, I had no idea a death benefit was $9k...I thought it was a lot less. All military personnel are also eligable to have Servicemember's Group Life Insurance for a few bucks a month, which pays $250k. (Not that that's a fortune, either...)

MD

[Silver]

That's a 'death beneft,' (Ha.) intended to go towards expenses connected with the death. Actually, I had no idea a death benefit was $9k...I thought it was a lot less. All military personnel are also eligable to have Servicemember's Group Life Insurance for a few bucks a month, which pays $250k. (Not that that's a fortune, either...)

MD

Don't forget the one time death benefit of social security, worth $250. Damn government handing out money all over the place...

[Lexx D]

My father passed away in may of 2001. Who can i sue? I don't want to sound like an a$$ here(but I'm sure I will) I don't think they deserve $$.

Can i sue the hospital that my father died in since they couldn't get him a liver in time? Or maybe I can sue the medical industry for not doing enough research to prevent what my family went through. No that's it, I'll sue the gov. since they didn't allow stem cell research which would have allowed them make a liver for my dad in a beaker and he'd still be here.

This is why people have life insurance........just incase something happens.

[nicklin]

why not sure the INS who made it possible for illegal immigrants to stay, of whom a bunch fo the hijackers were staying on expired visas and stuff. and people say illegal immigrants have right too.....rights to kill?

[Silver]

why not sure the INS who made it possible for illegal immigrants to stay, of whom a bunch fo the hijackers were staying on expired visas and stuff. and people say illegal immigrants have right too.....rights to kill?

C'mon, if the INS won't deport poor Mexicans, you really think they are going to deport a bunch of Saudis? Guys that before September 11, 2001 had a special visa program called US Visa Express?

I want some of what you're smoking.

[golgiaparatus]

they are suing on the basis that it could have and should have been prevented. now i hate bush he is low down dirty twisted sick racist redneck biggot P.O.S but i must agree when they say there is nothing they could have done. there was no way. the only thing they could have done is not piss off those crazy fvckers in the first place.

the real problem lies in the fact that americans think everything is everyone elses responsibility.
we are not immune to terrorist attacks!we live in the wealthiest country and the most consuming country on the planet earth do ya really think that nothing was ever going to happen?

They could have had tighter security, the pilots could have had guns. The biggest thing that I think will stop this type of thing from happening now... the passengers. I'd like to see someone try to take over a plane with a box cutter now :angry: probably be beaten to a bloody pulp.

[biggins]

well, you know the pain and suffering endured by these victims families can only be releived with a million bucks ya know. money heals all.

[Archslater]

Anyway, I think they're being paid off so they don't start lawsuits which investigate the actual circumstances of 9/11 and maybe come across stuff like this:

<warning: conspiricy mode on>

http://911review.org/Wget/www.lightscion.com/no_plane_hit_pentagon.htm

I'm not sure I believe this stuff, but the more of it I read - the thing about the cell phones for example seems pretty convincing.. I dunno... I'm in a funny mood today...

Why do I get the feeling that the authors of this website walk around with tinfoil hats. Their scientific info is pretty sketchy at best. Example: Sure you can't put jet-fuel in a torch and melt steel, but throw a couple thousand gallons of burning fuel at a buildings steel frame and the super heated steel will loose much of its load bearing abilities and fail.

[biggins]

im amazed that this thread is still going and no one has yet to rip into about the comments

[Westy]

im amazed that this thread is still going and no one has yet to rip into about the comments

A year or so ago I posted a similar but more callous comments. A member of this board who lost a sister in 911 rightfully tore me a new one for being a jerk but agreed that the demands for $$ by families was wrong. You just made sense in you original post, if you were trolling you just weren't trying hard enough.

[biggins]

A year or so ago I posted a similar but more callous comments. A member of this board who lost a sister in 911 rightfully tore me a new one for being a jerk but agreed that the demands for $$ by families was wrong. You just made sense in you original post, if you were trolling you just weren't trying hard enough.

nope im never trolling i was just kind of amazed at the fact. my intention isnt to piss anyone off.

[Changleen]

Why do I get the feeling that the authors of this website walk around with tinfoil hats. Their scientific info is pretty sketchy at best. Example: Sure you can't put jet-fuel in a torch and melt steel, but throw a couple thousand gallons of burning fuel at a buildings steel frame and the super heated steel will loose much of its load bearing abilities and fail.

No it won't. For the Kerosine in the Jet to have caused the WTC to fall, it is necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose a new form of kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy.

You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.

When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the US Government. They claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to

:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft

:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( 1350 degrees Centigrade - about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel in air)

:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

The official version of the WTC collapse claims that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

The Government then says the failure mode of the building completely defies any kind of rational logic. They say that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Just think about that for a second in your own head - Even if you allow for the utterly improbable situation that in and around the floors on which the impact took place, all the steel somehow vapourised, and the fire then spread througout the entire building, how would the remaining structure collapse directly downwards?

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors.
In fact, the WTC behaved like a building that was professionally demolished.

[BigMike]

No it won't. For the Kerosine in the Jet to have caused the WTC to fall, it is necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose a new form of kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy.

You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.

When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the US Government. They claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to

:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft

:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( 1350 degrees Centigrade - about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel in air)

:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

The official version of the WTC collapse claims that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

The Government then says the failure mode of the building completely defies any kind of rational logic. They say that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Just think about that for a second in your own head - Even if you allow for the utterly improbable situation that in and around the floors on which the impact took place, all the steel somehow vapourised, and the fire then spread througout the entire building, how would the remaining structure collapse directly downwards?

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors.
In fact, the WTC behaved like a building that was professionally demolished.



So.... how do you think it happened?

[Changleen]

Like I said, it was professionally demolished. By who? Read the project for a new American Century. Actually I don't know, except it seems pretty unlikely it was bunch of Arabs once you dig into the evidence a bit, so - 'American Interests' - but that's a pretty long list. I wouldn't have much problem believing that Rumsfield et al were somehow involved.

Edit:

Have a look at these:
1) A building being Professionally demolished
http://webfairy.911review.org/video/controlled.demolition.1.wmv

2)WTC - Note the small sub explosions on the right of the tower as it falls - look familiar?
http://webfairy.911review.org/video/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv

[Archslater]

You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.


:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( 1350 degrees Centigrade - about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel in air)

:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

The official version of the WTC collapse claims that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.



Hey, I'm all for conspiracy theories, just thought that one sounded a bit shady. I am an Architect with a bit of experience in structural engineering. Steel doesn't need to come anywhere near its melting point to loose much of its load bearing capability. I have read many of the structural studies, the steel didn't melt at all. It just became week as it grew hotter and twisted.

Also, tall steel buildings generally have protective fire insulation coating the steel, which gives occupants a couple of hours to evacuate before structural failure. After an hour of intense heat, the fire likely penetrated this insulation and caused the delayed structural failure.

As for the vertical collapse, I think they attributed this to the unorthadox structural frame of the towers, with the load bearing shell and core.

I'm not saying the theory couldn't be true, but they don't have much valid evidence.

[Changleen]

Steel doesn't need to come anywhere near its melting point to loose much of its load bearing capability. I have read many of the structural studies, the steel didn't melt at all. It just became week as it grew hotter and twisted.

Then doesn't the failure mode of the building seem very unlikely? (By the way, steel needs to get to 60% of it's melting temp to enter the hot working range - melting temp is between 1370 - 1700C dependant on alloy, Jet fuel burns at upto 800 in air with an optimum mixture) For enough of the steel to become weakened (also do you really think that it would have been across more than a few floors?) to cause the building to fall, wouldn't it have been far more likely for the building to tip over one way or another? For me the colapse is just far to perfect to be accidental. Just remember, on one day, 3 buildings, WTC 1,2 and 7 ALL collapsed exactly in their own footprints. WTC 7 didn't even take any impact. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit fishy?
Combine it with this:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
and it starts making you wonder WTF was actually going on that day. I've gotta say, I'm pretty sure that no Boeing hit the Pentagon.


Also, tall steel buildings generally have protective fire insulation coating the steel, which gives occupants a couple of hours to evacuate before structural failure. After an hour of intense heat, the fire likely penetrated this insulation and caused the delayed structural failure.
But again, throughout the entire building? The structure below the damaged area is by definition strong enough to support the rest of the tower, right? There was no fire in the lower floors, so how were they caused to collapse?

And the designers of the tower are on the record saying it was designed to take the impact of a large plane similar to a 727, complete with all 27,000 gallons of fuel. FIMA (Government investigators) estimated 10,000 gallons on each plane.

Also, the tower that was hit second, despite reciving a more glancing blow and having FAR a larger portion of the fule burn outside the tower, collapsed first.


As for the vertical collapse, I think they attributed this to the unorthadox structural frame of the towers, with the load bearing shell and core.
I'm not saying the theory couldn't be true, but they don't have much valid evidence.

I've read a couple of site that offer pretty detailed rebutals of that those theries, I've been trying to find them again, but I can't for now. Anyway I'll keep looking, but have a look at these for now:

http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm
http://www.justiceforwoody.org/re911/materials/flyer/flyer.htm
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/35246.php
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=22

There's just so much dodgy sh1t going on... The Steel was carted away in record time before it could be properly analysed, why the hell did WTC 7 collapse (again in a controlled way) and why did the media say so little about it? Why was there such a long gap between impact and failure, and why did the failures occur in the 'wrong order', even after the fires seemed to have mostly subsided?

I am also noramlly pretty sceptical about conspiricy theories too, but there IS quite a bit of evidence about that the official story is utter sh1t, and so many of the 'official' explanations are full of holes, it's just too much. Especially the Pentagon thing, that is just bull****.

[Changleen]

So I've been reading around this even more - I've found some more Pentagon Stuff. This is just ridiculous.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

Someone please explain to me how the official version of events could possibly be true? This looks more and more like an utter sham of a mockery. From the look of things, this is a complete inside job. Why are the Government lying about this? I really can't believe this cr4p.

[MikeD]

So what happened to the planes?

[Changleen]

I don't know. A few sites have put up possible alternative series of events, you can find one here:

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm

You might also find this interesting

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

[RhinofromWA]

Man I dropped the post.....

retyped:

Man, WTF?

Nothing like a bunch of dweebs with nothing better to do (a life), sitting around and writing theories....

:eek: scary, very scary.

[MikeD]

Holy crap... "theories...what any good investigator does?"

Ummm, yeah, so I guess when the FBI investigates a murder, they should probably consider aliens and their plans for world domination as a possible cause.

There's a lot of self-assurance there, as if this guy on the Web happens to be an expert on what exactly a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon would actually look like...as if it's common knowledge.

Seriously, though...why all the baroque plans to a relatively simple end? If the gov't wants planes to crash into the towers, they only need to aid and abet, or even lead, via undercover operatives and moles, the plan to hijack the planes. All the complicity from the varied military agencies needed for these theories signals 'total horsesh1t.'

These theorists need to use Occam's Razor a little more often.

MD

[RhinofromWA]

These theorists need to use Occam's Razor a little more often.

MD
Those answer would be simple :think:........

to simple.

:rolleyes:

Somepeople can't sleep until they have unearthed a new conspiracy.

I hear Cracker jacks by themselves are OK but when mixed with Coca-Cola (not that generic stuff either) it creates a chemical compound that radiates at a level totally unique in nature. This allows the satillites from the "star wars program" (as if that is what they were meant for...geesh.) to track the individuals via space.

If you have consumed either of these products (EVER!) than we have something that will help hide you from Big Brothers watchfull eyes. This paper reinforced aluminum foil (burger wrappers) worn over 67.2% of your body directly visable from space should scrample your pattern and confuse even the most sensitive of tracking satellites.

Fear not my brothers.....we will expose the covert international agency responsible for this...it will only take time.

*cue X-files music*

[Changleen]

Yeah sure a lot of the guys who dig all this sh1t up are paranoid freaks - of course.

But still, ignoring all their ramblings, just look at the photos of the Pentagon where a jetliner was supposed to have hit it. Even with half a brain it's pretty clear no plane hit it...

[RhinofromWA]

Yeah sure a lot of the guys who dig all this sh1t up are paranoid freaks - of course.

But still, ignoring all their ramblings, just look at the photos of the Pentagon where a jetliner was supposed to have hit it. Even with half a brain it's pretty clear no plane hit it...
MMike in the weeks after 9/11 mentioned something I remember to this day. BTW he worked at Boeing and was a engineer working there at the time.

He said that it is often hard to imagine you are hurdling through the air it not much more than a thin shelled tube(or was it a pop can?). There isn't a whole lot to airplanes...a lot of them are just air space. Hitting something, anything would crush/crumble that flying can so not much would be left. When crumpled and torched.

But he is Canadian on a work visa so I am sure they held that above him to post that statement......sneaky covert international agency.

[Changleen]

They still weigh ~200 tonnes and have 2 huge engines made out of largely the strongest material we know how to construct as Humans, Nickel-Based Super Alloy. (Me = Materials Engineer BTW). Where were these engines? There is only 1 impact hole, it's too small for a Boeing to fit in, so the debris of the boeing should logically be on the outside of the building. It's not.

Secondly, compare the pentagon Point of Impact with some other well known plane crash (googling) for example here's:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/lockerbie.town/
the hole in the ground that a part of the plane made in the Lockerbie crash.

The section of this plane that made this hole would have been in free-fall from cruising altitude after being blown appart in the sky. It would have reached it's terminal velocity by then (prob ~250mph?) It wasn't even a whole plane, it wasn't powered into into the ground, but I think you have to agree the hole it made is a 'little' bigger.
Plus at lockerbie despite extensive fires and damage to the surrouding houses, they still had enough of the plane left to pretty much rebuild the whole thing in a hanger to figure out what happened. In fact this is normal practice after a plane crash. One of my lecturers was on a European team that investigated plane crashes, and it is normal practice to 'rebuild' the thing after the event to figure out the mode of failure and so on. Yet somehow, the US Governement would have you believe that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon just 'vapourised'. Bull****. It would take a ludicrous amount of energy to vapourise 200 tonnes of aluminium.

Like I said, look at the point of impact once again:
Overview:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/images/photos/Pentagon3.jpg
Zoom:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/images/photos/Pentagon4.jpg

And this as an overview:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Do you think a Boeing really hit the Pentagon?

[N8]

Changleen here's something you so desperately need:

Linky: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

[Changleen]

And something for you, N8:

http://www.usd.edu/eric/graphics/brain.gif

[MikeD]

I don't find a lot of the conclusions convincing at all. Reading it, it seems to me that writers have, by and large, come to their conclusions beforehand, and have written their accounts and criticisms in support, after the fact. Nor are any of the accounts I read by qualified aviation safety professionals (yeah, I know, they all have chips in their heads that the FAA uses to control them), and their 'commonsense' approach doesn't hold much water with me. Saying what obviously should and should not occur at such a crash site is pure Internet speculation, even when you start comparing it to Lockerbie. Totally different situations. Accounts of 'keystone kop' aerial security procedures fail to account for the chaos and fog of a totally unimaginable situation in its unfolding...pure amateur hindsight.

CIA controlled terrorists I might consider. Incendiary-launching remote control planes are laughable.

MD

[Changleen]

Like I said, those guys are mostly conspiricy nuts - I totally agree that they take the evidence and twist every possible far fetched scanareo out of it.

It's like any website or news report, or whatever in life. You don't have to take it whole sale or reject it entirely. This is not a black or white situation. You read, it you think about, and you see what makes sense to you.

Adverts for cleaning products totally over-hype the power of the product. You know it's bullsh1t but you still buy the product because it does, in fact, clean.

I read a bunch of these sites. They, like most media, have their fair share of crap contained within them,

BUT:

What about the lack of a hole in the Pentagon?

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/images/photos/Pentagon3.jpg
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/images/photos/Pentagon4.jpg

How can you say a Boeing hit the Pentagon and just did this?

[RhinofromWA]

Look to the right...big hole.

[Changleen]

Sorry - That's the official 'Point of impact'. See this:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpgSource: US Department of Defense

Here's a much larger view anyway - there are no other holes as you can see.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg

[RhinofromWA]

Sorry - That's the official 'Point of impact'. See this:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpgSource: US Department of Defense

Here's a much larger view anyway - there are no other holes as you can see.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg
Looks about right to me. Ever put a tomato through a hand dandy slicer dicer?

So the government paid off hundreds of families and took away their loved ones...to stage the crashes. All secretly.

Said FU to the WTC and it's occupants. Bush is said to have watch in his limo via closed circut TV the 1st plane crash. :rolleyes:

Flew planes in to the towers remotely, and some sort of small remote bomb plane....where one of the massive bomds didn't go off.

Scheduled with airlines to make imaginary flight schedules to trick people asking the airlines for flight info and rosters.

Blame it on Muslim terrorists....who take credit for it...we must have paid them off too.

The more I think about it Aliens make more sense....or maybe it would be easier to just go and blow the stuffing out of what ever we were pissed off at.

[Changleen]

That's the point. Your anger was manufactured so Bush could get richer.

[RhinofromWA]

That's the point. Your anger was manufactured so Bush could get richer.
Baseless acusations......

Oh it wasn't him exactly it was his cronies.....

Oh wiate he would have to buffulo the entire goverment to pull it off.....

yet people still run that line of sloppy consperacy. It would be easier to jsut run more bills from the mint and pass it directly to an off shore bank account atleast then he would only have to buy off a couple people and no one would be the wiser.

Problem is the are infinite numbers of ways to do everything Bush is claimed to do(benefited from)....much easier, via covert, unseen actionsthat would be under the radar. When all the theories are lined up and questioned they don't hold up either. It is being marred in details that they don't address the bigger picture....

why was it done the way theorized? They don't know.

Who benefited? Bush, but we are not sure how. He could have made money so much easier....killed Saddam with a sniper bullit....snaked oil another way.

Does the theories cause more questions than answers? Yes, more questions once we take a step back and look at it all.

When it all is added together is the picture clearer? No.

[Changleen]

Dude - it's not exactly baseless! You seriously think a Jet liner crashing into the pentagon makes a hole smaller than the cockpit alone, leaves zero identifiable traces of that plane, in contrast with every other plane crash ever, and you write it off by saying 'Looks about right to me' - WTF? Where is your brain today? Try thinking just a little bit critically!

On top of that, why were the black boxes never recovered from any of these planes?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? How was debris found spread over a 6 mile area if the stortabout it being brought down by it's passengers is true?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? How come 9 of the 'Hi-jackers' turned up alive since? I mean, come on!

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

Can you give me a reasonable answer to any of these questions, rather than just saying that 'conspiricies are unlikely' - 'apply occam's razor' - 'it'd have been easier to..'?- All that is just avoiding the questions I am raising. Sure it would be easeier to do this or that, but that isn't what happened.

Sh1t went down on 9/11, and by taking a critical look at what happened, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of physical evidence that DOES NOT MATCH the official version of events, and worse than that, a lot of things happened which anyone seriously investigating these issues just would not have done. Instead of just slagging off so called 'conspiricy theorists', why can't you properly answer these quite reasonable questions?

Why is the hole in the pentagon so small?

Why is the wreckage from a plane that was crashed into the ground by it's passenger spread over 6 miles?

Look, I'm not going over it again, if you don't believe it fine, but in that case I'm sure you can give a logical answer to some of these questions?

[Lexx D]

Changleen, you may be crazy but I do agree certain things don't mesh. But I'm sure rhino will just ignore the questins and say "looks fine to me". :think:

[RhinofromWA]

Dude - it's not exactly baseless! Baseless was your allegation that Bush did this to get rich. :rolleyes:

You seriously think a Jet liner crashing into the pentagon makes a hole smaller than the cockpit alone, leaves zero identifiable traces of that plane, in contrast with every other plane crash ever, and you write it off by saying 'Looks about right to me' - WTF? Where is your brain today? Try thinking just a little bit critically! yes the hole can be that small....what mroe do you want from me....the wholfrom of the building is crapped out..the hole you pointed out was a whole.

On top of that, why were the black boxes never recovered from any of these planes?

Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets? Should they?

"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? How was debris found spread over a 6 mile area if the stortabout it being brought down by it's passengers is true? No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?

Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? How come 9 of the 'Hi-jackers' turned up alive since? I mean, come on! you think the planes don't have a list of all ticketed passengers for thier flights I suspect it would take 20 minutes to know what names were used on the planes. A little longer for the government to see if some of them pop up in their data bases....I am sure the alias would be tied to each and every name

Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination? what forensic evidence are you looking for in the rubble of a huge building collapse that dwarfs the plane that hit it? :confused: Can you decifer plane stuff from office stuff once it burns long enough to soften the girders nad end the builiding into the ground?

Can you give me a reasonable answer to any of these questions, rather than just saying that 'conspiricies are unlikely' - 'apply occam's razor' - 'it'd have been easier to..'?- All that is just avoiding the questions I am raising. Sure it would be easeier to do this or that, but that isn't what happened.

Sh1t went down on 9/11, and by taking a critical look at what happened, it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of physical evidence that DOES NOT MATCH the official version of events, and worse than that, a lot of things happened which anyone seriously investigating these issues just would not have done. Instead of just slagging off so called 'conspiricy theorists', why can't you properly answer these quite reasonable questions?

Why is the hole in the pentagon so small?

Why is the wreckage from a plane that was crashed into the ground by it's passenger spread over 6 miles?

Look, I'm not going over it again, if you don't believe it fine, but in that case I'm sure you can give a logical answer to some of these questions?
Again why is the hole the smoking gun? Is it impossible? Says who?

Are there holes in accounts of what happened? Sure. I bet if you were jumped in a dark alley with a buddy and both baten severly...your detailed accounts when put under intense detail would look like totaly different events..

[RhinofromWA]

Changleen, you may be crazy but I do agree certain things don't mesh. But I'm sure rhino will just ignore the questins and say "looks fine to me". :think:
Nope. ;)

[Changleen]

Thank you. If I'm crazy to ask questions about something that to me is so obviously out of whack than looney me up. You should have a read for yourself (google) about some of the other ****, I've really only scratched the surface here. Do bear in mind, as I pointed out earlier, alot of this stuff has been researched by, well, 'conspiricy nuts' and some of their conclusions are obviosly a little wild. But if you stick to the substance it's pretty clear something is going on.

Rhino - As for the 'reason' for this all I forgot about this:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

Have a read of that article. Once again, try and ignore the partisan **** at the beginning and end, and focus on the substance in the middle.

[Changleen]

Baseless was your allegation that Bush did this to get rich. :rolleyes: See above.

yes the hole can be that small....what mroe do you want from me....the wholfrom of the building is crapped out..the hole you pointed out was a whole.

So the Pentagon is made of some crazy strong super concrete eh? Try comparing that to other plane crashes and the damge they have cuased. I've even posted links to such evidence if you cared to look.

Should they?

Yeeeesss...If there is nothing to hide this is matter of public record...

No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?

Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh...

you think the planes don't have a list of all ticketed passengers for thier flights I suspect it would take 20 minutes to know what names were used on the planes. A little longer for the government to see if some of them pop up in their data bases....I am sure the alias would be tied to each and every name

You ignoe two of the major points - No arabs names on the Airlines schedules, so where did these come fom so fast and how are a bunch of the supposed hi-jackers still alive? That in itself means the investigation is not complete, but it's been stopped anyway. Why?

what forensic evidence are you looking for in the rubble of a huge building collapse that dwarfs the plane that hit it? :confused: Can you decifer plane stuff from office stuff once it burns long enough to soften the girders nad end the builiding into the ground?

Yeeesss.. Aluminium and Titanium are pretty easy to tell appart from steel!

Again why is the hole the smoking gun? Is it impossible? Says who?

Mr. Common Sense - But we might not be at home to him?

Are there holes in accounts of what happened? Sure. I bet if you were jumped in a dark alley with a buddy and both baten severly...your detailed accounts when put under intense detail would look like totaly different events..
Yes, but this is one of the most crucial, world changing events in the last centuary. Already hundreds of thousands of people have died because of it.
The Government story has holes in it. You admit that. So why do you not consider it necassary to find the answers to these, especially in the light of the fact that it makes them look like they're lying about the whole thing? Isn't this a little to serious to take 'on faith' even for you?

[MikeD]

Remember the Maine, I always say.

[Changleen]

Sounds about right to me. Wag the Dog mk 1. What's this? Version 254.2?

[RhinofromWA]

So the Pentagon is made of some crazy strong super concrete eh? Try comparing that to other plane crashes and the damge they have cuased. I've even posted links to such evidence if you cared to look. flying soda can. Yes the Pentagon is pretty sturdy. I beleive it is be a little bit more efficiant at holding back an airplane than a glass wall of the WTC. I guess you think the airplane should have come out the other side of the WTC towers in much larger chunks than it did. Becuase all that is on each floor is temp walls and support beams.

Yeeeesss...If there is nothing to hide this is matter of public record... Not everything is a matter of public record and readily available to the masses right way....correct? Especially when you are talking about material involved in an attack against the USA. Just a random thought.

Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh... IF the wacked out theories were true, THEN yes.

You ignore two of the major points - No arabs names on the Airlines schedules, so where did these come fom so fast and how are a bunch of the supposed hi-jackers still alive? That in itself means the investigation is not complete, but it's been stopped anyway. Why? Hmm if Bush planned this whole illablerate scheme to fool everyone I think he could plant names on the flights pretty easily. In fact it would be foolish if he didn't....now if someof these passengers used alias that the government had on file then, maybe then, they would have those known names available?

Yeeesss.. Aluminium and Titanium are pretty easy to tell appart from steel! Aproximately hom much of that building was made of steel? How much Aluminum (ALOT) and yes probably part of titanium somewherein that building. Now picture all of that falling to the earth in one massive clump....not so easy to tell what fromwhat especially after it burns up some.

Mr. Common Sense - But we might not be at home to him? Mr common sense bailed on you a long time ago my friend. :)

Come on that was funny! :D

Yes, but this is one of the most crucial, world changing events in the last centuary. Already hundreds of thousands of people have died because of it.
The Government story has holes in it. You admit that. So why do you not consider it necassary to find the answers to these, especially in the light of the fact that it makes them look like they're lying about the whole thing? Isn't this a little to serious to take 'on faith' even for you?
When your "answers" have larger holes than the ones already in existence filled with absolute specualtion and pure guessing then you have a problem.

Problen with the theories is they install fiction as fact to complete there theories.

[Changleen]

flying soda can. Yes the Pentagon is pretty sturdy. I beleive it is be a little bit more efficiant at holding back an airplane than a glass wall of the WTC. So if, somehow in magic fairly land, the concrete of the Petagon held up to 200 tonnes of plane going at 250+mph and it didn't go inside, the same question is still valid - where's the wreckage? I suppose it 'vapourised'?

Not everything is a matter of public record and readily available to the masses right way....correct? Especially when you are talking about material involved in an attack against the USA. Just a random thought.
Or if the material proved there was no attack, that would be a good reason for holding on to it as well. The fact is such material in the past has been release, and there would be no reason not to release it this time. What are they going to stop people hearing? The terrorists give some 15 minute speech about exactly how they manged to overcome airport security? Come on!

And wait, were getting away from the point here:

No idea first time I have heard of it.....The lake workers sounds like hearsay so far. but that is just based on your account of it here I have not looked into that. 6 miles is a long distance....so if we did shoot down a plane that was highjacked and off course and planes have already that morning been used inattacks on the WTC and Pentagon......what then?
Then the Govenment lied about it... Duh...
IF the wacked out theories were true, THEN yes.
So the evidence from eyewitnesses, with no axe to grind, and reports in the press:
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the skyshow that the plane was spread over huge area. So the Government lied about it. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Like Bush doesn't lie about a thousand other things!


Hmm if Bush planned this whole illablerate scheme to fool everyone I think he could plant names on the flights pretty easily. In fact it would be foolish if he didn't....now if someof these passengers used alias that the government had on file then, maybe then, they would have those known names available?

Here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
is one of the official passenger lists. Pick the people from it who were actually Arabs and used false IDs. Was it Paul Friedman, 45, from Belmont, Massachusetts? Hmm, you look a little dark for a Paul Friedman... maybe Charles Jones, 48, Coputer programmer - yes, that Charles Jones in the Turban. :rolleyes: Now you are theorising yourself and yours isn't full of holes, it is one - in your argument.


Aproximately hom much of that building was made of steel? How much Aluminum (ALOT)
Very very little, certainly none of the structure. And it would still been differentiable to a proper inquiry because of the vastly different grades used.

and yes probably part of titanium somewherein that building. Now picture all of that falling to the earth in one massive clump....not so easy to tell what fromwhat especially after it burns up some.

hardly any Titanium either, especially with the age of the building. And you clearly have no idea how hard it is to actually set fire to metal. And you'd still be able to identify the oxide anyway.

When your "answers" have larger holes than the ones already in existence filled with absolute specualtion and pure guessing then you have a problem.
Problen with the theories is they install fiction as fact to complete there theories.
My point exactly. Your answers are more hole-filled than my 'conspiricy'.

[RhinofromWA]

So if, somehow in magic fairly land, the concrete of the Petagon held up to 200 tonnes of plane going at 250+mph and it didn't go inside, the same question is still valid - where's the wreckage? I suppose it 'vapourised'?
Or if the material proved there was no attack, that would be a good reason for holding on to it as well. The fact is such material in the past has been release, and there would be no reason not to release it this time. What are they going to stop people hearing? The terrorists give some 15 minute speech about exactly how they manged to overcome airport security? Come on!

And wait, were getting away from the point here:

So the evidence from eyewitnesses, with no axe to grind, and reports in the press:
show that the plane was spread over huge area. So the Government lied about it. Why do you find that so hard to accept? Like Bush doesn't lie about a thousand other things!


Here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
is one of the official passenger lists. Pick the people from it who were actually Arabs and used false IDs. Was it Paul Friedman, 45, from Belmont, Massachusetts? Hmm, you look a little dark for a Paul Friedman... maybe Charles Jones, 48, Coputer programmer - yes, that Charles Jones in the Turban. :rolleyes: Now you are theorising yourself and yours isn't full of holes, it is one - in your argument.


Very very little, certainly none of the structure. And it would still been differentiable to a proper inquiry because of the vastly different grades used.

hardly any Titanium either, especially with the age of the building. And you clearly have no idea how hard it is to actually set fire to metal. And you'd still be able to identify the oxide anyway.

My point exactly. Your answers are more hole-filled than my 'conspiricy'.
somebody needs a valium........

Crack pots are crack pots and the more time they have and the more crap they throw at their theories stuff starts to "kinda" stick. Filling an hole with another maybe does not make a fact or even an agruement.

You haven't really asked the question "could a plane make such a small hole" ou simple said nope. Seems how it is the basis of the pentagon scandal then you might want to try and mimic it. Where is the drone with teh bombs wreckage? Where is anything other than annonymous accounts and internet "experts" accounts on what should happen?

People survive their parachutes from not opening.....there is no easy way to explain it....when someone can die falling off their patio that is 3ft off the ground. Point is things don't always follow a set of rules....one assumes is always right.

Still nothing you have shown says that 9/11 was a conspiracy organized by the bush groupies...to richen his pockets....

To many leaps of faith that even the bible would have a hard time explaining.

BTW did you look what came out of the WTC (not first hand) dust is dust baby....I know what a pop can does in a camp fire....I can only imagine what happened there.

You still aren't convinced yourself though you push the idea that it is fact. You say read between the theorists ramblign to seek the trueth. Maybe the trueth lies between the extreme "reality" these crack pots duped up and what was fed from the Government.

No go wag the dog.

[Lexx D]

People survive their parachutes from not opening.....there is no easy way to explain it....when someone can die falling off their patio that is 3ft off the ground. Point is things don't always follow a set of rules....one assumes is always right.


So your argument for most changleens statements is strange things happen :p that's great. I'll remember that during any debate your in in the future.

Yeah, but strange things happen. :thumb:

[Lexx D]

All things aside i find your blind faith in our Gov. interesting. You act as if they would never lie about anything.

[N8]

Heaps of sound techical engineering data on the Pentagon incident:


Nothing Secret about Pentagon's Response to Aircraft Impact:
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_nothing_secret_pentagons/

Engineering Report on Pentagon Disaster:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

Building Design and Construction:
http://www.bdcmag.com/newstrends/newspentagonreport.asp

Engineer Study Reports Pentagon Was Built Tough
http://www.dod.mil/news/Jan2003/n01232003_200301236.html

Civil Engineer
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php

Study on 9/11 Pentagon Attack Contains No Surprises
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/030127.asp

New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

[Archslater]

Heaps of sound techical engineering data on the Pentagon incident:



Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[N8]

Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

That's ok. It's hard to argue with the engineering data on this.

Besides, do you really think Bush & Co could have carried off such a complex and well executed plan anyway? This goes completely against everything anti-Bush that's typed in lo' these many threads...

;p

[Changleen]

Nice N8, you've posted:

4 links to articles based on the same report and saying the same thing - 50 columns of the Pentagons first floor were destroyed. wow. Some contain report diagrams which contradict photographic evidence.

1 Broken link

1 Enr.com link with US government images that DIRECTLY contradict the photos taken after the crash and assuptions based on them.

1 link to a story about a 'physics model' that has already been debunked, and is also clearly wrong just at first glance since it uses an inacurate model of the Pentagon in the first place, and a plane with 'soft' engines that break up just as easily as the rest of the plane. It's also got some great quotes:
"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.
"This kind of a structure/aircraft interaction is not done commercially." Hahahahahaha. Yes it is. I have a friend who designs planes. He's done this type of work. I've seen programs on the Discovery channel about this. Every major building has plane strike simulations done on it. This guy is so full of sh1t, just like your links.

[RhinofromWA]

All things aside i find your blind faith in our Gov. interesting. You act as if they would never lie about anything.
Not about everything....I am talking about this world wide conspiracy to mock the attacks of 9/11....

So Bush can line his pockets.

So since you beleive in the government lieing...well duh, I am not saying the goverment tells us complete and unaltered trueths. Then these wacko's theories must be correct? That is a scary sense of reasoning.

"Strange things happen" is no less beleiveable than these crack pots theories. And actually it should quench their thirsts for trueth since it seems every opinion is now fact.

I guess I have a bridge to sell you.....

and :think: how do those people survive the fall fom an airplane? :confused: That is a bigger question to ask.

[RhinofromWA]

Hahahahahaha. Yes it is. I have a friend who designs planes. He's done this type of work. I've seen programs on the Discovery channel about this. Every major building has plane strike simulations done on it. This guy is so full of sh1t, just like your links.
Your "friend" sounds like someone Al-Q would love to have on thier side....you got a name of that friend? :sneaky: *rhino dialing the FBI*

:D j/k *phone is ringing* :eek:

[Changleen]

Wow, sorry Changleen, but probably for the first and last time ever, I'm going to have to agree with N8 as the voice of reason.

Also as far as the WTC goes. The steel was actually carted off to a site for months of in depth study by groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here are some reports:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Neither of which say anything about that...

and what about this, from the Engineering News-Record (New York)

Wittich says the city has awarded contracts to two private scrap dealers to handle 50,000 tons of steel. The rest is expected to be used to create offshore artificial reefs or head for "upland" disposal. While the company obtained dredging permits in seemingly record time, environmental permits for steel disposal have yet to be issued. "The rate that the stuff can be brought to the reef is less than what's coming out," says Weeks President Richard S. Weeks. Wittich says larger steel debris, as big as 30 tons, may be used for slurry wall stabilization.

So much for an in depth analysis. The best I could figure, a tiny percentage of selected steel which was not fire damaged was given to a volunteer, unpaid team of amateur analysits.

Did you actually read these through? The first (the maths one) is a student's gross oversimplification with no reference to the complex structure of the tower, and still ends up with a failure mode which disagrees with reality. In the model, the tower colapses section by section with each previous section falling on the the lower all the way to the ground. There are two problems with this:
1) The towers actually fell at a speed associated with acceleration due to gravity - they took just 8 seconds to fall, which suggests 0 resistance from the structure below. The model guy assumes a more realistic situation but does not make the fall time calculation nor compares his situation to that one.
2) He makes no attempt to model the damage to the lower portions of the tower (very little or none) or to model the remaining strength. I've actually done finite element failure analysis before, (I am a materials engineer) and I can tell you that the maths he uses is pretty simple to describe the failure of a complex building.

The other article is fundamentally flawed, but even so, still takes up MY argument for the most part. It attempts to show how fire could not have caused the collapse, and makes some good points, but ignores conclusions that logically flow from its own arguments, such as: "Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

He neatly misses the point, as above, that the falling sections (with all their inertia) would be slowed by the material below them during their fall. Only a demolition can rationally account for this behaviour.

The best thing about this article, though is this passage:
No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Actually, ALL large buildings are designed to take the impact of an airliner, the WTC being no exception. I've already posted a link to an interview with the designers stating just that.

[Changleen]

and :think: how do those people survive the fall fom an airplane? :confused: That is a bigger question to ask.

Is that really a bigger question that 'Is your Government the most corrupt, manipulative, coldhearted bunch of lying murders ever?'

I think not. I've only heard of one person actually surviving a fall from a plane. He ejected from a RAF Tornado but the parachute on the ejection seat/tub thing failed to open. He was extremely lucky and landed at the top of a steep grass bank, and the tub allowed him to sled down to safety.

Argh, you're dragging me off topic, damn you! :wink:

Rhino, you're STILL arguing that because some of these people believe in aliens, we should discount everything they say. That's just not true. I don't believe in God or the Bible, but it's still not a good idea to kill people. Surely a person of your intellect can see that there ARE holes in the official story and they are not being investigated, they are being ignored.

Ignoring for now my personal conclusions about the reasons for this, (Bush, world domination etc) surely you can conceed this?

[Changleen]

That's ok. It's hard to argue with the engineering data on this.
Especailly if you can't think for yourself...

[RhinofromWA]

Rhino, you're STILL arguing that because some of these people believe in aliens, we should discount everything they say. That's just not true. I don't believe in God or the Bible, but it's still not a good idea to kill people. Surely a person of your intellect can see that there ARE holes in the official story and they are not being investigated, they are being ignored.
Holes do not equate internationally coordinated conspiracies orchastrated to line Bushes pockets. That is my beef. If there are holes fine look into them but to then start gapping vast gaps (I often call them sanity) to arrive at an often MORE IMPOSSIBLE theory is the problem.

Ignoring for now my personal conclusions about the reasons for this, (Bush, world domination etc) surely you can conceed this?
Conceed that there are holes?...OK. There will always be holes...if someone looks at something long enough. Do you think someone can't refute and create another theory of what happened on 9/11 even regarding the drones that were to have been flown into the Pentagon? Bottom line is nothing they have is backable....that proves there theories to be the ultimate trueth. It is why the theorist continue on....you can't fully prove wrong one or the other. And if you did prove "a" point or two that still does not prove all the rest of the purposed links to a massive cover up.

The fact that they say they had sex with bigfoot then circle jerked with Nessie does nothing to help their case to be taken at anything more than ramblings. I don't go to nut house to seek tax help and I don't go for my conspiracy theories to guys that walk around with tin foil hats and still wear their Star Wars under'roos they got when they were 5yo. :D

*disclaimer* my cracks towards the mentaly "less than solid" individuals in that last bit, were meant in humor and by no means is to be taken seariously. I have no way to confirm that they did infact circle jerk with the Lock Ness Monster, but I have video of 2 out of 8 guys giving it to bigfoot. */disclaimer*

[RhinofromWA]

OK admit it the circle jerk with Nessy bit was pretty funny :D

well I laughed......:o::)

[Changleen]

OK admit it the circle jerk with Nessy bit was pretty funny :D

well I laughed......:o::)

I'm trying not to imagine a plesiosaur playing the biscuit game...
:D

[Changleen]

Do you think someone can't refute and create another theory of what happened on 9/11 even regarding the drones that were to have been flown into the Pentagon? Bottom line is nothing they have is backable....that proves there theories to be the ultimate trueth.
Agreed, no aspect of their explanation of the reasons why this lie was put out has any solid backing. It is all speculation.
What is not speculation, is that the official story is filled with lies. That's all I'm trying to say. Where you go from there is up to you.

[Changleen]

And if you did prove "a" point or two that still does not prove all the rest of the purposed links to a massive cover up.
Maybe, maybe not. To me the most ridiculous lie is the Pentagon 'Impact'. It is so clearly false that a 200 tonne plane hit that building and made a teeny hole, then vanished without a trace. Assuming I am correct, which I'm sure I am, this then begs the question: 'So what did happen to that plane?' 'What happened to all those people?' and so on. I agree I have no evidence to back my theory that it was to do with Bush et all, but it's the obvious 'occam's razor' solution to me. Who else could pull off such a job? Why would the Government lie about it?

[Changleen]

I am talking about this world wide conspiracy to mock the attacks of 9/11....


Dude, I'm not trying to 'Mock' anyone. I'm just trying to point out the lies..